A lot of care goes into some of the benchmarking tests, so that everything is as even as possible in order to get an indication of a component's actual performance, (I mean the tests like the ones Tom's Hardware Guide and others do, ...... not Joe Blow's test up the road off the street of course.)

The people who do these tests are, for the most part, independent enthusiasts trying to produce a useful guide for the rest of us.

I would love to do testing specifically for FS9, unfortunately, I haven't got the resources OR the technical proficiency.

I can only base my comments on my experience, what I've read and common sense, (with the occasional shot in the dark!)

I have been fortunate in being able to personally try out many types of hardware over the last few years, on quite a few different systems. These systems have been getting progressively more powerful of course.

Testing the hardware for myself on various software has produced no surprises....... every time I use more powerful hardware, the performance of the applications improves dramatically compared to "tweaking" the previous hardware.

No amount of fiddling will get you the performance that you can actually go out and PAY for!

There is a sentiment here in these forums that benchmarking doesn't produce valid comparisons. That sentiment is probably reflected by those individuals who haven't understood or erred in the process itself, thereby not giving them any meaningful analysis.

As individuals, we all percieve things differently, we have a plethora of hardware which we can try to compare, usually ineffectively due to the differences.

Good Benchmarking can be done by anyone who understands the process... ie. setting up an even platform by which to make a useful comparitive analysis of a given component/components.

Good Benchmarking takes the emotion and human error out of the equation, leaving science to do it's job, and that job is to produce numbers in a controlled environment.

For instance, I could see FS9 performing perceptibly well at a friends house and then wonder what is wrong with my setup. But, alas, an even comparison/test may well show that it is his system that is actually lagging behind by some margin... all things being equal or as equal as can be reasonably obtained.

Benchmarking is the basis of accurate knowledge as far as hardware performance is concerned, we all benefit from it. So, let's stop the witchhunt and get on with some useful comment.

Holy Batcave!  

Somebody shoot me.........  

That CPU is $800 here last month, now down to $540 oz trinkets.

May I ask why you went for a socket 939 instead of a socket 754?

Registered RAM for socket 939? Better check.

EDIT: From MSI's site:

"Supports a maximum memory size up to 4GB with ECC"

ECC being registered RAM......
hope you still got some spare change.

From MSI's list of supported ram, it looks like non-ecc works, contrary to what i read about another socket 939 chipset.

Wohoo

Got the new system up and running. Impressed so far.

Bench scores:

Old system   3dMark01    18050
                   3dMark03     12095

New system 3dMark01    23048
                   3dMark03    12752

Not overclocked the g/card yet    might up the core from 425 to 435 and see what happens    would be nice to break the 13000 on 03.

Wow! That's more than twice as fast in '03 as my FX5900XT!