I must be doing something wrong.....

I only get around 20 fps in FSX with all settings on high running in 1920*1200.

I have a fairly new machine (see specs in sig) and I have added a line to the fax.cfg that should make FSX use all the cores of the cpu (which moved me from 13fps to 20fps).

What settings will give me the highest fps boost?

Is it normal that FSX runs so "slow" on a new machine?

I have not installed any add-ons like REX 2.0. I am using FSX accelerator version.

OS is windows 7 64bit.

20 fps seems a little low for your PC. Especially without any addons installed. That being said, FSX performance can change dramatically based on scenery and locations. NYC for example gives lower FPS then other parts of the world. Add on to that Manhattan X and FDdreamteam JFK scenery and your lucky to still get 25 FPS! Are you getting 20 FPS everywhere? I have almost the same PC as you and get an average of 35 in most scenerios and I have everything running at mostly med-high settings.

Try turning off Ground scenery shadows and turn the water slider to somewhere in the middle. (These are big frame rate hogs.) Also are you using any aftermarket Ai programs? if so, try turning down the Ai to 60-70 %.

Currently, there isnt a PC made that can run FSX at over 35 fps consistantly in all high traffic areas. Ill get 60 FPS in some places and down to 23 in others. All depends on how many blds need to be rendered and how optimised the plane is im flying.

Try this tweaking tool for FSX. Its safe to use and works really nice. It does the work for you.
http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html

Hope this helps,

Rob

Only 8GB of memory kicking your butt too assuming you're using Win7...doesn't that use up 2GB?

I ended up buying up to 12GB and still get below 20fps in some places using FSX tweaks. There's a lot to be said for having 124GB of crap to load for one sim

FSX relies more on CPU speed than on RAM. You say you have an i7 processor - but did you already overclock it? The i7 runs by default on 3.4GHz - but you should be able to clock at least 25% higher. This will immediately give you a 25% boost in framerate.

Thx for all the feedback so fare.

I think it is crazy if I need more than 8 giga of mem

I have not clocked the i7 up and I probably are not gonna do that at the moment as I am afraid that it will get to warm if all cores are running under load.

I have primarily been flying around over my local area (small airport called sonderborg here in Denmark), so no fancy big cities or anything. But some water.

I will try the tweak link and see what happens.

I hope the new flight sim from MS will make better use of the GFX gnu, because I can play rise of flight and DCS a-10 maxed out with very good frame rates and they are many times more beautiful.

Well I guess I need to tweak around.

Ok tried to update the fsx.cfg with the link you send me and tweaked around alittle. Not I hit 100+ fps At least when I do random airports.

I still have problems in my local airport, I think there must be some old scenario active from when I at some point had a Denmark map installed.

Thx for the help it is much more fun to fly when everything is running smooth

I've got 4 Gb which cope with Windows 7 and FSX just fine.

I seem to have a similar system. I get around 25 fps f.e. in my PMDG Jetstream low, and around 30 fps (were I locked FSX) higher. With big sceneries like EDDF it can be below 20 fps on the runway.

That said, I have GEX, UTX, REX OD, FS Global X at minimum, and a ton of Airports.

Regarding overclocking, as already said, FSX likes high GHz numbers, the stock 3,4 Ghz of the 2600k is more ot less the minimum. You are wasting the potential performance of your fast CPU. I run it with affinityMask 14 @ 4,5 Ghz without any problems. I have a huge after-market cooler though (Thermalright Archon) to keep the system cool and silent.

edit: fps rely heavily on the ingame settings. Performance killers are ai traffic, cars and ships if set too high.

Work yourself through this guide, helps a lot:

http://www.simforums.com/forums/topic29041.html

edit No. 2: 8 GB should be enough for FSX, I seldom get Memory usage higher than 55 % with 8 GB. It`s definatly better than 4 GB as it helps avoiding OOMs.

Seriously, try the exact same settings but turn on DX10 preview. Then test your FPS. Remember, check dX10 preview, then exit the game, then go back in (DX10 preview will now be activated), then fly --- same graphics settings, same airport, same plane (use a stock plane not PMDG add-on), same everything as above. Your FPS should go up noticeably. You may not want to play with DX10 preview checked but the option is there. You might as well test it. I did. My FPS is double with DX10. Not everyone gets 100% increase but most do get an increase. Where I get high teens with DX9, I get mid to high 30s with DX10 preview checked. Your specs are better than mine, and my FPS are humming. I'm also running at 1920x1200.

