Jump to content

SAAB340

Members
  • Content Count

    684
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAAB340

  1. If P3D is anything like FSX in this regard all the assigned cores will peak for a while every 61 seconds as the lighting of the textures is refreshed. If you use a fast CPU with many cores the peak will be over quickly. If you have a slow CPU with say only 2 cores assigned (the main thread +one texture loader) with the affinitymask the peak will last longer. Another way you might get a high load on all the assigned cores is if you set the FFTF too low. Then the texture loaders sometimes stall at 100% load as they don't get enough time to sync with the main thread.
  2. There is NO performance improvement to be had with more than 8GB RAM. FSX is a 32bit program and is therefore not able to ever use more than 4GB of RAM. That's why we get Out Of Memory crashes when we turn up the settings too much even thou many people have 16GB or more RAM in their computers. As you have 8GB RAM and FSX can use 4GB, that leaves you with 4GB of RAM for the OS and all other background applications that you might have running. That is way more than enough for background processes. Depending on the speed and timings of your current RAM you might be able to get about 10% more FPS with faster lower latency RAM. But that depends on what you use at the moment. Kind of a bit of a waste though to buy new DDR3 now though. You are better off saving that money towards a Skylake build with DDR4. If you are on the standard Intel cooler you can spend less than what new faster RAM would cost on a new Cooler and then overclock the CPU. Overclocking will yield a lot more performance. Its overclocking your system that will give you most bang for the buck at the moment. If you're already on a 3rd party cooler it might even be for free.
  3. Yes, it seems like the bigger V-Nand cells are working better with TLC. Haven't seen any reports of them failing (yet..). I've recently trusted Samsung with my money once again for the 850EVO. There is not much choice if you want a 2TB drive. Think the smaller drives have been out for about 11 months now. I assume a lot of people will be more vigilant for this kind of behavior this time and the 840EVO was already showing symptoms after 11 months.
  4. 6700k has a built in gfx. The outputs for it are on the motherboard. But you should/will be using a regular gfx card. So make sure the gfx card you're getting has the outputs you need.
  5. Today I've done a further look in to load times and texture loading. I have terabytes of photo scenery myself. Personally I don't use much demanding 3rd party aircrafts or airports. I know that's certainly highly unusual here. So the texture loading improvements that can be gained by using the increased core count in the Intel Extreme line of CPUs is basically irrelevant to 99.99% of people who reads this. But I personally find it an important measurement. Load times however, the time it takes to load a flight, is still a relevant metric for all of us. Texture loading and load times are very much CPU limited as long as you use an SSD. So they scale linearly with CPU clock speed. When I got my SandyBridgeE system I had a quick look at how much effect RAM had on texture loading and load times. The finding then was that it didn't really matter. Today I had a look with the Skylake system @ 4.5GHz and used 2133 15-15-15-36 2T and 4133 18-20-20-40 1T RAM for the comparison. Basically, RAM still doesn't matter for texture loading or load times. (You can't see it without looking in to the decimal points, but by taking the average from 10+ measurements in each test that I've done here, there is a tiny trend that emerges of about half a % improvement by using the much faster RAM. The variance between each of the measurements is still a lot greater than that and half a % is in reality nothing.) I also tested at 4.3GHz at 4 relevant AffinityMasks so I could compare against the SandyBridgeE measurements I've made in the past. My Skylake build uses the same Intel X-25M G2 SSD for OS/FSX that I used to have as my OS/FSX disk in my SandyBridgeE system before I upgraded a while back. So