I just finished a new build for FSX :


Windows 7 64 Bit OS
AMD Phenom x4 955 Black Edition - overclocked to 3.6
Gigabyte MA790XT-UD4P AM3 Motherboard
4GB Patriot Viper 1600Mhz DDR3 ram at 9-9-9-24
Enzotech Ultra-X CPU Cooler
40" Samsung 1080p HDTV (running 1920x1080)

I am reaching 50-70 FPS on Sitka approach mission , and between 25-40 FPS on free flight over New York with maxed settings , extremely smooth flight.

The weird thing is if i overclock pass 3.6 , FSX will crash to desktop , but every other program runs fin overclocked to 3.8 - 3.9 . I have only changed the CPU multiplier and havn't messed with the voltages , so that could be the reason . Just wanted to show that FSX runs extremely well on the AMD 955 . Yes , i was trying to decide between AMD 955 and Intel I7 920 , but went with AMD and am very happy with the result.  :)

Could please tell us which graphics card you are using?
I am very happy for you and for the results achieved.

Best Regards
ATC PapaSierra

PNY GTX 260  Core 216

Fantastic - that is excelent value for money. Well done !
Volunteer

OK , I managed to get a stable 3.9 overclock with a cooler master V10.   :)

Yeah AMDs are S*** at overclocking unless you have the BE, around $10 on each one, good money ;D I can only get mine to 2.42 before it fails ;D

Nice work on that setup :D

The Phenom II overclocks extremely well actually.

wrote on Jul 26^th, 2009 at 8:32am:

The Phenom II overclocks extremely well actually.

That's why I want one! ;D

I have the exact same issue. 3.6 is the limit here to on a BE here also. The temps are fine.

/Daniel

here is a good link to over clock this AMD chippy.

http://www.overclock.net/amd-general/574585-overclocking-955-help.html

Personally, I would not bother as you are only going to get a couple of frames extra over the fantastic performance you already got!!
You gotto keep it well cool and get the air flow just right. Get the latest bios and away you go!!
I have had trouble overclocking Gigabyte boards = most likely me as Gigabyte make brilliant boards = but for some reason I find the Asus boards are easier to clockout.

Unless you can make a significant improvement to the game (which is unlikely) - there is no point. Going from 65 FPM to 68 FPM ain't goin to make much difference!
In my humble opinion.

...how the hell you get 60 70.. I 'm running, almost the Sam config but with  Phenom X3 720 OC to 3.2 ..... despite all the tweaks, and shmeaks I' still struggling with the FPS cant get more the 10FPS 12FPS, some times it goes down to 3-4FPS which is totally absurd   :'(

The secret is the OS.

Windows 7 rocks - at least with some systems.

http://windows7forums.com/windows-7-games/1827-flight-simulator-x-anyone-installed-2.html

I just installed Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit,  on my old mediocre system: AMD Phenom 9650 2.3 Ghz, XFX "Black Dog" 9600 GT 768/1950/1080, 4 Gb ordinary DDR2 800 Mhz Kingston Ram, and I'm getting from 45 to 65 FPS at Friday Harbour with the Trike!

No defrag, no tweaks, just a "raw" install...

This is better than my current Q6600 / 8800 GTS / 800 DDR2 Crucials on Windows XP 64 bit.

People are apparently getting better performance with Win 7... and yes, I know, NickN doesn't recommend Win 7, maybe on his High End system there's no difference.

actually

I will bet 50 thousand USD that the original XPx64 installation had a problem




Because Windows7 will in no way, shape or form increase the performance of a computer under FSX use..   


N

O

N

E



The application (FSX) was desinged under WindowsXP driver and memory management specifications and anyone who says they see a better result under W7 had a problem with XPx64 they did not know existed or how to resolve

FSX will perform EQUAL if not better under XPx64 especially with payware aircraft

I respect your tech experience and knowledge, but in this case you are wrong!

Just made 2 separate installs of FSX on the same HP Pavilion. (AMD Phenom 9650, 9600GT 512 Mb, 4x1 800 DDR2 Ram.)

No.1 with XP 64 bit OS

No.2 with Win7 Ult. 64 bit OS

No tweaks, no defrags.

Same settings on OS and FSX.

Loaded the default Trike at Friday Harbour.

Target Frame Rate: Unlimited

All other settings at the same level for both...

