6300 3dmark to 8300 noticeable diffrence in FSX?

I am wondering if going from a M11xr1 to a M11xr3 would add much of a increase in the frame rate of FSX?

M11xr1 6300 3dmark06

M11xr3 8300 3dmark06

 

Flight Simulator X needs raw CPU power to run, since its kinda unoptimized.
But i think it should run better on the Alienware M11x R3 since it uses SB CPU that can turbo boost. (I hope at least.)

Also always be sure that your FSX install runs patched to SP2.

 

How about doing a PLL pinmod to get yours to 2.0-2.1Ghz, then applying the 0.95V vbios to get a greater gpu overclock? You'll get over 8k in 3dmark06.

REF:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...ock-m11x-r1-slg-hardmod-only.html#post7049385
http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...-flashing-increase-voltage-7.html#post7369740

 

FSX needs A LOT of CPU power. I'm talking 3GHz dual-core and up, quad-core even better.

 

Fsx gets more fps with a higher clocked Dual Core compared to a Quad unless at the same clock rates. All that matters to Fsx is clock speed. However, an SB CPU with Turbo boost, even if a Quad should do fine.

 

Thanks for the info guys. I really forgot about the part that the cpu plays in the framerate of FSX. I will have to get to learning more about the diffrence between core su4100 and the new I5 Sandy Bridge CPU.

 

I have FSX ( if you want, we can race ), and I will install it again, and will say how I run it. Last time I played was maxed 1080p DX10 but with target frames set to 40. ( I have an i7 720QM and a 5730 with 6GB RAM ).

 

So how do you get that sucker to stay on the tray table at 27,000 ft?

 

I use my Saitek X52 Pro Cost me 180€, but it was totally worth the price

I stil didn't install; was busy with OC'ing my GPU ; perhaps tomorrow, not gonna promise though, it'll be one heck of a busy week for me...

But I remember I ran flawlessly with all, ALL settings maxed at 1080p. As I set the target frames to 40, I never dropped below

 

Are you sure that applies when you are on the ground? You can get 40 FPS easily when all you seeing is clouds and blue skies...

 

When my target FPS were on 20, when I was in the ground, the FPS maintained 30+. When in the sky looking at clouds + water = FPS drops. Though I had DX10 enabled.

 

I thought tha the target rate setting was to keep the frame rate from jumping around too much. Setting the frame rate to 20 would mean that it would max out at that frame rate not go above but could go below it. to keep the senery from jumping around too much.

 

Borrowed my friends "regular" version of Flight Simulator X, patched it up to Service Pack 2 and tested it out on my computer.
(Specs in Raptr link.)

I did custom settings on the first run.
I just slided all the settings bar i could find as high as possible.

So it was all max, Dx10 on and running at 1920x1080x32.
I choose the smaller Boeing plane and took off from Heatrow airport in England.

At ground level i got around 15 fps. xD

 

Yeah FSX is known to be one of the WORST optimized games in history of man. Sometimes people say it is even WORSE than Crysis 1. The game itself doesn't have a lot of graphical stuff that needs to be rendered, it is that it does a horrible job at rendering everything in its environment when you fly technically across the whole globe at a time, therefore your CPU and GPU gets clogged loading all the trees and buildings as you keep flying and flying and totally doesn't dump everything that you flew past and stuff and caches everything you go past. Urrgh.

 

@ DEgleson:

Awsome rig to play FSX on highest settings and still get 15 fps.

I am not ever thinking that i would ever be able to max out FSX I just want a decent smooth frame rate around 27 fps with some detail and maybe able to fly my PDMG planes which I can't do with the m11xr1.

wondering wether I should go m11r3 or m14x for FiSX. Yes I know it seems as though the m14x should be a done deal, but I really love the battery and size of the m11x.

 

That's the reason why I stick to fs2004 and x-plane. Fsx always ran like crap whether it was on a c2d/Hd3650, c2d/9800m GS, c2d/FX3700M, i5/hd5850...

 

I just modded my R1 CPU to 1.73GHz, and o/c'd my GPU so my 3DMark06 is ~ 7300. I can install FSX and let you know how it runs. But FS9 (2004) will definitely be better unless there's absolute necessity for FSX I'd avoid it on the meager performing M11x no matter what flavor.

 

It's not so much that it's unoptimized as it's just got a TON of geometry to deal with. More than Crysis, because you can't see nearly as much area as you can in Crysis. Massive terrain is still a very tough problem.

 

I agree with you Pitabread. In games like Crysis although they are 3D you still don't have the math and graphic problems that FSX has. A plane does not stay on the path or sidewalk it moves in all three dimensions and the graphics have to reflect this movement.

This is making me wonder if I need a M14x? so hard to decide.