This has been very informative, guys. Makes me wonder if waiting for more power vs upgrading today is prudent.

 

What's the point in waiting?  Flight sim isn't going anywhere; regardless of what platform it is.

 

Also, like some others have said, VAS is going to be more limiting than hardware with FSX.  It won't matter how beastly your computer is, as VAS is already quickly becoming the limitation as to what you can display in FSX - not hardware.

This thread's topic is kind of weird since pretty much every modern CPU on modern hardware can be easily clocked to over 5 GHz already (yes, Haswell as well with a minor mod). Even the old 2600k has been able to do this for years now. And it will improve FSX performance drastically. I find it strange that it's always the people running at stock speed or minimal OC like 4 GHz that have this discussion. Get yourself a nice watercooler and boost those UEFI settings of yours. Then you can stop dreaming that there will some day be a magic new Nvidia driver or a magic new 10 GHz CPU delivered to your home. You already have the CPU power, you just need to unleash it.

Absolutely! I 100% agree with you Brian.

Yep, and then watch FSX Blue Screen every flight. 

 Jim - sorry, man - you are dead wrong. I don't know who does your overclocking, or if you do it yourself - but there's been something wrong for a long time, for you to come up with such a blatantly untrue statement.

 

I can tell you that a 2600K or a 2700K, properly setup, with good cooling will run FSX at 5.0 GHz. day after day without a BSoD, or any other disastrous "happening". 

This thread's topic is kind of weird since pretty much every modern CPU on modern hardware can be easily clocked to over 5 GHz already (yes, Haswell as well with a minor mod). Even the old 2600k has been able to do this for years now. And it will improve FSX performance drastically. I find it strange that it's always the people running at stock speed or minimal OC like 4 GHz that have this discussion. Get yourself a nice watercooler and boost those UEFI settings of yours. Then you can stop dreaming that there will some day be a magic new Nvidia driver or a magic new 10 GHz CPU delivered to your home. You already have the CPU power, you just need to unleash it.

No way 5GHz is by any means easy or trivial to achieve with any of the Intel procs from the last three generations at least with such moderate voltages that system can be be easily used with air cooling, which is still the mainstream way. And even with water it depends on the rock - a lot. In the history I built several high performance custom watercooling kits (all cooled with H2O, proc, GPU and NB when those were still present) for my systems and it was quite many times that you just hit the wall suddenly. No matter how much you pump the current or fiddle with different settings and temps are low, you just can't get past some level. Leakage current, transistors and data circuits which can't keep up with the state shifts or both just bring you to the end even though your temps are fine. Small, microscopic manufacturing differences make one rock go, others not so much.

 

Same applies today, you need a good chip to succeed with high overclocks and best chances to achieve over 5GHz were with early Sandys. You just need to visit some overclocking forums and it is easily noticable, that most overclocks hit the 4.5-4.7GHz with Ivys and Haswells. In fact, 4.7GHz Haswell is considered a very good chip. 5GHz is difficult even with delidded procs. On the otherhand, slightly better IPC of Haswells and Ivy's pretty much even the performance, if you manage to pull over 4.5GHz compared to 5.0GHz Sandy. Still, many stay even below that.

 

Overclocking is in many cases overvalued and I mainly do it because I like it. Normal games are mainly GPU limited and difference may be few FPS at maximum between default and heavily overclocked system, which is completetely insignificant, when you pull easily 60+ FPS with both default and OC chip. Also, while overclocking helps with some proc intesive tasks, like with FSX and the first core it tends to "overutilize", usually going desperately after the last 100-200MHz is also useless. For example, with 4.5GHz and 4.7GHz there is about 4,5% more clockspeed in the chip compared to 4.5GHz. If that would go linearilly to FPS (which unfortunately it most likely doesn't) and you would struggle at some busy airport with 20 FPS, you could get whopping 21 FPS or just under with those extra 200MHz. That's hardly a FPS solver. Like many games, FSX definitely does not gain FPS linearilly (although it gains FPS better in relation to CPU speed than most modern games, thanks to the way it is coded), so you most likely wouldn't notice anything at all: that less than 1FPS disappears in the normal FPS fluctuation.

