Simviation Forum - FSX Performance Test

Dec 5^th, 2006 at 9:37am

-sam- Offline
Colonel
. .. ...
EDDM

Gender:
Posts: 608

Hi there,

just stumbled across this FSX performance test at SimHQ.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_093c.html
What I find most interresting is the fact that the framrates do not differ
on different resolutions. For example
Medium Low Setting (x6800)
1024 = 131fps
1920=126fps
UltraHigh Settings
1024=26fps
1920=26fps
That shows cleary that most graphical features are still computed by the CPU and not the GPU like other
games do it nowadays. It´s also mentioned at the end of the Performance Test.
Now that is obviously the reason why FSX performes so bad compared to other Games.
So if you want to speed up your FSX.. you better get an new CPU than Graphics Card !!
I don´t want to comlain and I´m really happy with FSX. But if MS would make use of the GPU like other games do it
I´m sure FSX could be 2 or 3 times faster !!!

cheers,

duh.. sorry I put this in the wrong forum. Could please someone shift it to the FSX forum ?
Thank You

NFo/Simviation Multiplayer Server.&&&&fs.netfrag.org:23456&&&&Stats: fs.netfrag.org&&Teamspeak: ts.netfrag.org

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Dec 7^th, 2006 at 5:50pm

Tallyho Offline
1st Lieutenant
I Fly Sim!

Posts: 2

Hello all.
I have just installed MSFS X, I really enjoy it

, but it runs like a pile of poo Cry

Any fast manouvers and it lags. Shocked

I haven't read any of the performance tweaks yet, will do soon. Roll Eyes

Just read this post, and I am wondering why it runs so bad as I have AMD Athlon 4200 dual core, X800xt, 2 gig Hyper X dual channel ram? Angry

My joystick is wanting in this game too, as it only has 5 buttons and no hat, (I tried putting my baseball cop on it but this didn't work lol Tongue

), I have been messing around with the sensativity as I can't seem to stop the nose from pitching up and down like a yoyo.
Can anyone advise me on how to set up the settings nullpoint etc to correct this, much appreciated.

Ah just read the article and MFS X is poorly configured for dual core processors. Might try 2004 and see if it runs any better.

« Last Edit: Dec 7^th, 2006 at 7:27pm by Tallyho »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Dec 7^th, 2006 at 6:17pm

Ashar Ex Member
Forza Lazio!!

Gender:

131FPS in FSX.... Undecided

&&SS Lazio Website

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Dec 8^th, 2006 at 12:18am

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

-sam- wrote on Dec 5^th, 2006 at 9:37am:

Hi there,

just stumbled across this FSX performance test at SimHQ.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_093c.html
What I find most interresting is the fact that the framrates do not differ
on different resolutions. For example
Medium Low Setting (x6800)
1024 = 131fps
1920=126fps
UltraHigh Settings
1024=26fps
1920=26fps
That shows cleary that most graphical features are still computed by the CPU and not the GPU like other
games do it nowadays. It´s also mentioned at the end of the Performance Test.
Now that is obviously the reason why FSX performes so bad compared to other Games.
So if you want to speed up your FSX.. you better get an new CPU than Graphics Card !!
I don´t want to comlain and I´m really happy with FSX. But if MS would make use of the GPU like other games do it
I´m sure FSX could be 2 or 3 times faster !!!

cheers,

duh.. sorry I put this in the wrong forum. Could please someone shift it to the FSX forum ?
Thank You

I don't really agree with that.
The CPU is mainly used for traffic (ground and air and animals etc...) as well as some other stuff like flight model, general game engine etc...
The GPU is the one who is working the most.
If you don't have a good CPU, you just have to turn down your AI traffic, ground traffic etc... and you can still get good visual quality with reasonnable FPS.
If you don't have a good graphic card, you can turn down everything you want, you will just get crappy FPS and crappy visual quality.

