Biggest FPS Boost

[TwoLate]

I believe that it is better to run games at your native resolution. Is your native resolution 1600x 1200?

[brewber19]

Me too ;)

 

Vista x64 with a E6600 o/c to 3Ghz, 4Gb of ram and a GF8800GTX = excellent frames at 1920x1200.

 

 

That's what I've done.

[diveplane]

That's what I've done.

 

how many frames have you gained switching to vista from xp?

[diveplane]

i got me a 4 year old pc. still on AGP its running at 2 ghz, 1 meg of ram. with a GF7800GS or is it GT. im not sure. its the better one of the 2 with 512 meg ram.

running 1152x86 with max settings produces about 9 FPS. if i increase my resoultion to 1600 x 1200. for some reason im knockin out 25 fps in cockpit and 35-40 in external. within a mission with objects rendered too. can anyone explain this.. ?

 

 

imo useless playing at 9 fps slide show to say the least.

Edited January 8, 2009 by diveplane

[zika1234]

Today i overclocked my Intel dual core e6400, to 3,2 ghz, and i have tried the 3rd mission in short campaign - the one where you need to escort truck convoy in mountain pass - and now after enemy units engage friendlies, i have smooth gameplay - before oc-ing, i had a lot of stutters, and i couldnt aim propery - now everything runs smooth.

I have ga-965sp s3 mainboard, and BFG geforce 8800 gt + 4 gb of supertalent ram. Oh, and also i have Vista 32bit, and two cores set affinty utility running in background.

[Debio]

My memory is corsair 2GIG each stick which run at 1066mhz (To be honest with you I have not a clue what thats means ...snip...

 

the 1066MHz spec indicates how much data the chip can pass over a given period of time. 1066MHz chips can pass twice as much data per second as the older/slower 833MHz chips.

 

cheers...

[okolovos oko]

how u can se you fps numbers..i tried like in lock on but it doesnt work for me..checked key setup but cant find it..geting old..

[Icarus2]

how u can se you fps numbers..i tried like in lock on but it doesnt work for me..checked key setup but cant find it..geting old..

 

Either ALT-Pause/Break or CTL-Pause/Break, I forget right now, I'm at work.

[miguez]

RCtrl+Pause. Or use fraps.

[viper3two]

I don't want to hijack this thread but it is on the same subject and it is senseless posting another question with the same topic. I am looking for an fps boost as well. My current rig is Q6600 on a DellXPS 700, stock mobo, 8800GTS 640mb, 4gig ddr2, running XPPro sp3. On the Dell you cant get into the bios to overclock so I am considering replacing the whole thing. Have been looking at the Antec Nine Hundred box, I7-920, 4gb DDR3, Intel X58 board, using my 8800gts running Vista Ultimate.

I currently get 20-30 fps alone, in the teens with heavy stuff going on. Do you think that with the above proc/mem/vid I would see much improvement? Has anybody got an I7 yet?

Thanks

Edited January 9, 2009 by viper3two

[Ali Fish]

my native was 1152x864, frame rates nearly trebled moving to 1600x1200. bizzare. possible bottleneck effect going on i think with the cpu.

[Boulund]

I thought I make my first post in here to share my findings in overclocking processor and graphics card. I think it's better to put it in this thread than to post a new thread about this.

First off, I've got the following setup:

 

Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.67 GHz stock)

2 GB of Corsair XMS2 DDR2 RAM (2 x 1024MB in dual channel)

GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB (Albatron, G80 core, stock at 500/1200/800 MHz engine/shader/mem)

MSI P35 Platinum motherboard

 

I've had my processor clocked at 3.2 GHz since the day I got it and been completely satisfied with that. Then Black Shark comes along and really puts pressure on my processor - I read about it in the forums and realize, hey maybe I should overclock some more to see what happens?

 

I'm not very fond of playing games in other resolutions than my native (1680x1050) and prefer games running at at least 50-60 FPS. I prefer to use anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering but see no real need to go beyond 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

This wasn't really tested using scientific methods and systematic variations, but some results can be seen anyhow.

