Benchmark Results: Flight Simulator X
Although I’ve lamented the gradual downfall of the flight simulator with a number of readers via email, culminating earlier this year with the news that Microsoft laid off the entire Flight Simulator team, I continue to receive requests for the three-year old Flight Simulator X.
With Service Packs 1 and 2 installed (and DirectX 10 enabled), we set out to give the notoriously CPU-hungry test one more showing. Alas, with the frame rate cap disabled, the FRAPS results from a straight flight at the same time/date kept coming back with inconsistent scores. Therefore, we set the game to run at its Ultra High Quality pre-configured settings, which include a frame rate target bump from 15 to 20 fps. This is the way the game would be played, and it’s going to illustrate a very important point that we’ll circle back to in the conclusion.
For the most part, all of these configurations deliver excellent baseline performance in FS X. When a platform falls short, the addition CrossFire or SLI easily brings it back up to 20 frames. The GeForce GTX 285 is the only exception on the Phenom II platform, as it doesn’t support SLI. This is a flight simulator, though. For most of its pre-defined configurations, Microsoft specifies a cap of 15 fps. The fact that we’re able to achieve the Ultra High cap across this wide range of configurations should help assure the sim fans out there that any of these modern setups are ample for the aging title.
Interesting..whilst the Phenom II is a refined core rather than a new design, it still seems able to hold it's weight. It's also apparent that even the fastest Core i5's and i7's are getting some great results not from nVidia cards, but from AMD/ATI.
^ Source: single-card configurations, i.e. what most people can afford.
"Running at 1680x1050 represents a solid baseline for mainstream gamers, while 2560x1600 serves as today’s Holy Grail."
With so many people attaching their PCs to 1080p TVs why do we consistenly see a lack of 1920x1080 resolution results? Besides, many people still use top quality 17" & 19" monitors with 1280x1024 resolutions.
@up:
At 1280x1024 you sure as hell don't need Tri SLI 285 or CrossfireX 4870x2. In fact single 4850 will do.
This makes me rethink my whole i5/i7 upgrade at the first of the year.
I'm guessing my Q6600 @3.6 is alittle faster then the Q9550 used in the tests.
Maybe a i5 and 2x4770 GPU might do some good at a very low price?
the Q9550 was only clocked @ 2.83GHz, they should atleast used the Q9650 or OC the Q9550 to 3.4GHz like the PII 965
Well. Hello There. I want to share with you guys. Hello there!
@kasperg
then why not clock the i7 920 to 4GHz and all of the others accordingly?