FSXMark11

[Kosta 122]

Fsmark07 is older and not so taxiing on the system. 11 was made in mind with today's hardware, and to hit the system more.

[whitav8 98]

Just so we'll have data for the older q6600 type systems:CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.7 GHz HT-OffRAM: 2x1GB DDR2-400(800)Mhz, Dual channel(4-4-4-12-2T)GPU: PALIT GTX 8800 1000 MBHDD: WD 500 GBFSXMark11 Results:Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg4156 300000 8 18 13.8534210 300000 9 19 13.9574141 300000 8 17 13.789

[cmeeks 8]

Hardware Configuration:CPU: Intel Core i7 2600K @ 5.2 GHz HT-OffRAM: 2x2GB 2133 MHz (9-10-9-24-2T)GPU: EVGA GTX 580 1536 MBHDD: WD Velociraptor x2 - RAID 0 (128KB) 1.09TB, Fast Trak TX 2300FSXMark11 Results:Test Frames Time(ms) Min Max Avg2 15101 300000 29.0 66.0 50.33 14906 300000 30.0 65.0 49.74 14846 300000 31.0 67.0 49.5AVG 14951 300000 30.0 67.0 49.8

Excellent results!

Just so we'll have data for the older q6600 type systems:CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.7 GHz HT-OffRAM: 2x1GB DDR2-400(800)Mhz, Dual channel(4-4-4-12-2T)GPU: PALIT GTX 8800 1000 MBHDD: WD 500 GBFSXMark11 Results:Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg4156 300000 8 18 13.8534210 300000 9 19 13.9574141 300000 8 17 13.789

I feels as if this is what so many of us have been waiting to see. Thanks!

[ryanbatc 12,799]

Guys getting 30-50 fps, is the scenery loading as well (nice and crisp) or is it blurry? I'm not even going to add my results (I'm willing to bet they'd be below 10 fps) but my scenery is blurry anyway, even with the older FSMark 07 lol!

[David Roch 1,975]

David, that won't be necessary. Please add this link as a result datebase to the main post: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AuiXjW8fJyDrdC1KZm5fSlJYdnJBaXRRclFuU0U3WUE&hl=en&authkey=CMSSocoI#gid=0

Done!

[whitav8 98]

It would be great if Alain (alainneedle1) would contribute his results when he gets a chance because I think his 980X system is tuned to perfection as opposed to the Jetline 980X system that I submitted the results for. Secondly, I would appreciate HLJames commenting on how he tuned his 2600K to such heights (50 fps) as well. It helps those of us who are looking to build a new system soon (especially since the new B3 mobos for 2600K are showing up) to know just what mobo and memory to buy before we start overclocking our way to FSX heaven. If any of the top end folks have either actual FSXMark11 data or just estimates of how important the newest GPUs (580s or ATI) are to their performance - I've read that a little GPU overclocking can help as well. Obviously, some of the readers don't care about a few percent here and there but some of us want the most so the experience is as fluid and immersive as possible or that we will spend that performance on complex scenery/aircraft/weather or triple monitors!

[Kosta 122]

Done!

David, a bit wrong: Users can't post results there. It's a sheet that Corey and me can administrate. Others are view only. Please edit text to reflect that. Thanks :Applause:

[David Roch 1,975]

David, a bit wrong: Users can't post results there. It's a sheet that Corey and me can administrate. Others are view only. Please edit text to reflect that. Thanks :Applause:

OK now <_< (Don't forget to delete the second sentence in the spreadsheet: "Post your results into the thread below, including your detailed info marked in orange by the spreadsheet"!)

[Kosta 122]

OK now <_< (Don't forget to delete the second sentence in the spreadsheet: "Post your results into the thread below, including your detailed info marked in orange by the spreadsheet"!)

Done! Though not deleted, but corrected!

[DescendDescend 25]

Not too sure who should post what where so here is the result from my machine before last. E8500 does not have HT. 8800GTX is 768Mb memory.

[whitav8 98]

This benchmark is very helpful for comparison! I would like to propose for your (cmeeks and others) consideration - in order to maybe get more results - to keep two result databases - one for the current "purists" who must do a fresh FSX install and another for "best effort" who try to set up their system for default scenery as best as they can but then do the full FSXMark11 config change and get results. Few of us can easily do a fresh install but I think we would like to see more like 20 or 30 entries. I am not saying to discourage the purist approach but some of us just can't take the time and possibly mess up our current installation. What do you think?

[SpiritFlyer 987]

This benchmark is very helpful for comparison! I would like to propose for your (cmeeks and others) consideration - in order to maybe get more results - to keep two result databases - one for the current "purists" who must do a fresh FSX install and another for "best effort" who try to set up their system for default scenery as best as they can but then do the full FSXMark11 config change and get results. Few of us can easily do a fresh install but I think we would like to see more like 20 or 30 entries. I am not saying to discourage the purist approach but some of us just can't take the time and possibly mess up our current installation. What do you think?

To me the purity of the data of using only fresh installs without adjustment beyond protocol, insures the relative comparability and repeatability of testing that produces meaningful measurable results. That trumps any other broader consideration in my opinion. Anything else using this same test, even a different one which runs in parallel, no matter how well intended, would just confuse and weaken the reliability of the data derived from complete conformity. Anything which blurs the lines to the casual tester will induce undetectable cross pollination which will corrupt it. Perhaps others may feel different, but I think that to begin unwinding the tightness of the samples will quickly be the undoing of the significance of the test itself.Kind regards,

[Guest veeray]

whitav8: yes without the tweaks I don't see the value in these benchmarks either. All you end up showing is that the latest processor is faster than the one before it. There are no other correlations you can make. Also is the fresh install evem necessary... what's broken in your FSX system that it needs a fresh install?

[Greg Wilkerson 0]

I have to completely, but respectively disagree with whitav8 and veeray. And here's why.I currently run FS9 on a dual AMD 2.9GHz, Radeon 9550 (256 MB), 2GB Ram, driving two 1920x1200 monitors, WinXP with VatSim and live weather, almost all the mega-scenery options, and hand flying a Caranedo F-33A below 10,000 AGL. With the exception of few and scattered cloud bases and moderate (or heavier) snow and rain, I get 30 fps out of that. I have deemed 30 fps as an absolute miniumum for hand flying a landing. It's just too difficult to stay ahead of the airplane with frame rates slower than that.I loaded FSX on this system, tried to fly, uninstalled it and put it back in the box.Now, it's time for a new system. I can't tell you how many sites I've visited looking for specs that can be quantified. So many of them state something like "I'm getting 60 fps with the sliders all the way to the right", specifying some less than impressive hardware configuration and making no mention of screen resolution. I'm sorry, but I don't find a "review" like that relevant. Nor, do I see any relevance in the 3DMarkxxx and other benchmarks based on other games. FSX doesn't behave other the other games. Having a benchmark defined so tightly as this serves as a base line as to what to expect using certain hardware. So far, this is the ONLY place I have seen a benchmark defined that I consider useful. And, I'm seeing some impressive numbers. I'm actually beginning to believe I'll be able to get my FSX out of the box again.I'm waiting for the Sandy Bridge hardware to re-emerge, but this is where I'm leaning. i7-2600k OC @ 5GHz, Motherboard TBD, G.Skill CL6 RAM 4GB+, 2 eVGA GTX 470 1GB (probably waterblocked), and at least 2 SATA drives. This will drive three 1920x1200 monitors (I hope). If and still can't get FSX to behave like I want, I'll put it back in the box and wait a few more years. But, FS9 will run well on this. I'm confident of that. I'll finally be able to hand fly an ILS approach into Vail in a driving snow storm.Is this benchmark going to help me with my final config? No. But, it does give me an dependable indication of what to expect. And, once I get my system configured the way I want, I'll re-run the benchmark. I a different place is made available for that run, I'll post them. Many thanks to those who contributed to developing this. Awesome job! :Applause: On a side note, maybe a discussion thread is warranted. I might be better to not clutter up the tread with non-results related posts (like this one).Greg Wilkerson

[HLJames 2,568]

Hi Greg,I think everyone wants to know how benchmarks relate to their experience in Flight Simulator X.There is no airport in Vail Co. but nearby Eagle Co. (KEGE) and if I may substitute a Mooney Bravo, ILS approach, 1920X1080, heavy snowstorm, Cfg Max, 75 - 130 fpsIn contrast: PMDG 747-400 + ORBX Australia SP3, ORBX weather 2, in-route low altitude: 45 fps. while waiting on taxiways, rainy weather cfg Max, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane airports: 13 fps.HLJAMES