 

Lower (initial) settings:

C2D @ 3.2 GHz

GeForce @ 645/1493/933 Mhz

BS with everything at low except texture detail set at high, no AA or AF.

This gave an overall FPS in BS of: ~30-40 in cockpit and about 50-60 FPS outside view.

 

Higher settings:

C2D @ 3.5 Ghz

GeForce @ 660/1528/1005 Mhz

BS with texture, scenes and view distance at high as well as heat blur on, 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

This gave an overall FPS in BS of: ~60 in cockpit and about 100-110 FPS outside view.

 

 

Conclusion:

A faster processor is definitely the biggest improvement to get higher FPS. A minor clock difference of about 10% gave a boost of almost 50% in FPS in the cockpit. I haven't tried using AA or AF at the initial settings, but I think that there had not been a significant hit on FPS, should I've used 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

 

I hope this information helps someone with something they are wondering.

[miguez]

I don't want to hijack this thread but it is on the same subject and it is senseless posting another question with the same topic. I am looking for an fps boost as well. My current rig is Q6600 on a DellXPS 700, stock mobo, 8800GTS 640mb, 4gig ddr2, running XPPro sp3. On the Dell you cant get into the bios to overclock so I am considering replacing the whole thing. Have been looking at the Antec Nine Hundred box, I7-920, 4gb DDR3, Intel X58 board, using my 8800gts running Vista Ultimate.

I currently get 20-30 fps alone, in the teens with heavy stuff going on. Do you think that with the above proc/mem/vid I would see much improvement? Has anybody got an I7 yet?

Thanks

 

Hi viper3two,

 

Lots of options, but the one that you might consider is to go to Vista. Some people see 50-100% increases, others only 3-4 fps.

 

Just an idea.

[miguez]

I thought I make my first post in here to share my findings in overclocking processor and graphics card. I think it's better to put it in this thread than to post a new thread about this.

First off, I've got the following setup:

 

Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.67 GHz stock)

2 GB of Corsair XMS2 DDR2 RAM (2 x 1024MB in dual channel)

GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB (Albatron, G80 core, stock at 500/1200/800 MHz engine/shader/mem)

MSI P35 Platinum motherboard

 

I've had my processor clocked at 3.2 GHz since the day I got it and been completely satisfied with that. Then Black Shark comes along and really puts pressure on my processor - I read about it in the forums and realize, hey maybe I should overclock some more to see what happens?

 

I'm not very fond of playing games in other resolutions than my native (1680x1050) and prefer games running at at least 50-60 FPS. I prefer to use anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering but see no real need to go beyond 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

This wasn't really tested using scientific methods and systematic variations, but some results can be seen anyhow.

 

Lower (initial) settings:

C2D @ 3.2 GHz

GeForce @ 645/1493/933 Mhz

BS with everything at low except texture detail set at high, no AA or AF.

This gave an overall FPS in BS of: ~30-40 in cockpit and about 50-60 FPS outside view.

 

Higher settings:

C2D @ 3.5 Ghz

GeForce @ 660/1528/1005 Mhz

BS with texture, scenes and view distance at high as well as heat blur on, 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

This gave an overall FPS in BS of: ~60 in cockpit and about 100-110 FPS outside view.

 

 

Conclusion:

A faster processor is definitely the biggest improvement to get higher FPS. A minor clock difference of about 10% gave a boost of almost 50% in FPS in the cockpit. I haven't tried using AA or AF at the initial settings, but I think that there had not been a significant hit on FPS, should I've used 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

 

I hope this information helps someone with something they are wondering.

 

Hi Boulund,

 

Awesome test, thanks! Did you by any chance do just the CPU or just the GPU, to see which one has a higher impact? That would be extremely interesting.

 

Thanks again,

[Boulund]

Hi Boulund,

 

Awesome test, thanks! Did you by any chance do just the CPU or just the GPU, to see which one has a higher impact? That would be extremely interesting.

 

Thanks again,

 

I could try to just lower my processor clock back to 3.2 GHz to see what kind of performance I might get. Be right back

 

Update:

Well then. Since I updated my graphics card driver just recently these results might not be directly comparable to the ones I posted above.

