FSX TEST REPORT
Page 1
Upgrading for Microsoft's Flight Simulator X
Microsoft's new flight simulator release can make even the fastest PC bog down. But check out these tests before purchasing any upgrades. Several upgrades were made to a basic system with disappointing results. Switching to a dual disk RAID 0 did markedly speed up loading of scenery files but increased memory, a dual core processor and upgraded video card all failed to bump up frame rates.
These were the upgrades that were tested:
- Dual Core VS. Single Core CPU
- RAID VS. Single disk drives
- Vista VS. Windows XP
- 1 Gig VS. 2 Gig RAM
- Dual 6800 XT cards (SLI) VS. Single 6800 XT and 7900 GT cards
NOTE: About Frame Rate numbers for FSX
In the chart below frame rates were measured with identical FSX scenery, display, animation, effects and detail settings. The only difference between the tests is the way the airplane was flown!
Test A, a 120 second long benchmark, was performed as viewed within the Virtual Cockpit. The zoom level was set at 60% (zoom level significantly impacts frame rate).
The benchmark was started on the runway and continued throughout a take-off climb.
Test B was performed within a 2D cockpit during a level flight at an altitude of 5000 feet. The flight covered the same landscape as located on Test A.
Testing for Maximum Graphics and CPU Loading
In our tests we attempted to benchmark worse case conditions (Test A, above), that is, with high load conditions for both the CPU and GPU(s). Benchmarks were started on the runway and preceded at low altitude through take-off and climb. One of the most demanding landscapes, Princess Juliana International, was used. This landscape includes airport and city buildings, traffic, water and other special effects and undulating hills. Since weather also makes a difference the tests were run in "fair weather" conditions with a moderately high density of clouds in view.
 |
Upgrading to VISTA |