today I simply moved across my 1TB Samsung 840EVO SSD that has all the scenery needed for the test and got to work. This is how Skylake compares to SandyBridgeE (and very likely to regular SandyBridge as well). When it comes to load times and texture loading I guess I should mention that AffinityMask=84 on a Hyperthreaded system performs the same as AffinityMask=14 without Hyperthreading. And AffinityMask=85 with Hyperthreading performs the same as AffinityMask=15 without Hyperthreading. From these results we can see that the texture loading improvements are fully in line with the FSXmarkCPU improvements while using the same RAM settings for Skylake and SandyBridgeE. In texture loading the 4 core 8 thread Skylake still can't beat the 6 core 12 tread SandyBridgeE, but it's getting close. Especially if we factor in the higher possible overclock for Skylake. But as I said before, this is irrelevant to 99.99% of all of you. I know of photo scenery lovers that have left the 8 core 16 tread HaswellE for Skylake and they are very happy with the result. Pretty much all the Intel-E CPUs are poor Overclockers. It's a lot harder to get 6 or 8 cores that all can achieve high clockspeeds on the same chip. So the overclock and the all important single threaded performance that is what matters most in FSX does suffer. What this also shows though is that Skylake offers significantly improved load times over SandyBridgeE. I thought load times were speedy on the bare install we use with FSXmark11 but I thought I'd just forgotten how fast things load without all the add-ons I usually have. But this test confirms a very significant speedup over SandyBridgeE. I've double checked and I have the same add-ons installed on the same disks as I had with the SandyBridgeE when I tested it previously. I used native SATAIII of the chipset with SandyBridgeE as well. The speedup with Skylake is 60-70%, getting larger the more threads that are used. Is this all due to Skylake or is it the sum of a few large, but gradual speedups through the generations of IvyBridge and Haswell? I can't say. Anyone that has upgraded from those platforms that wants to chime in? What I do know is that I'm really enjoying it. I've shown before how much using SSDs instead of HDDs for scenery speed things up. The upgrade from Lynnfield to SandyBridgeE didn't offer anywhere near this load time speedup. Even compared to using all the 6 hyperthreaded cores on SandyBridgeE, Skylake still cuts out 1/3rd of the load time using its 4 hyperthreaded cores. That is very much noticeable. On a HDD I'd not expect as much of a speedup as the HDD will be the botleneck, but I'd still expect to see a noticeable improvement. Now its time to do more flying and less testing on this Skylake build. I've got a brand new SSD waiting to filled with scenery =). My wife just asked how long I'm planning to spend all my free time in front of my new toy as she claims I've only said about 10 words to her the over the last two days. Don't think that is totally accurate but she has a point. Happy flying!
  6. Looking forward to seeing what you end up squezing out of your system in the end as you learn to master Skylake. It didn't actually cross my mind that the MoBos might limit the RAM 'already' at 3600. Very good thing to be pointed out. I guess we will start to see reasonably priced kits up to that sort of speed. DDR4 certainly have come a long way already even though its still very young and is away to become mainstream. I use the AsRock Fatal1ty Z170 mITX. It looks like AsRock have done a good job with their board designs when it comes to RAM. 4133 is the highest strap I have on offer in the BIOS. Been thinking of making use of the unlocked BCLK to see how far my RAM sticks can go. It won't even POST at any timings tighter than 18-20-20-40 @1.4V. Seen the great results at higher mem voltage though. It's always tempting to bump that Voltage higher when overclocking...
  7. Yes. It's the same RAM used all the time. Thanks. I think Skylake and Ivys in general manage a similar overclocks. Maybe a small advantage to Ivy if you De-lidded. But the RAM should ofset that. Hope you got a good chip.Happy building!