There is a link on here somewhere to a magazine article by a programmer who figured out that FSX was programmed in a way that it doesn't take full advantage of today's fastest video cards. As someone already mentioned, FSX is CPU, not GPU, demanding. Anyway, the programmer stated in his article that the ideal setup for FSX is actually one that is counterintuitive to most people. The ideal set up is a very fast CPU - one of the fastest available today - combined with a video card from an older generation. If he's right, you might get better frame rates with the same PC but mated to a much slower card, like a 9800 GT or even older. It would be interesting to test which older card is actually the best for FSX combined with an i7 CPU. The problem is almost nobody tries it because it is so counterintuitive. 99% of us follow this logic: you get a newest generation CPU chip, you want to match it with a newest generation video card. FSX seems to be different. You should get a boost with a faster, newer, more powerful vid card, but maybe all things will actually run smoother with the RIGHT older generation card to with your new PC. That's the quirky-ness of FSX.

The Sandy Bridge "k" CPUs are built to be overclocked - the k means that the multiplier is unlocked so it's pretty safe to do so. One thing though - you must have a better cooler than is included in the box. Tweakers.net - a Dutch computer enthusiasts website - suggests to use the Scythe Mugen 2 Rev B CPU cooler - it's effective, low-noise and at 34 Euro very friendly priced. But of course it's all up to you!

Also see http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_core_i5_2300_2400_2500k_sandy_bridge_review,5.html for a review of the Sandy Bridge i5 processors
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/asrock_z68_extreme4_gen3_review,5.html - overclocked to 5GHz with the ASRock z68

I've been silently following this thread, and I must say that venetubo config tweaking tool made a huge difference to my fps. I went from around 12fps up to a consistent 35-40fps after applying the new config. I should point out that that's flying around Orbx's Darrington Municipal in a Carenado Cessna 18, using otherwise stock FSX.

I have a 'k' series i5 so I'll give overclocking a spin tonight, to see if I can squeeze a few more frames out. I bought quite a high end heatsink, so it's about time I put it to good use.

Thanks for the advice everybody, and consider this thread bookmarked.

After doing some more testing I have a steady 30+ fps in the areas that gave me problems before, probably do to some old map scenario for Denmark that I have installed.

Every where else I get 60+ fps So I guess I do not need to overclock the cpu for now

Still,

you are wasting around 25% potential of your CPU.

That said, OCing with Sandy Bridge isn`t any Voodoo or Rocket science anymore. Enable it in BIOS, type in the new multiplier, done. Ask letterboy, he was a little reluctant at first too.

Even with Prime, which stresses the CPU on all cores at 100% all the time, my CPU doesn`t go over 70°C. When playing (read the cores don`t running at max. load all the time), the temps are usually in the low sixties max.

Using AlacrityPC as a container for extra software (ASX, RC4, etc...) also benefits FSX because it seems to throw some Windows processes into the swap file, which in turn leaves more free Ram for FSX to run in. I've seen more stable framerates and less Ram usage overall (94-96% -> 75-78% at peak times each).

Generally, I prefer my Ram fast instead of large, since FSX also benefits from high memory frequency and lower timings.


The 8GB kit of my G.Skill ECOs was nearly unaffordable. Going for 4GB and a SSD was the more sensible option.

If Flight is CPU dependent, that's fine by me, IF it can take advantage of multiple cores.

That's the issue with FSX. Many of us have fantastically powerful processors, it's just that FSX can only use 1 core.


It's truly a tragedy. We finally have CPUS that have could handle the power of high end Flight sims....yet we have so very few titles that take advantage of them

FSX uses core #1 for most of its main threads (Flight Modeling, AI handling, etc...) while the other cores get used for scenery related threads. This might be the reason why FSX reacts so well to CPU frequency instead of number of cores. The main threads get processed faster and thus make the whole sim run better.

So the only thing FSX suffers from is a CPU load distribution imbalance. Can't really blame ACES for that since at the time of making, CPUs with multiple cores were only getting into mainstream market and no one knew how it'd play out.

Hence, I guess Flight *will* be optimized for better multicore usage.

With affinityMask set to 14, I have relative low load on core 0, 50 % and above on core 1 and around 60 to 100 % on core 2 + 3.

So in fact, FSX uses multiple cores, but it has to be setup to do it. Of course it is still far from optimized for multi-core cpus.

What's this fax.cfg and what to change to make it use all cores? I can find no such file in my FSX installation.