Result:

XP 64: FPS ranging from 32/36 to 48/52

Win 7 64: FPS ranging from 49/54 to 62/68 and an occasional hit in the 70's!

I'm not a tech guy, but I have a pair of extremely wellfunctioning eyes, and in this case there's no doubt:

Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit version, outperforms XP 64!

Maybe on lower- and medium spec PC's there's an advantage in using W7, I don't know, but if that's the case then your experience doesn't say much, because I would guess the last time you used or tested on such a machine was in the last century! No offense intended... ;)

BTW - I'm looking for at tweak to the CFG, so it's possible to see the average FPS. Anynone know this setting?

You threw a set of wild card variables into your test that makes the test beyond worthless for true compare

and I am going to get into it

People have no idea what they are doing and ASSUMPTION with NO TECH EXPERIENCE TO TEST such things is the mother of all rumors.

Micrsoft loves it when people dont know what they are doing, it sells more OS's

Ever stop to think there are registry changes and settings items in W7 that are already set up (MS does learn sometimes) which require the user set the same ones up manually/correctly in XP so the OS's are equally tuned and the test is valid?

and XP would then be EQUAL or better???

No?   



enjoy!



 

Again...

Due respect to your unfathomable techie knowledge, but the stubbornness and arrogance you show time and time again in this field is getting tiresome, at least for ordinary FSX users like myself and probably thousands of others.

I believe my own eyes, and what they saw was OK, there IS a difference, a remarkable difference, and it's stupid of you to just brush it away like that!

Have a nice flight!

you're welcome!      :)



well, perhaps if you were to have both OS's set up so they are fairly matched in a resonable test setup you may see where your mistake is made in assuming W7 is that much better than XP


If you want to say that out of the box W7 is better optimized than XP, thats a fair statement, and is not always true either as hardware differences will change that result .. but what you said is XP is flat out slower than W7 in a blanket assumption which is wrong, flat out wrong


EDIT: And With XP installing SP2 after Windows installs is a no-no that has been documented to cause PCIe performance issues not to mention SATA problems

NickN wrote on Oct 19^th, 2009 at 10:30am:

You threw a set of wild card variables into your test that makes the test beyond worthless for true compare and I am going to get into it People have no idea what they are doing and ASSUMPTION with NO TECH EXPERIENCE TO TEST such things is the mother of all rumors. Micrsoft loves it when people dont know what they are doing, it sells more OS's Ever stop to think there are registry changes and settings items in W7 that are already set up (MS does learn sometimes) which require the user set the same ones up manually/correctly in XP so the OS's are equally tuned and the test is valid? and XP would then be EQUAL or better??? No?    enjoy!

Nick,

I have two PCs running FSX. My old PC is running XP while the new is running Vista. My new system is running so well that an improvement in performance from windows 7, if it should happen, would be noticed only on paper since (for example) a difference between 30 to 100 FPS and 35 to 125 FPS visually for my PC would be perceived the same. You did mention registry settings in W7 that are already setup that one would have to do manually for XP in order to compare the two. I would be interested to know what these are so I could apply them to my old PC. Also, wouldn't one expect some performance improvement from Vista to Windows 7 since it has been called by some as an updated or improved Vista. And I have to say, since using Vista in my new build, I have experience zero problems with it.

I will be getting my Windows 7 from Microsoft in the next couple of weeks and will make it a point to document any change in performance.

laurits wrote on Oct 19^th, 2009 at 8:37am:

I respect your tech experience and knowledge, but in this case you are wrong! Just made 2 separate installs of FSX on the same HP Pavilion. (AMD Phenom 9650, 9600GT 512 Mb, 4x1 800 DDR2 Ram.) No.1 with XP 64 bit OS No.2 with Win7 Ult. 64 bit OS No tweaks, no defrags. Same settings on OS and FSX. Loaded the default Trike at Friday Harbour. Target Frame Rate: Unlimited All other settings at the same level for both... Result: XP 64: FPS ranging from 32/36 to 48/52 Win 7 64: FPS ranging from 49/54 to 62/68 and an occasional hit in the 70's! I'm not a tech guy, but I have a pair of extremely wellfunctioning eyes, and in this case there's no doubt: Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit version, outperforms XP 64! Maybe on lower- and medium spec PC's there's an advantage in using W7, I don't know, but if that's the case then your experience doesn't say much, because I would guess the last time you used or tested on such a machine was in the last century! No offense intended... ;) BTW - I'm looking for at tweak to the CFG, so it's possible to see the average FPS. Anynone know this setting?

