FSXMark11

[TechguyMaxC 516]

I know this thread has basically run its course but I just wanted to report my Kaby Lake results:

i7 7700k @ 5GHz (1.26V, de-lidded on custom water)

Corsair 3600MHz 16GB DDR4 18-19-19-39-2T

GTX 1070 @ 2062MHz GPU 8800MHz RAM (custom water)

Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

tweaked FSX config

 

FPS:

min: 48

avg: 65.6

max: 83

 

Since the CPU only needs ~ 1.26V in my testing so far, and only hits 66C on the hottest core in Intel Burn Test, it's guaranteed to go higher for benchmarking purposes at least.  I'll post back with final results when I have them.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

I'll call these final results because this is what I will use as an every day overclock:

7700k @ 5.2GHz (1.37V de-lidded on custom water)

Corsair 3600MHz 16GB DDR4 18-19-19-39-2T

GTX 1070 @ 2062MHz GPU 8800MHz RAM (custom water)

Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

tweaked FSX config

 

FPS:

min: 50

avg: 67.5

max: 85

 

Interesting to see the 200MHz increase nets exactly 2 FPS all-around.  Proving that once again, FSX is entirely CPU-limited, at least in this test.  Now to crank up the settings, change the resolution to 4k, and start installing add-ons.  The real test will be a complex 3rd party AC on the ground @ JFK in bad weather.  Can't wait to see the performance there.  

[ryanbatc 12,773]

On 2/21/2017 at 8:40 AM, TechguyMaxC said:

I'll call these final results because this is what I will use as an every day overclock:

...

Interesting to see the 200MHz increase nets exactly 2 FPS all-around.  Proving that once again, FSX is entirely CPU-limited, at least in this test.  Now to crank up the settings, change the resolution to 4k, and start installing add-ons.  The real test will be a complex 3rd party AC on the ground @ JFK in bad weather.  Can't wait to see the performance there.  

Very nice!  The real problem now that users are running into is the VAS wall.  x64 P3D will change all that but people have these monster machines but sometimes you can't crank everything up because of the VAS hehe.  You should try XP11 beta

[TechguyMaxC 516]

I'll likely download XP11 at some point.  Have 10 and haven't really used it but 11 looks very good.  I really want a 757/767 and it seems like XPlane is the only place to get that now outside of FS2004/2002.  

[ryanbatc 12,773]

Yes I don't have either one but I hear the 757 is quite good.  Not PMDG style but probably the best airliner in XP to date.

[FSP532 1]

On 25/02/2017 at 3:23 PM, TechguyMaxC said:

I'll likely download XP11 at some point.  Have 10 and haven't really used it but 11 looks very good.  I really want a 757/767 and it seems like XPlane is the only place to get that now outside of FS2004/2002.  

I love simulation more than fps and eye-candy, so my Level-D 767 is still the best 767 to date. Beautiful dynamics and great detail still makes it one of my favourites.

 

Of course, the people that fly for the eye-candy don't like it. Too bad for them :)

[TechguyMaxC 516]

On 3/7/2017 at 7:51 AM, FSP532 said:

I love simulation more than fps and eye-candy, so my Level-D 767 is still the best 767 to date. Beautiful dynamics and great detail still makes it one of my favourites.

 

Of course, the people that fly for the eye-candy don't like it. Too bad for them :)

I can only dream of a graphically-updated Level D 767 with a real VC.  One of the first complex heavies I ever flew and I absolutely love it.  

[larshall 4]

On ‎16‎-‎06‎-‎2016 at 6:06 AM, TechguyMaxC said:

 

 

Someone needs to develop P3D Mark.

Could still be very useful, and with P3D 4.0 just out it might even have a reasonable shelf life :-) 

(Emphasis added to original post)

[TechguyMaxC 516]

1 hour ago, larshall said:

Could still be very useful, and with P3D 4.0 just out it might even have a reasonable shelf life :-) 

(Emphasis added to original post)

Man, that's an old post.  I've thought about it many times over the years.  As soon as I can fit it into my budget, I'll purchase a copy of 4.0 and see what I can come up with.