Keep in mind that someone here is running FSX on a Pentium III Wink

So my personnal conclusion: if you want good visual quality, get a good GPU, and if you want complete scenery features, get a good CPU as well !!. A good CPU alone will not help. A good GPU alone will already be helpfull. And don't forget the RAM Roll Eyes

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Dec 8^th, 2006 at 12:36am

Katahu Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 6920

In other words, get everything anyways. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Dec 8^th, 2006 at 4:41am

DizZa Ex Member

fsX is both demanding on the CPU and GPU, though, nothing is fast enough. My X850XTPE paired up with a P4 650 is fairly balanced, I notice my CPU load is 100% while my GPU load is almost 95% (I can tell by the temperatures on the GPU compared to stress tests).

I also am running outa VRAM with my Aperture having to hold textures. Do you think upgrading to a 512mb card will help?

Oh, may I add, the game would be way more GPU demanding if the game didn't take 6 attempts to find it's own textures. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Dec 8^th, 2006 at 5:45am

-sam- Offline
Colonel
. .. ...
EDDM

Gender:
Posts: 608

I´m not the only one who claims this. There are several hard facts
that show that flighsim takes most of its power from the CPU.

1. The benchmark posted shows clearly that there is no change in framerates
when you change the resolution. This would be impossible if FS would use
all the graphics power available from a GPU. You won´t find similar benchmark results
for other games. Just take a look at the GPU benchmarks at http://tomshardware.org/
How would you explain this ?

2. Also the makers of the benchmark come to the same conclusion as i do.
quote from the benchmark.
""Conclusions
Without a doubt, FSX is almost 100% constrained in its performance characteristics by
the installed CPU. ""

3. A friend of me recently got a new PC (P4 3800) but he still has installed an older
GPU (fx5700). The game Just Cause runs on this machine
with 5 frames because it requires a fast GPU. This games runs smooth on my machine
while i have installed only an Athlon xp3000 but I have a faster GPU (GT6600).
The same happens with every other game like Company of Heroes, Oblivion and
others. But.. surprise... he can run FS2004 on full settings while I´m only able to run at
medium settings. Also with FSX he can active a lot more options than I can.. and it´s
still way smoother compared to my machine.

Make some tests for yourself and you will come to the same conclusion.
Of course it somehow does need GPU power as well. But unfortunately
not as extensive as other games do. !!

NFo/Simviation Multiplayer Server.&&&&fs.netfrag.org:23456&&&&Stats: fs.netfrag.org&&Teamspeak: ts.netfrag.org

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Dec 8^th, 2006 at 12:46pm

Katahu Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 6920

-sam- wrote on Dec 8^th, 2006 at 5:45am:

I´m not the only one who claims this. There are several hard facts
that show that flighsim takes most of its power from the CPU.

1. The benchmark posted shows clearly that there is no change in framerates
when you change the resolution. This would be impossible if FS would use
all the graphics power available from a GPU. You won´t find similar benchmark results
for other games. Just take a look at the GPU benchmarks at http://tomshardware.org/
How would you explain this ?

2. Also the makers of the benchmark come to the same conclusion as i do.
quote from the benchmark.
""Conclusions
Without a doubt, FSX is almost 100% constrained in its performance characteristics by
the installed CPU. ""

3. A friend of me recently got a new PC (P4 3800) but he still has installed an older
GPU (fx5700). The game Just Cause runs on this machine
with 5 frames because it requires a fast GPU. This games runs smooth on my machine
while i have installed only an Athlon xp3000 but I have a faster GPU (GT6600).
The same happens with every other game like Company of Heroes, Oblivion and
others. But.. surprise... he can run FS2004 on full settings while I´m only able to run at
medium settings. Also with FSX he can active a lot more options than I can.. and it´s
still way smoother compared to my machine.

Make some tests for yourself and you will come to the same conclusion.
Of course it somehow does need GPU power as well. But unfortunately
not as extensive as other games do. !!

I can voutch for that. Just check out the the Interlaken shots I posted on the other thread. Like Daube once pointed out to me. The only reason why my age-old rig is running FSX like a miracle with high mesh levels and good textures is that my hardware doesn't support DX9 features. This takes the following out of the equation:

Reflections of any kind.
Self shadowing.
Light blooms.

Because my processor doesn't have to deal with the extras, I was able to enjoy the scenery and fly FSX with 20FPS on average. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: