2. Administrators Jabo Posted January 1, 2009 2. Administrators Share Posted January 1, 2009 OK, here's mine to start the ball rolling - ~S~ Jabo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold_Gambler Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 I got 1079 (all tests) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HH_RitterCuda Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 got a link to the software? Here you go m8 - http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DD_Merdog Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Hmmmm.... I got a 673.5 what does it mean? Merdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum FoolTrottel Posted January 2, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Share Posted January 2, 2009 825.5 Link: PassMark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Now this is interesting. I ran another test and used FS Auto Start to turn some of the processes off and this was the result. Not sure why it shows only a partial test. I checked all tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonar Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 At least it runs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Merdog: It means we need to do some upgrading I got a 637.7 on my dual Xenon comp. I also found out that Hyperthreading was disabled on my motherboard. So I went in and enabled it. I'm not really upset with my results. My hard drive is an old IDE, the video card is an nVidia that was made for workstations and not speed (Quadro 290 NVS), and I am only using 4 Gig of RAM. I can up the RAM tremendously (16 GB) and buy a hot gaming video card and either hi-speed SATA or SCSI hard drive. I haven't even started upgrading this comp and it got decent results. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 BG: I was wondering if I turned off some of the running processes like anti-virus and anti-spyware if the results would be different. Think I will go back and try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I ran the test again on the Xeon with anti-virus and anti-spyware turned off and got a 640.7 So running programs do have some effect on the rating. I just ran my laptop and I figured it would blow away the Xeon. No way. It scored only 563.4 That surprised me since it has plenty of RAM and a decent nVidia video card. It sure runs IL-2 okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum Sid Posted January 2, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Share Posted January 2, 2009 Ummm... 968.4 'All tests', but like BG got a 'partial test'. I think that was down to the CD reading section as I didn't have one in at the time and got an error when putting one in the drive. Cheerzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Good thinking Sid. I noticed that it said no CD in drive but didn't think any more of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I ran it again without FS Autostart and with a CD in the drive and this is what I got. I suspect I had an antivirus program running the first time I tried it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum Sid Posted January 2, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Share Posted January 2, 2009 Re-did mine with a disc in the drive and with Kaspersky off, got 980.4 as opposed to 968.4 last time. My lows are in the memory reading, cached and uncached, 2305 and 2274 MBytes/sec out of 3000 respectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snacko Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Hah! I beat Tonar's Ass! This was after running FSAutoStart, but I keep my AV & FW running because I don't have a router firewall. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediteo Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I came in at a gentlemans 359.6. I really need to get myself a new computer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I am too embarrassed to post mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) I am too embarrassed to post mine Aww c'mon Crash. Nobody's gonna poke fun at you. Not everyone can afford a high end comp. Heck, I'm using old workstations from 2004 that I'm upgrading. I sure can't afford one of those new whizbang comps. Plus don't forget that what is blazingly fast today will be putting along in a couple of years. I remember when I bought my Pentium 100 mhz comp. That was back when Windows newest release was Windows for Workgroups 3.1.1 I had the hottest thing going for about 3 months. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2. Administrators Jabo Posted January 2, 2009 Author 2. Administrators Share Posted January 2, 2009 Hi Dep, been doing some googling, there is no point in putting 16Gb of RAM in that Xeon unit of yours. 8Gb is all that Vista is capable of detecting (64 bit), and going above that will probably make matters worse as Vista will try and address the additional but make a hash of it and will wind up slowing the machine down. I suggest you go to 8Gb if you must, but save the cash on the additional memory and put it towards your graphics card. ~S~ Jabo P.S. Need to look into overclocking now as must find a way to beat Jim... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Hi Dep' date=' been doing some googling, there is no point in putting 16Gb of RAM in that Xeon unit of yours. 8Gb is all that Vista is capable of detecting (64 bit), and going above that will probably make matters worse as Vista will try and address the additional but make a hash of it and will wind up slowing the machine down. I suggest you go to 8Gb if you must, but save the cash on the additional memory and put it towards your graphics card. ~S~ Jabo P.S. Need to look into overclocking now as must find a way to beat Jim... [/quote'] Actually, I am not using VISTA. I am using Windows XP Pro 64 bit. And it DOES recognize the RAM. As a matter of fact, 128 GIG is the maximum RAM you can use that will be recognized by XP Pro 64 bit. But I don't think I need that much RAM. 8 GIG would probably be sufficient for my needs. But it's awfully tempting to go for the max I find RAM to be like cubic inches in a race car motor....the best substitute for cubic inches is MORE cubic inches. Just replace cubic inches with RAM. I think 16 GIG would cost me $184. That's not all that expensve. BTW...memory on the video cards is ADDED INTO the RAM total. So if you have 3.5 GIG of RAM on a 32bit OS, adding a video card with 1 GIG of RAM onboard would actually REDUCE your total system RAM by 1 GIG. Ditto for any other RAM items like hard drives. It's all totalled up and then managed (or mismanaged) by the 32 bit system. That's not the case with the 64 bit system. Oh yeah....I loaded IL-2 onto the 64 bit comp and it works great. Can't wait to see it with a hotter video card. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTrooper Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I got 418.5 on mine. I will be changing my Comp this spring. I wish I knew what Oleg's new game will be needing to run at its best. This would help me out in choosing the comp parts I really need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DD_Merdog Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) ~S~ MT I would say at least a Quad core and sli with two vid cards at least! LOL i dont know but with all the modeling of wind and ground targets and clouds, damage, ect. ect. ect. i guess Quazi would be a better person to ask that question! It looks like a compuer killer to me! Merdog Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) ~S~ MT I would say at least a Quad core and sli with two vid cards at least! LOL i dont know but with all the modeling of wind and ground targets and clouds' date=' damage, ect. ect. ect. i guess Quazi would be a better person to ask that question! It looks like a compuer killer to me! Merdog [/quote'] He better be careful about needing too much hardware to support the sim. I have seen other sims (Jane's Fighters Anthology comes to mind) where if you cranked up the settings, it became a slideshow. Clouds especially did a job on framerates. It took about 10 years AFTER Jane's FA was released before hardware was able to run everything at full settings. By then, people had moved on to newer sims. I know you can turn off a lot of the eye candy and make a sim run faster. But that kinda defeats the purpose of buying a sim that has all those goodies in it. I really don't see the point in going overboard on detailed ground targets and trees and other ground stuff. You aren't normally flying that close that you can admire stuff like that anyway. I'd prefer he concentrate on accurate flight models, rather than making it competition for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2. Administrators Jabo Posted January 3, 2009 Author 2. Administrators Share Posted January 3, 2009 BTW...memory on the video cards is ADDED INTO the RAM total. So if you have 3.5 GIG of RAM on a 32bit OS, adding a video card with 1 GIG of RAM onboard would actually REDUCE your total system RAM by 1 GIG. Eh? You're spot on about Oleg overdoing the ground clutter though. Despite the fact that I spend quite a bit of my online time on the ground, I don't spend a lot of time looking around. Hopefully the production team are doing a good job on the programming so (like IL2) it will run on machines that aren't at the cutting edge. I remember being staggered by Forgotten Battles in comparison to FS 2004. ~S~ Jabo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3326d5bbcb89fe2bcd3937259933ad13.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.