  8. I've been busy running FSXmark11 on my 6700K today. Posted a separate thread about it here
  9. I've got myself a 6700K and also a set of high speed DDR4 RAM. A TeamGroup Xtreem 3866 18-20-20-40 2T XMP 2x4GB kit. (Based on the new Samsung K4A4G085WE-BCPB IC's for the overclockers that are interested). I've been able to Overclock the RAM to DDR4 4133Mhz 18-20-20-40 1T on 1.4V. I thought I'd show what the improved IPC and RAM speeds actually do for FSX performance. First of all I put it through the FSXmarkCPU test to show the pure IPC related improvements over previous architectures. If we disregard the furthest left Skylake result for now, we can see that Skylake gives a small 4% pure IPC improvement over Haswell, a 16% improvement over IvyBridge, a 21% improvement over SandyBridge and a 31% improvement over Lynnfield. The IPC improvement over Haswell is really minor, especially if we consider that Broadwell should be in between as well... However, we also have to consider that Skylake uses DDR4 RAM. DDR4 starts at 2133MHz 15-15-15-36 2T. Given that you can't buy DDR4 slower than that, its not realistic comparing Skylake using DDR4 running at 1600MHz 9-9-9-28 1T. 1600MHz 9-9-9-28 1T is a fairly slow DDR3 speed. However you get even slower DDR3 RAM. Especially if you have a kit from early on. Intel actually only officially supports 1600MHz DDR3 RAM on the other listed CPU architectures. Everything else is considered overclocking by Intel. So it's a much better comparison to use the left Skylake result. That gives a much more respectable 11% improvement clock for clock over Haswell, a 23% improvement over IvyBridge, a 28% improvement over SandyBridge and a 39% improvement over Lynnfield. So what does that mean in reality. When your FPS dips low it's normally the CPU that is the limit. So at the same CPU clock, at a time where; Haswell dips to 27FPS, IvyBridge dips to 24FPS, SandyBridge dips to 23FPS or Lynnfield dips to 22FPS, Skylake would only dip to 30FPS. You might say that you can use faster RAM on the other architechtures as well. That is true. But Skylake doesn't stop at 2133MHz, it just starts there. As I said in the beginning, I've been able to use 4133Mhz 18-20-20-40 1T on my 6700K and that is a lot faster than any of the other architectures managed to do with DDR3. Lynnfield was really tricky to combine a high CPU overclock past 1600MHz on the RAM. The memory controller wasn't strong enough. SandyBridge only have a 2133 memory strap so you can't use memory faster than that. Most CPUs manage that though. That still means that even using cheap DDR4 the 6700K at stock speed performs better than any SandyBridge system overclocked to 5GHz. Did I mention that Skylake overclocks too and can use way faster RAM? IvyBridge allowed for a lot faster RAM. Max memory strap is 3200 i believe. However the memory controller in only 1 out of 4 CPUs is able to manage RAM as fast as 2800MHz. Haswell has an even better memory controller where pretty much all CPUs manage 2800MHz RAM and about half of them manage 3000MHz RAM. So what about Skylake? It has a very strong memory controller. The word is that pretty much all CPUs manages 4000MHz RAM. So how does this high speed RAM translate to FSX performance? Today I've been busy running a whole lot of FSXmark11 benchmarks at a variety of CPU and RAM speeds/settings. These are the results: First of all, both CPU and RAM @ Stock speeds. CPU @ stock speed. The RAM @ 3000MHz 15-17-17-35 2T. A common XMP setting for DDR4. This is very sweet spot when it comes to pricing of DDR4 at the moment. Above this and the price starts to soar. CPU @ stock speed. My RAM @ XMP settings 3866 18-20-20-40 2T I appreciate that not everyone is comfortable with overclocking. I'd encourage you to learn how to, but it's not for everyone. Some people are not in to CPU overclocking but are happy to go in to BIOS and set XMP. Well, this is performance Skylake has on offer for you if you consider an upgrade. For those of you that are more in to overclocking I'd managed to get my 6700K up to 4.7GHz on 3.75V. My setup can't handle more heat unfortunately. My Skylake rig is a Fractal Design Node 304 mITX chassi using an old but trusty Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme cooler with a single Noctua 120mm fan in the less than ideal pull configuration. It's not intended for any serious overclocking, but I had to try and see what was possible. I know the serious overclockers will be able to produce even better results. Westman already has. The results I achieved are nothing to be ashamed of though. With stock RAM With 3000MHz 15-17-17-35 2T RAM With 3866MHz 18-20-20-40 2T RAM With 4133MHz 18-20-20-40 1T RAM As you can see, faster RAM does indeed bring more performance. The move to 3000MHz provides the biggest jump in performance, but even faster RAM still helps. You might be saying that the improvement by RAM is so small and doesn't matter. Let me provide you with this final result and you can have a think about it: CPU @ 4.3GHz RAM @ 4133MHz 18-20-20-40 1T Compare 4.3GHz CPU with 4133 18-20-20-40 1T RAM to the previous 4.7GHz CPU with stock RAM. The 4.3GHz CPU one is ever so slightly faster. Just the change in RAM is actually the same as a 400MHz CPU overclock, and that is without actually overclocking the CPU. When you have fast RAM you can still overclock the CPU for even better performance. By going for DDR4 around 3000MHz instead of the slowest 2133MHz RAM it equates to a 200-300MHz CPU overclock. RAM does matter when it comes to FSX. It's one of few programs that can actually make use of faster RAM. There is no magical RAM speed/latency that is needed. FSX is able to make use of faster/lower latency RAM. Just bear in mind though that the price/performance ratio of a high performance RAM kit is appalling. So if money is of concern never pay a lot extra to get faster RAM. But always pay a little extra for a lot faster RAM. DDR3 at 3000MHz is/was very pricy. DDR4 at 3000MHz is a lot cheaper. Thanks to all the people that have contributed to FSXmarkCPU, FSXmark11 and to Westman for providing more details about what RAM overclocks that are typical on different CPUs.