You just need to visit some overclocking forums and it is easily noticable, that most overclocks hit the 4.5-4.7GHz with Ivys and Haswells. In fact, 4.7GHz Haswell is considered a very good chip. 5GHz is difficult even with delidded procs.

....

 

Overclocking is in many cases overvalued and I mainly do it because I like it. Normal games are mainly GPU limited and difference may be few FPS at maximum between default and heavily overclocked system, which is completetely insignificant, when you pull easily 60+ FPS with both default and OC chip. Also, while overclocking helps with some proc intesive tasks, like with FSX and the first core it tends to "overutilize", usually going desperately after the last 100-200MHz is also useless.

 

The 4.5-4.7GHz limit is common on a stock Haswell CPU. With the simple IHS fix however you will usually get way, way more efficient cooling and therefore better OC capabilities.

 

 

Regarding FSX and the single core overutilization, this is something we have to live with but we can use that to our advantage when OCing haswell since we can increase the speed on one particular core and decrease the speed on the others. In my experience there is a sweet spot where you can OC the "FSX core" to the max while keeping the other cores at a lower speed and keep the overall temps nice and cool.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said but I just find it interesting that this thread suggested that 5 GHz is something we will see in a distant future when many of us have been running 5+ Ghz for years. I did it on my 2600k and I do it on my 4770k. If you get bluescreens, you have either not OC'ed correctly or you are simply pushing the system beyond its limits. Of course, stress testing is an important part of any OC. You should obviously not run your system with unstable settings. You have to do your homework before starting that 9 hour flight.

i5 3570k 3.4ghz vs 4.5ghz 25% more fps per second or 4.8ghz 30% more. Overclocking is good for fsx, but getting 10 fps per second that extra overclock will bump it to up 13 or 14 fps still sluggish anyways .

 

Vast majority of settings in fsx do not require overclock unless your running high poly airplanes, and airports. Turn down setting or two and overclock not required. Maxium settings will never be achieved in fsx as it built in pre-multicore era.

LOD_RADIUS to 6 or more will bring even the most powerful 7GHz machines of the future to their knees, that is if OOM doesn't kill FSX first.

 

I'm running 5GHz Sandy Bridge on Corsair water cooling and most of the time it's smooth with LOD_RADIUS at 5.3. The only times the FPS drops is when I encounter tons of AI traffic. (e.g. JFK, LHR, FRA etc.) AI traffic seems to affect the FPS more, perhaps due to the fact that most AI traffic models I have were originally made for FS9.

Actually, I am running an LOD of 8.5 and am running 4.6 GHz. In the majority of scenarios I cannot perceive any framerate loss. Only when flying in big cities FPS can drop below 30. For the rest my settings are maxed out except for aircraft shadows, water, scenery ground shadows, and AI traffic (all off). 

 

It just depends on your settings mostly. High LOD settings + high AI will bring a system to it's knees, but running one of both could still be just fine.

 

Your fsx.CFG settings are also extremely important. One must-have setting is BP=0 which will increase FPS by 30-50%. 

 

For the rest, FPS isn't everything. I am running VSync 1/2 refresh rate in NVIDIA Inspector. This will give me 30 FPS in FSX without any lag whatsoever as long as 30 FPS is maintained. In some planes for some reason it will require me to use FSX' built-in framerate limiter to be set to 30 FPS. In demanding planes I can leave it at Unlimited. In default planes I cannot or I will see lag.