 

Low clock, high settings:

C2D @ 3.2 Ghz (same as my earlier lower settings)

GeForce @ 660/1528/1005 Mhz (same as high setting previously)

BS with texture, scenes and view distance at high as well as heat blur on, 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

This gave an overall FPS in BS of: ~44 in cockpit and about 60-70 FPS outside view.

 

Hope this was the info you where looking for miguez ;)

Edited January 9, 2009 by Boulund
Update of info

[congo]

Im running a single core 3.2 overclocked to 4.0. When I,m playing off line I turn off all services before starting the sim. OS is XP and it runs smooth as silk. Memory is PC-6400 (Mushkin). I have not tried OCing that yet but it is on my to do list. My motherboard also provides for variations in the PCIE bus so I'll probably do some experimentation there also. I am running a Zalman heatpipe cooler on the old Prescott but it seems to be really stable at 4.0. Below 50C with the fan set on high. Video card is EVGA 9800GT overclocked to 650 and 950 with the fan running at 60. I have never checked fps I just go by what looks smooth to the eye. Tried runing PCIE and memory up but the system didn't seem to like that.

[miguez]

I could try to just lower my processor clock back to 3.2 GHz to see what kind of performance I might get. Be right back

 

Update:

Well then. Since I updated my graphics card driver just recently these results might not be directly comparable to the ones I posted above.

 

Low clock, high settings:

C2D @ 3.2 Ghz (same as my earlier lower settings)

GeForce @ 660/1528/1005 Mhz (same as high setting previously)

BS with texture, scenes and view distance at high as well as heat blur on, 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

This gave an overall FPS in BS of: ~44 in cockpit and about 60-70 FPS outside view.

 

Hope this was the info you where looking for miguez ;)

 

Hi Boulund,

 

Thanks for doing this! It looks like this is another evidence of what a lot of people were saying in here, that the CPU seems to be more important to BS than the GPU. You can tell from your tests that your videocard overclocking got you some improvement, but compared to your first test, I bet the CPU is the one responsible for the huge jump!

[TX-EcoDragon]

I don't want to hijack this thread but it is on the same subject and it is senseless posting another question with the same topic. I am looking for an fps boost as well. My current rig is Q6600 on a DellXPS 700, stock mobo, 8800GTS 640mb, 4gig ddr2, running XPPro sp3. On the Dell you cant get into the bios to overclock so I am considering replacing the whole thing. Have been looking at the Antec Nine Hundred box, I7-920, 4gb DDR3, Intel X58 board, using my 8800gts running Vista Ultimate.

I currently get 20-30 fps alone, in the teens with heavy stuff going on. Do you think that with the above proc/mem/vid I would see much improvement? Has anybody got an I7 yet?

Thanks

 

 

If I were you, I'd just get a new motherboard, and swap those parts to it, and add a good CPU heatsink fan (like the Thermalright Ultima/120). Other than the 2.4GHz clock speed, you don't need much of an upgrade, and with a good aircooler that CPU should be easy to get to 2.8 or 3.0GHz.

 

If you want to go a step up from that, then buy a new motherboard, CPU cooler, and an E8400 which will easily run 3.6-3.8GHz, and in some cases over 4.0GHz.

[TX-EcoDragon]

My WIP benchmarks in BlackShark can be found here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=599456&postcount=24

I saw a very linear increase in fps with CPU clock speeds - that was the ONLY thing I could change to get much improvement in FPS. Even in game quality settings did little to improve things much, medium and high was a few tenths of a second avg fps different, so I just run at max quality, since it's either that or low, and OC the CPU!

At max in game quality, 2xAA, 8XAF, 1920x1200 res, I saw average fps increase approximately 2.8 fps for every 300MHz faster the CPU ran. This might allow you some means to guess how different an E6600 is from an E8500 (ignoring the Cache differences) etc.

While my video card OC is minimal, from experience in other titles (like most fps type games) that OC will show a tangible increase if the CPU isn't holding things back, and you can see there that it only added a few tenths of a frame rate!