  10. Whatever you do, do NOT buy a flightsim PC with an AMD CPU in it. Period. Unfortunately the AMD CPUs are a lot slower for flightsim compared to Intel i5 and i7 CPUs. You can get away with an i5 CPU. FSX is one of very few programs where RAM speed also matters. Not as much as the CPU, but its still a vital component.
  11. SSD gives you faster load times and prevents a few stutters when sound files are loaded. It doesn't give higher FPS though. Invest in a larger SSD is still my recommendation. I'm personally allergic to any computer that doesn't have an SSD as OS drive.
  12. What DDR3 RAM speed and timings are you running at the moment?
  13. Very interesting testing you've done there Daniel. It's also interesting to see how very similar P3D is to FSX when it comes to certain things. Yes the engine seems to have been tweaked a lot so there are differences, but also similarities. I don't have P3D myself but really enjoyed seeing your more detailed analysis of its performance at different config settings being posted. I looked in to FSX performance in a similar way in the beginning of 2012. http://www.avsim.com/topic/377105-texture-loading-ssd-vs-hdd/ (The important images in that post are available on page two of the thread as the images in the original post got deleted). The long spikes in frame times you are seeing appears to be of the same origin as in FSX. This is what I found out about them. "Adam gives a good clue in his terrain paper: "Since the rendering pipeline (Direct3D in this case) uses 32-bit floats, the final coordinates used for rendering must be converted to 32-bit offsets from a 64-bit local origin no more than several thousand meters away... ...As the viewpoint moves through the world, the local origin must be periodically updated to keep it within a few kilometers of the viewpoint. Otherwise, a loss of precision results making the terrain vertices appear to wiggle around as the viewpoint moves, an interesting but obviously undesirable outcome. Whenever we update the local origin, all the vertex buffers in every cell of the quad tree must be recomputed relative to the new origin. As this can take several frames, the new vertex data is double buffered and then made active only when all are ready to avoid visible cracks." Its FSX terrain engine at work recalculating the vertex buffers. The 3 factors that have a big effect on this vertex update stutter, the most noticeable and longest of all stutters, are BP=0, LOD value and CPU speed. A faster CPU reduces this stutter." The recalculation of the vertex buffers in FSX happens on the CPU as the GPUs of the time didn't have good FP64 support if they even had it. Given that the CPU speed still affects it a lot it seems like it's still done on the CPU in P3D. The higher the LOD, the more vertices you'll have and the more work for the CPU to keep them updated as you fly along. I believe BP=0 is already implemented in P3D. A quick word about FFTF. Don't set it too low. I've looked in to effects of it in great detail in FSX and it looks like it behaves the same way in P3D. In a nutshell its a way to trade autogen/groundtexture loading against FPS. A lower FFTF gives you higher FPS but lower autogen/groundtexture loading. Up to around FFTF=0.67 you get higer autogen/groundtexture loading at the expense of FPS. Settings above FFTF=0.67 don't yield any better autogen/groundtexture loading but still gives you even worse FPS. If you however have FPS internally locked AND your CPU is at the moment sufficiently powerful to easily maintain the FPS lock you get maximum autogen/groundtexture loading even if the FFTF is set really low. That's why you don't always get blurries with a really low FFTF. As the scene gets more demanding on your CPU a low FFTF let you keep your locked FPS longer before dipping (hence gives you higher FPS), at the expense of autogen/groundtexture loading. In FSX you very rarely see a reduction in autogen, just blurry ground textures with a too low FFTF as you pretty much have to have a slow dual core CPU not to get full autogen. I suspect P3D might have a higher demand on more/stronger cpu threads as it has a lot more autogen. It's interesting to see that locked frames inside P3D generates less microstutter vs unlocked. They have obviously worked on it. In FSX it was the opposite, but in FSX you can remove the visible microstuttering by using 1/2 rate v-sync and locking to 30FPS in fullscreen. (you can still measure it with FRAPS but what's actually displayed is a butter smooth experience as long as the vertex stutters don't get too high) I believe 1/2 rate v-sync does nothing for P3D as its fullscreen mode is actually a borderless Window and therefore 1/2 rate v-sync doesn't work. Thanks for sharing your testing.
  14. What's clear to me is that a procedure like FSXmark11 could really be of benefit for P3D v3 for hardware guidance. The most obvious name for this benchmark would be to name it P3Dmark15 if it was created now. It could use the same flight path as FSXmark11. (Wouldn't have to) It could use the same testing procesure as FSXmark11. (Wouldn't have to) It would have its own unique, specified settings for the benchmark. (Including aircraft type) It could have a set of different optional resolutions specified on top of a standard 1920x1080 that I believe almost everyone's rig is capable of today. (My suggestions would be 2560x1440, 5760x1080 and 3840x2160) It wouldn't take very long to define this benchmark if the same flight path and test procedure as FSXmark11 was used. Would this be the most optimal benchmark one could concieve for compareing how different hardware perform in P3D v3? No. Would this be more relevant than 3Dmark scores for how different hardware performs in P3D v3? Yes!!! It's probably not a bad idea to upgrade FSXmark11 to FSXmark15 either. With a few optional resolutions specified and maybe a few changes to the settings etc? (Any benefit from harmonising with the settings for a P3Dmark15 as far as possible?) FSXmark11's resolution was specified to what it is because it was the highest resolution almost all monitors of the day were capable of in order to be able to facilitate as many people as possible to do the benchmark. That could obviously be changed today.
  15. Hi Rob, Not sure if its just me scratching my head trying to understand what you are trying to say with this thread? In your initial post you start it off with "I get a lot of questions about PC performance in P3D V3 and it's very hard for me to judge (close to impossible) how other systems are going to work in P3D V3.", end with "These don't necessarily translate into how well a system will run P3D, but it can be used as a generic reference point." and in the middle you post a lot of 3D mark results at different component clock speeds. I'm really struggling to understand the relevance of 3D mark scores for P3D (or FSX) as they are very much different apart from that they all put a considerable (but different) load on the computer hardware. I know you say its a generic reference point of the performance of your computer. But as you say"it is NOT a relative indicator of how well one's PC will work in any given Flight Sim" So how could they ever help answer your initial questions about PC performance in P3D V3? Is it to trigger a discussion of how to design a benchmark for P3D V3 that could help answer your initial questions? I'm not trying to shoot you down or discredit any of the effort you put in to this. I'm just not understanding the relevance of the 3D mark results for us flightsim users. Cheers Lars
  16. Welcome back, and welcome as a poster finally. I know its been 7 weeks since your post so you might already have built a new system. There is little/no difference in FPS between an i5 and an i7 at the same clock. Hyperthreading on the i7 can be used for loading in photo scenery slightly quicker in FSX, so i5 is the way to go on a budget. Skylake has now been launched and I'd go for the i5 6600K with 3000mhz DDR4 RAM and a Z170 motherboard unless you are on an extremely tight budget. DescendDescend has now shown that there is a small improvement going for Skylake over Haswell. As you'll have to upgrade all of CPU, MOBO and RAM you might as well go for the latest platform as well. As far as the GPU goes, I'd do the CPU, MOBO and RAM upgrade first if you're really tight on money. The GTX 960 is probably a great match for FSX though, and most other games as well if you are on a 1080p 60fps display.
  17. Yes, it was 'fixed' with firmware half a year ago. That turned out not to be permanent. Just recently it has once again been 'fixed' with yet another firmware that re-writes data that has grown old on the drive when your computer sits powered on but idle. But if your computer happens not to sit idle over a longer period of time the problem can still reappears and Samsung now provides the ability to manually trigger a rewrite to restore the performance. So even with the latest firmware that Samsung has had a long time to develop there's still an inherent flaw with the way the TLC NAND in the 840 EVO operates that can't be fully mitigated in firmware. Possible to live with? Yes. Good idea to avoid if there's other SSDs that don't have known faults with them that are in the same general price bracket? Yes if you ask me. SSDs are 'cheap' today but its still a fair bit of money we pay for them, so I wouldn't reccomend a flawed product that still costs a considerable sum of money to anyone. Enjoy your new rig! Should be a very nice performer.
  18. Any SSD will do for FSX. They are all fast enough to make sure your CPU becomes the bottleneck again. But I'd stay away from the Samsung 840EVO and Samsung 840 due to their performance degradation. I just changed my OS SSD from an old Intel X25-M G2 to a Samsung 850 Pro and to be honest I don't notice much difference in day to day use apart from that I now have a lot of free space again. It is nothing compared to the massive difference to the general feel of Windows the upgrade from a HDD to SSD makes. Sure enough, I can clock that a few things that takes a little while goes a little bit quicker on the 850 Pro, but it doesn't feel massively different. The MX100 is a good SSD. I think the new BX100 series of disks are also very good performers for their price.
  19. Very nice to see. I would guess you can get some serious delays loading panel and aircraft textures when switching views at times though? And also some notable FPS drops at times you wouldn't have got them with an i5. I'd guess even a dual core haswell at those speeds will be enough t maintain full autogen population? Not too sure about ground texture loading even with default landclass scenery though...All of the above could be helped if we got a cheap unlocked Hyperthreaded i3 Haswell (wink wink Intel). Doubt that will happen though as it would eat in to the i5K sales too much.
  20. Using a dual core instead of a quad core means that at times you'll get 1/3rd of your FPS taken off you. Not always but at times. You also give up load times and texture loading. Therefore a real quad core is preferred for FSX.
  21. Didn't know you had a FX3850 to play with. Excellent to see a result with Piledriver and see how much it differs against Haswell. You don't fancy running FSXmarkCPU on it?
  22. Since I've dug up a few old analysis of the FSXmark11 benchmark I've done. Here's a graph showing the effect of overclocking my GTX470 up to 810MHz from stock 607MHz (+33%) letting the FSXmark11 run for 1200s. During the first 300s that is the actual FSXmark11 benchmark there's only two short periods where the stock GTX470 is limiting Lynnfield @ 3.8 GHz slightly. Put in a 50% faster CPU and a faster GPU should make more of a difference, but as you can see, FSXmark11 is still mostly CPU limited. Finally, here you can see why we discard the first run of the benchmark as it's giving a lot lower FPS: It shows clearly how the FPS is a lot lower when FSX has to 'setup' the scene. When we exit the benchmark with Esc and re-run it we get a lot higher FPS during the time the aircraft flies over an area where it hasn't been before during that benchmark run. The scene has stayed in the GPUs memory giving us much higher FPS there. As you can see, almost the full 300s actual FSXmark11 part is very affected, while most of the time after that the aircraft just circles over the same area over and over again only drifting away over new areas slowly. If we were to close down FSX fully between the runs, the GPUs memory will be flushed and we'll end up with the lower FPS all the time. That's how FSX work in real life when we fly along enroute.
  23. Is that tested performance difference in FSXmark11 or in general? I know that in general it doesn't make much of a difference. However PCIe 2.0 x16 Vs x8 makes quite a bit of difference on a i7 860 @ 3.8 GHz in FSXmark11. This is a graph plotting the FPS if you leave FSXmark11 running for 1200s (20 min). The actual FSXmark11 benchmark is the first 300s of this graph. The Haswell @ 4.5 GHz with faster RAM will have CPU grunt that's more than 50% faster than the Lynnfield @ 3.8GHz, so it wouldn't surprise me if PCIe 3.0 x8 will start to hold you back (same bandwidth as PCIe 2.0 x16). But as you can see, in real life it shouldn't be an issue if you lock your FPS to 30 as PCIe 2.0 x16 is capable of that.
  24. Does SLI disabled mean you have taken the 2nd GPU out of the motherboard giving the remaining GPU all the 16 PCIe lanes from the CPU or does it mean just disabling SLI in nVidia control panel? Just a thought.
×
×
  • Create New...