 

Also, it's not all about clockspeed. We are probably not going to see 5-7 GHz anytime soon. Clockspeed will actually drop a bit infact. But this is not a problem, because of the smaller architechture, which will result in better efficiency and better FPS. For example, Sandy Bridge @ 5.0 = Ivy Bridge @ 4.7 = Haswell @ 4.3

I am not convinced X-Plane is the successor to FSX. For one, despite the proclamations of the "Profits of BSODS and OOMs," I rarely encounter problems and have acceptable visuals with a two-year old 2500k overclocked to 4.5 and a 560 ti. Sure, there is some tweaking, but in that respect I view flight simming as a hobby, like ham radio, or RC airplanes, as opposed to playing call of duty, something you just "plug and play."

 

Second, X-Plane, as a 64 bit platform, may have potential, but there is no guarantee that potential will be reached. From what I have seen, it offers some performance and visual advantages, but after all of this time still lacks in some of the basic "simulation" features that have been present for some time in the FS series. In order for there to be a substantial shift in users, X-Plane needs to have equivalent simulation aspects, be it AI, seasons and weather, etc, that exist in FSX, and even then it may not be enough - I also think the visual experience in X-Plane needs to be not just marginally better, but significantly better, to justify users and developers abandoning their investment in a platform that is not a significant step behind visually. From what I've seen X-Plane looks beautiful, but not earth shattering, life changing beautiful. And that doesn't take into account the library of highly detailed add-on sceneries available for FSX that has taken years and hundreds of people to develop - how many years before X-plane can match that. I don't know that it ever can.

The 4.5-4.7GHz limit is common on a stock Haswell CPU. With the simple IHS fix however you will usually get way, way more efficient cooling and therefore better OC capabilities.

Snip.....

 

This is a waste for FSX, been there and done it too many times. Great for benchmark contest but that's about it.

 

first off the you may lower the temps of Haswells but they will still hit a wall no matter how voltage you throw.

 My I5 was a good example of this, Delided it still took way too much voltage to get it to pass testing and steady for a mere 4.5 OC, My I7 Haswell is doing 4.4 on air and I havent even pushed it yet, not delided and never will. Not worth the time, the risk, dont have to worry about TIM drying out underneath the HIS etc.

i5 3570k 3.4ghz vs 4.5ghz 25% more fps per second or 4.8ghz 30% more. Overclocking is good for fsx, but getting 10 fps per second that extra overclock will bump it to up 13 or 14 fps still sluggish anyways .

 

Vast majority of settings in fsx do not require overclock unless your running high poly airplanes, and airports. Turn down setting or two and overclock not required. Maxium settings will never be achieved in fsx as it built in pre-multicore era.

 

That is only because you have an AMD brother...Ha

Well, yes for instance on the global terrain engine:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx

 

So says the under powered non overclocked user...do you actually have a airplane model or do you fly with just the propeller spinning?

 

I was just wondering if those slow AMD processors can handle both, Hah!

 

Go out and fly today Jim, you already have more post on here than Adam and Eve!

 

No need to OC so no crashes for me. My CPU is just fine thanks.

 

 

Jim - sorry, man - you are dead wrong. I don't know who does your overclocking, or if you do it yourself - but there's been something wrong for a long time, for you to come up with such a blatantly untrue statement.

 

Shall we visit the CTD forum?

 

 

The 4.5-4.7GHz limit is common on a stock Haswell CPU. With the simple IHS fix however you will usually get way, way more efficient cooling and therefore better OC capabilities.

 

Oh look, I need to take a knife to a $279 CPU, great!.

 

 

Vast majority of settings in fsx do not require overclock unless your running high poly airplanes, and airports. Turn down setting or two and overclock not required. Maxium settings will never be achieved in fsx as it built in pre-multicore era.

 

Exactly!

No need to OC so no crashes for me. My CPU is just fine thanks.

 

 

 

You have no clue...And you are stuck on a weak CPU that must really sux huh?

 

I don't blame you for spending all your time posting instead of flying. Ha!