Laurits,

This is good news. Did you try any other areas like Seattle to compare the OSs? I am looking forward to W7 and am waiting for Microsoft to ship it which will be Oct 22nd or soon after. When I receive it, I intend to document and pass on how it compares with my current Vista 64bit OS. And my expectations are for some improvement. :)

Yes, even at KSEA there are improvements compared to XP 64, but I won't go into this anymore, cause the "Resident Guru" apparently does not like people to think and experience things themselves, WITHOUT having to be a tech geek!

You don't need any complicated, scientific-like set-up between those two OS's to see the difference IMO.

Good luck with the setup, will be interesting to hear more ppl's experiences and comments on this matter.

laurits wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 4:55am:

Yes, even at KSEA there are improvements compared to XP 64, but I won't go into this anymore, cause the "Resident Guru" apparently does not like people to think and experience things themselves, WITHOUT having to be a tech geek! You don't need any complicated, scientific-like set-up between those two OS's to see the difference IMO. Good luck with the setup, will be interesting to hear more ppl's experiences and comments on this matter.

The person to whom you are referring, just like most who have PhD's with 40 years of lead engineering experience in their field, know arrogant, inexperienced, layman Bullchit when they read it and people who do not know how to install a OS, set it up correctly and know what to do with patches  should watch what they say because people like us will catch their inept errors every time and let them know what they did wrong

I dont want people thinking what was posted is true, because it isn't

There have been people who KNOW what they are doing repeated this test with the correct INSTALL/PATCH process and found exactly what I said is true



http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=31907&PID=183567#183567



Quote:

UPDATE: I repeated the test with XP 64 bits and the conclussions are the following. 1) If you are changing form nvidia to ATI, format and reinstall OS. I've tried with driver swepper and it is NOT the same. 2) The fps are pretty much the same in every scenario I posted above 3) XP64 shows a better experience. W7 showed stutters ocassionally, especially at low fps. XP64 can handle better this situations: your eye can notice the low frames but there's no stuttering, its more fluid. OS of choice: XP 64. PD: Well, it could have been easier, only listen to NickN. After all, nobody's going to win his bet of 50k $ LOL

I can post 20-30 more of those at any time and probably dig up about 10-20 more on top of them



What you posted based on how you set up that test is HORSE MANURE and I wont bother posting any more about it..    

NickN wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 4:04pm:

laurits wrote on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 4:55am: Yes, even at KSEA there are improvements compared to XP 64, but I won't go into this anymore, cause the "Resident Guru" apparently does not like people to think and experience things themselves, WITHOUT having to be a tech geek! You don't need any complicated, scientific-like set-up between those two OS's to see the difference IMO. Good luck with the setup, will be interesting to hear more ppl's experiences and comments on this matter. The person to whom you are referring, just like most who have PhD's with 40 years of lead engineering experience in their field, know arrogant, inexperienced, layman Bullchit when they read it and people who do not know how to install a OS, set it up correctly and know what to do with patches  should watch what they say because people like us will catch their inept errors every time and let them know what they did wrong I dont want people thinking what was posted is true, because it isn't There have been people who KNOW what they are doing repeated this test with the correct INSTALL/PATCH process and found exactly what I said is true http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=31907&PID=183567#183567 Quote: UPDATE: I repeated the test with XP 64 bits and the conclussions are the following. 1) If you are changing form nvidia to ATI, format and reinstall OS. I've tried with driver swepper and it is NOT the same. 2) The fps are pretty much the same in every scenario I posted above 3) XP64 shows a better experience. W7 showed stutters ocassionally, especially at low fps. XP64 can handle better this situations: your eye can notice the low frames but there's no stuttering, its more fluid. OS of choice: XP 64. PD: Well, it could have been easier, only listen to NickN. After all, nobody's going to win his bet of 50k $ LOL I can post 20-30 more of those at any time and probably dig up about 10-20 more on top of them What you posted based on how you set up that test is HORSE MANURE and I wont bother posting any more about it..

I just got a notice from the Microsoft Store that my W7 has been shipped. I have also reviewed some benchmarking of  XP/Vista with W7, and much to my disappointment it appears that there is very little difference in performance between the three for FSX.

Having said this, I don't believe all this hostility. I for one believe the comparison of XP with W7 on Laurits' PC as there are so many varying factors that affect the end result. He reported just how well each OS responded as has others. And there very well be a difference between lower, middle, and higher end systems, depending on their configuration, reference the effect that W7 has on performance either up or down.

When anyone says, and I quote, "there's no doubt Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit version outperforms XP 64" or and again I quote "Because Windows 7 will in no way, shape or form increase the performance of a computer under FSX use", I would be the first to challenge either statement, but in a nice way. There is a difference from just a comparison of how W7 with XP/Vista runs on any one computer and a formal benchmark of the product.

People can believe what they want to believe



Honestly?, I could care less



and laurits has been trying my patience in another forum in which he is one step away from being removed....

http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=31916&PID=183722#183722

So as far as I am concerned I have no problem letting him have it...  here too

Nick - Should I turn Superfetch OFF in Windows 7?

Do you really expect him to answer that? :-?

Try it, and see for yourself!

People need to get off the dependency of the Guru, that's the same in real life when some dumb*sses completely give their minds and hard earned dough to types like Anthony Robbins and other loud mouths.. >:(

Here's some W7 tweaks:

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/showthread.php?t=8760

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/ultimate-windows-tweaker-v2-a-tweak-ui-for-windows-7-vista#more-1957

W7 Manager:

http://www.yamicsoft.com/windows7manager/index.html

Enjoy!

<sarcasm on>
Yes.. people are all dumb-asses for asking questions


and most of all they are dumb-asses for being cautious of dim-wits who make ridiculous statements such as FSX will never run smooth or without blue screens.

<sarcasm off>



Then there are the dumb-asses that assume they are right without any understanding of what it is they are saying..   in example, there is a private message system on this forum and answering questions is sometimes best left to that system since others can read the answer and assume their system will work the same, sort of like what dim-wits do for PC optimizing since they dont understand what is being listed and what it really does/doesnt do ... and that the advice is good for any/all systems out there.

NickN wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 5:42am:

People can believe what they want to believe Honestly?, I could care less and laurits has been trying my patience in another forum in which he is one step away from being removed.... http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=31916&PID=183722#183722 So as far as I am concerned I have no problem letting him have it...  here too

So no questions and individual thinking alllowed?

Tsk, tsk, this approach reminds me of some totalitarian regimes from both the past and the present!

It's damned effective, and engineers just loooove that method.

Judging by your idiotic comments here and in other forums, I bet you would say what you posted above word-for-word to a 30yr certified AL Pilot as they were trying to explain to you over the radio exactly how to land the plane after your pilot passed out in which you know as much about the aircraft you are flying as you know about computers... absolutely nothing

I'm sure surfin the net on a laptop in the cockpit would net you better instructions so you can be a individual thinker all the way down 'into' the ground



;D ;D ;D

Please guys try to remember we have a 'friendliness' policy here.

We do not want to go down the road of food throwing allowed. If you're eating in a restaurant you just want to eat and enjoy. It's exactly the same for visitors here at the SimV forums. 

Thanks  8-)

No problem Pete    


The conversation as it was is closed as far as I am concerned :)

laurits wrote on Oct 16^th, 2009 at 3:07am:

The secret is the OS. Windows 7 rocks - at least with some systems. http://windows7forums.com/windows-7-games/1827-flight-simulator-x-anyone-installed-2.html I just installed Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit,  on my old mediocre system: AMD Phenom 9650 2.3 Ghz, XFX "Black Dog" 9600 GT 768/1950/1080, 4 Gb ordinary DDR2 800 Mhz Kingston Ram, and I'm getting from 45 to 65 FPS at Friday Harbour with the Trike! No defrag, no tweaks, just a "raw" install... This is better than my current Q6600 / 8800 GTS / 800 DDR2 Crucials on Windows XP 64 bit. People are apparently getting better performance with Win 7... and yes, I know, NickN doesn't recommend Win 7, maybe on his High End system there's no difference.

When it comes to gaming Win7 won't show any significant performance increase compared to XP or Vista.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3666

I saw a significant performance gain with the switch to vista, and then even better with win 7!
I'll help you out.
You know, there's a difference between theory and application. One can say that there SHOULD NOT be a gain just in a simple OS upgrade. However, if he saw one, why tell him he's full of garbage? How do you know? Maybe he is getting better performance with it. I will tell you that I AM getting BETTER PERFORMANCE with windows 7x64 than I ever got with vistax64. My install was unique with this one, though. I saved my important stuff to another HDD, and then formatted the one with the OS going on it. My vista install was plagued with errors and problems.
Never saw 40 FPS with vista. However, there is a MP flight I love to do between KEDW and KLSV that now hits regularly between 80-120 FPS, and got a screenshot with over 209!
:D :o
I'm seriously OC'd, but never hit it before. With WIN 7, and DX10 and all it's charms, I NOTICED a big gain from vista>7. It seems that a few people got really defensive in here, and I don't understand why?!? Poor guy didn't seem like he was trying to anger anyone, just make a point. Theory vs. Application. I, for one, noticed its performance capabilities over XP (with only DX9.0c) and vista. Lets hope I don't anger anyone, and I hope that this sheds light on the arguement over "should" vs. "does".

Thanks for that information.  I was going to go to intell  with windows 7 pro, as I want to upgrade my athlon 64 3800 xp pro to a dual core.   Might stick with AMD after reading this and go with that chip and save some money. Thanks guys.

Can someone point the way to helping over clock this rig?
I would appreciate it very much. Getting about 15fps and its a little choppy at 8fps.

I am new to over clocking so any instructions would be appreciated. Thanks.

Windows 7 Home Premium, 64 bit
LG Flatron E2350V 23" Display
AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHZ True Quad Core, 8MB total Cache (stock cooler)
Mobo: MSI 890GXM –G65
XFX Radeon HD 5570 1GB DDR3 (no XFire capabilities)
2X2GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1,600Mhz
HDD: 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7,200 RPM, 16MB Cache
Coolmax V600: 600W
Case: Antec 900
1-top mounted 200mm Exhaust fan, 1-rear mounted 120mm exhaust, 3-120mm intake.

www.overclock.net

Join and post in the AMD CPU section.  A lot of AMD guru's over there will be more than happy to help you OC this.

Speedy22 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2011 at 7:05am:

Can someone point the way to helping over clock this rig? I would appreciate it very much. Getting about 15fps and its a little choppy at 8fps. I am new to over clocking so any instructions would be appreciated. Thanks. Windows 7 Home Premium, 64 bit LG Flatron E2350V 23" Display AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHZ True Quad Core, 8MB total Cache (stock cooler) Mobo: MSI 890GXM –G65 XFX Radeon HD 5570 1GB DDR3 (no XFire capabilities) 2X2GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1,600Mhz HDD: 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7,200 RPM, 16MB Cache Coolmax V600: 600W Case: Antec 900 1-top mounted 200mm Exhaust fan, 1-rear mounted 120mm exhaust, 3-120mm intake.

Well, you are certainly going to have a challenge to get the most out of this rig, but you can definitely get a little more than advertised, no matter what. Overclocking is quite fun, especially when you get out of your system, a little more than it was supposed to give you. Wheeeee!!!

It does, though, push the limits of your system, and yourself. It will take above average power and cooling. You are off to a good start, but as soon as you reach a limit somewhere (usually the first BSOD) you will end up taking all of your money to the computer store for a bunch of parts.

Here's what to do. When your computer first starts up, there will be a screen to show you POST (power-on self-test) and then BIOS (basic input-output system). If you already knew about  these, sorry. You will have an option to view POST and BIOS (BIOS is what you want to get into,) and then another option to get into it and make changes. Sounds scary, but it's really not that bad. (Don't worry, almost EVERY system has an easy way to undo whatever we may screw up here). Ususally, before windows fires up, the [DEL] key will get you into BIOS.
In BIOS, your basic system info will be displayed, such as system time, processor info, and ammount of memory, etc.
Up near or at the top of yor BIOS screen, somewhere will be a tab (or something) that says advanced options.
This is where things go faster. There are options in there that allow you to make changes to basic things, depending on your BIOS.
If you can change CPU Front-side BUS speed, maybe give it a couple clicks. Not too much. Start small, and go from there. I think the 945 has a locked multiplier, but unsure. If you can change the multiplier, don't go too crazy. If it's 3.0 GHz, then you probably have (200MHz FSB x 15). Try x16=3.2GHz. With a 600W PSU, I'd be very careful how much I went up, because a few more items you may tweak will start to get deeper into the max of your PSU before they've given you their max potential. 3.2 for now will at least test if it will take it. If you can do that, then maybe we'll try some memory tweaks, too.