Also, regarding the Corei7, well if other sims are any indication, there is no compelling reason to make the change from a late model Core2Duo. FSX, my primary means for judging hardware, the i7 is identical to a similarly clocked Core2Duo, but just about twice the price to build that system than a comparable C2D.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_111a.html

I don't want to hijack this thread but it is on the same subject and it is senseless posting another question with the same topic. I am looking for an fps boost as well. My current rig is Q6600 on a DellXPS 700, stock mobo, 8800GTS 640mb, 4gig ddr2, running XPPro sp3. On the Dell you cant get into the bios to overclock so I am considering replacing the whole thing. Have been looking at the Antec Nine Hundred box, I7-920, 4gb DDR3, Intel X58 board, using my 8800gts running Vista Ultimate.

I currently get 20-30 fps alone, in the teens with heavy stuff going on. Do you think that with the above proc/mem/vid I would see much improvement? Has anybody got an I7 yet?

Thanks

I could try to just lower my processor clock back to 3.2 GHz to see what kind of performance I might get. Be right back

Update:

Well then. Since I updated my graphics card driver just recently these results might not be directly comparable to the ones I posted above.

Low clock, high settings:

C2D @ 3.2 Ghz (same as my earlier lower settings)

GeForce @ 660/1528/1005 Mhz (same as high setting previously)

BS with texture, scenes and view distance at high as well as heat blur on, 4xFSAA and 16xAF.

This gave an overall FPS in BS of: ~44 in cockpit and about 60-70 FPS outside view.

Hope this was the info you where looking for miguez

Edited January 9, 2009 by TX-EcoDragon

[viper3two]

Tx, I really appreciate that information and great post that you did on the fps comparison by oc'ing the cpu. I might save some bux and do as you said, just use what I have, get a good heat sink and a board that will let me clock it. Thanks again.

[TX-EcoDragon]

Tx, I really appreciate that information and great post that you did on the fps comparison by oc'ing the cpu. I might save some bux and do as you said, just use what I have, get a good heat sink and a board that will let me clock it. Thanks again.

 

Oh, one more thing. . .with your Dell XPS, you will want to verify that the powersupply is a standard ATX powersupply and not some sort of proprietary Dell PSU as they used to be. I have heard that the newer XPS machines don't do this anymore, but you will want to check! These were dangerous since the connectors were identical, it was easy to think you could plug a Dell PSU into a standard motherboard, but if you did, poof!

 

You may also need a new case if it doesn't have the proper standoffs to allow for standard motherboards.

[emenance]

Do both? Overclocking doesn't cost anything the last time I checked.

 

this is incorrect, Overclocking and not knowing how to do it can cause an instable system. You can waste hours upon hours of your life recovering from a trashed OS and haveing to redo your LOMAC install and all the other mods and bla bla bla. Sorry, I have alot of repect for the bla bla bla but im in a hurry.

 

If your into flight simming you need great quality hardware and a stable system. Some overclocking is great however you have to study the limits of other people and decide on a system that is PROVEN. 3.0 ghz is where I have been for a year on my setup in my sig. Its stable as a rock and works. I also use back up exec desktop version to insure I do not suffer the weeks of wasted time in my life restoring an OS and all the flight sim requirements.

 

Just a word of warning from someone who knows better. Knows how to back it up too.

[viper3two]

Eco, I checked the power supply and it *appears* to be a standard, but thanks for warning me of that, I was going to use it since it is a good 1000 watt ps. I will research this and find out for sure. Would rather spend an extra $150 for a ps than blow everything I have :thumbup:

 

Oh....and check this link out, looks like I would have to mod the hell outta the case. This is the exact case I have in the following link. Probably easier to get another one:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=186919

 

Thanks again for the heads up on this.....

 

Oh, one more thing. . .with your Dell XPS, you will want to verify that the powersupply is a standard ATX powersupply and not some sort of proprietary Dell PSU as they used to be. I have heard that the newer XPS machines don't do this anymore, but you will want to check! These were dangerous since the connectors were identical, it was easy to think you could plug a Dell PSU into a standard motherboard, but if you did, poof!

 

You may also need a new case if it doesn't have the proper standoffs to allow for standard motherboards.

Edited January 10, 2009 by viper3two