 

But I do agree with you, taking a knife, it is not needed really and not worth it when you can just buy the CPU click the auto OC to what ever you want 4.2/4.4 and no worries, couldn't be any eisier and spend your money and time with family and friends.

 

Cheers! 

Oh look, I need to take a knife to a $279 CPU, great!.

 

 

It's silly that intel did it like this but the fix is trivial and safe if done correctly. I did it and I'm sure enjoying my smooth and stable FSX.

The alternative seem to be to sit here and dream about that wonderful day when your stock 7 GHz CPU arrives. I'm choosing not to wait.

The 4.5-4.7GHz limit is common on a stock Haswell CPU. With the simple IHS fix however you will usually get way, way more efficient cooling and therefore better OC capabilities.

 

Delidding is a great way to lower temps, but it will only buy you a few hundred MHz in actual clock speed gains. The chip itself has a limit where applying more voltage just won't unlock higher clock speeds, it will only increase temperatures.

 

If you can run AVX tests with HT enabled at 5 GHz and not crash or overheat, you truly have a remarkable "golden" 4770K chip. The highest one I've seen so far is a 4670K on another forum that does 4.8 GHz. However that's obviously without HT, which helps keep temperatures down and can unlock another 100 - 200 MHz.

 

Even then, the difference between 4.5 and 5 GHz is just 11%, which translates to a best-case FPS improvement of about 2 FPS in the typical 20-FPS range of a detailed add-on airport+addon aircraft.

You have no clue...And you are stuck on a weak CPU that must really sux huh?

 

I don't blame you for spending all your time posting instead of flying. Ha!

 

But I do agree with you, taking a knife, it is not needed really and not worth it when you can just buy the CPU click the auto OC to what ever you want 4.2/4.4 and no worries, couldn't be any eisier and spend your money and time with family and friends.

 

Cheers! 

 

What really sucks is overpaying for a CPU and getting nothing for it because you need to sit there and OC it to death instead of flying FSX, as I am right now.

Hey, Jim - here's some nice dusk pics of what FS Global Real Weather looks like over the Anacortes area with some decent aeroplanes, using a 5-gig proc, and feeding a TH2Go - 3840 x 1024... and using that 'broken' DX10....

Note the aircraft lighting, the water and the "old" Rick Piper DH Chipmunk. If you look at top left - note the frame rate. V-e-e-ery smoooth. Cockpit shadows. No stuttering. No OOM's. No shimmering. No vsync tearing. At 5-gig, this is almost everywhere, under these conditions. Anacortes is a known hog, and so is this level of cloud, and doing it at 3840 x 1024 at high detail is no mean feat. FSX can be extremely reliable and satisfying when it's done right. Yes - one needs a good proc, but honestly - I've never had a bad proc. Lucky, I guess.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but I just find it interesting that this thread suggested that 5 GHz is something we will see in a distant future when many of us have been running 5+ Ghz for years.

 

Can you do a simple test on your 5Ghz Haswell for me if you have ORBX FTX PNW & REX Essentials Plus & PMDG 737NGX & an nV video card?  Here it is, very simple & quick:

 

1.  Set every single variable in FSX to maximum:  that's all traffic of every type, clouds out to 110M, ground & aircraft shadows on, every possible setting to the absolute maximum possible in the customized settings dialogue in FSX.  Set UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0 in fsx.cfg

 

2.  Install REX cumulous cloud set #24 at the 2048 density setting.

 

3.  Change LOD in fsx.cfg to 6.5 after you've maxed out all settings in FSX, then closed FSX so that 6.5 does not revert to 4.5.

 

4.  In nV Inspector:  vsync at 1/2 refresh rate, frame limiter at 30, AF 16x, AA_MODE_METHOD_SUPERVCAA_64X...., and 8x Supersampling.

 

5.  Start FSX & load up the NGX engines running at KSEA 34R at dawn, weather set at Major Thunderstorm.

 

What are you seeing for frame rate sitting on 34R?