X-Plane 10 Benchmarked

Serious. After Microsoft more or less abandoned the flight simulator market following the release of their Flight Simulator X, Laminar Research has the only viable and constantly updated alternative with their X-Plane Flight Simulator. Our review will focus on the hardware requirements and show which notebooks and desktops handle the simulator smoothly.

Klaus Hinum, Published 02/15/2014 🇩🇪

Gaming

Benchmark

For the original German article, see here.

For this review we'll use the integrated benchmark functionality in X-Plane 10, which can be started via the parameter --fps_test. For the most basic functionality, the user simply inputs the numbers from 1 to 4 to specify the quality settings from low to ultra-high. In addition, we'll also specify the resolution (1024x768, 1366x768, and 1920x1080) and the color depth (32-bit). We decided to use the time demo test_flight_c4 as our sequence, which is included in the 64-bit web demo version 10.25 as used for this review.

Update: We received a mail from an X-Plane developer that test 4 is not intended for benchmarking:

However, test 4 is _not_ an actual test of the product - it is a specialized "CPU-only" test that was put in so that driver developers could look at changes in performance between driver versions. The test intentionally ignores the GPU to "focus" on CPU driver time. (Similarly test 5 is a GPU only test to focus on shader compilation.

Here are the 4 commands to execute the benchmark:

X-Plane.exe --fps_test=1 --load_smo=Output/replays/test_flight_c4.fdr --pref:_is_full_ALL=1 --pref:_x_res_full_ALL=1024 --pref:_y_res_full_ALL=768 --pref:_bpp_full_ALL=32
X-Plane.exe --fps_test=2 --load_smo=Output/replays/test_flight_c4.fdr --pref:_is_full_ALL=1 --pref:_x_res_full_ALL=1366 --pref:_y_res_full_ALL=768 --pref:_bpp_full_ALL=32 
X-Plane.exe --fps_test=3 --load_smo=Output/replays/test_flight_c4.fdr --pref:_is_full_ALL=1 --pref:_x_res_full_ALL=1366 --pref:_y_res_full_ALL=768 --pref:_bpp_full_ALL=32
X-Plane.exe --fps_test=4 --load_smo=Output/replays/test_flight_c4.fdr --pref:_is_full_ALL=1 --pref:_x_res_full_ALL=1920 --pref:_y_res_full_ALL=1080 --pref:_bpp_full_ALL=32

Results

The screenshots depicting the various settings show that even the lowest preset is not necessarily the lowest setting since "texture resolution" and "world detail distance" are still set to high and very high, respectively. Though these settings are comparatively high, an Intel HD Graphics 4000 GPU is already a workable solution.

The next setting reveals far more graphical details than the first. Medium details (fps_test=2) require at least a middle-class graphics card like a GeForce GT 640M to ensure smooth operation. Even so, we advise users to scale back some settings for improved frame rates. Some slower cards like the GT 720M proved to be an acceptable alternative at times with decently high frame rates. It appears that the X-Plane benchmark can really take advantage of the high clock speeds that the dual-core Haswell CPUs offer.

The next higher setting (fps_test=3) requires a high-end graphics card like the desktop GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M to ensure stutter-free performance. Additionally, a high-end CPU is also required.

Update: Our ultra settings are not suitable for benchmarking, see quote above.

The highest setting is most likely reserved for top-of-the-line desktop graphics cards like the Radeon R9 290X or the Nvidia GeForce 780 Ti in combination with a fast CPU. In the benchmarks we conducted, none of the test systems reached frame rates above 25 fps, although the Schenker W503 with GTX 780M and Core i7-4700MQ came quite close.

Of utmost importance is a powerful CPU. The GTX 780M paired with a Haswell Core i7-4700MQ, for example, posted the highest test scores and beat out a GTX 680 desktop GPU with a Core i7-2600K CPU at the highest settings. A detailed analysis of how the processor can impact performance is shown below.

X-Plane 10.25
1920x1080 ultra (fps_test=4) test_flight_c4 1366x768 high (fps_test=3) test_flight_c4 1366x768 med (fps_test=2) test_flight_c4 1024x768 low (fps_test=1) test_flight_c4
GeForce GTX 780M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	22.1 (0^min) fps ∼81% 27.1 (0^min) fps ∼83% 50.8 (0^min) fps ∼87% 101.9 (0^min) fps ∼85%
GeForce GTX 765M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	14.9 (0^min) fps ∼55% 26.1 (0^min) fps ∼80% 50.6 (0^min) fps ∼86% 104.3 (0^min) fps ∼87%
GeForce GTX 680, 2600K, Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV-0Z000 Desktop GTX 680, Intel Core i7-2600K	20.1 (0^min) fps ∼74% 24.1 (0^min) fps ∼74% 43.1 (0^min) fps ∼73% 95 (0^min) fps ∼79%
GeForce GT 740M, 4200M HP Envy 15-j011sg	9.9 (0^min) fps ∼36% 16.7 (0^min) fps ∼51% 41.9 (0^min) fps ∼71% 89.1 (0^min) fps ∼74%
Radeon HD 6870, FX-8350, Samsung SSD 830 Series MZ-7PC256D/EU Desktop Asus M5A97 Evo Desktop	14.3 (0^min) fps ∼52% 18.4 (0^min) fps ∼56% 35.7 (0^min) fps ∼61% 69 (0^min) fps ∼58%
GeForce GT 720M, 4200M, WDC Scorpio Blue WD10JPVX-22JC3T0 MSI CX61-i572M	12.3 (0^min) fps ∼38% 33.9 (0^min) fps ∼58% 80.2 (0^min) fps ∼67%
GeForce GT 640M, 2637M, Lite-On LMT-256M3M Acer Aspire M3-581TG	6.4 (0^min) fps ∼23% 13.1 (0^min) fps ∼40% 27.6 (0^min) fps ∼47% 65 (0^min) fps ∼54%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ, Intel SSD 525 Series SSDMCEAC180B3 Schenker S413	11.1 (0^min) fps ∼41% 13.5 (0^min) fps ∼41% 29.8 (0^min) fps ∼51% 62 (0^min) fps ∼52%
HD Graphics 4600, 4700MQ Schenker W503	9.4 (0^min) fps ∼34% 12.1 (0^min) fps ∼37% 28.8 (0^min) fps ∼49% 51.2 (0^min) fps ∼43%
Radeon HD 7660G, A10-4600M, Samsung SSD 830 Series MZ-7PC0128D/EU AMD Pumori Platform A10-4600M	5.8 (0^min) fps ∼21% 8.7 (0^min) fps ∼27% 19.2 (0^min) fps ∼33% 42.8 (0^min) fps ∼36%
HD Graphics 4000, 3720QM Asus N56VM	4.4 (0^min) fps ∼16% 6.6 (0^min) fps ∼20% 14.6 (0^min) fps ∼25% 37.7 (0^min) fps ∼31%
Radeon HD 8400, A6-5200, Samsung SSD 830 Series MZ-7PC256D/EU ASRock IMB-A180-H Mini-ITX AMD Kit	3.4 (0^min) fps ∼12% 4.9 (0^min) fps ∼15% 10.9 (0^min) fps ∼19% 21.4 (0^min) fps ∼18%

Processor Performance

As far as the impact of the CPU performance is concerned, our tests clearly indicate that the demanding simulations of the X-Plane 10 flight simulator benefit from a powerful processor. Stepping up from the inexpensive Trinity A4-5300 dual-core (1 module) to the Intel Core i7-2600K doubles the performance. AMD's high-end FX-8350 can't take advantage of its 8 cores, since performance doesn't increase significantly after 3 of the 8 cores are active. The result: the older Sandy Bridge Core i7-2600K with only 4 cores but better performance per MHz pulls ahead of AMD's flagship.

Benchmarks with NVidia GTX 680 and different CPUs (CPU dependency)

Read all 5 comments / answer

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Klaus Hinum - Founder, CTO - 2983 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2005

I am one of the founders of Notebookcheck. My primary focus is on articles about new CPU and GPU technology. With my scientific background (Ph.D. in computer science) I try to put facts before feelings in my work. I have been writing and working for Notebookcheck since 2005.

contact me via: @klaushinum, Facebook, klumpad, LinkedIn, Xing

Translator: Bernie Pechlaner - Senior Tech Writer - 276 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2012

Ended up in the IT sector in the 90s more or less accidentally and have remained in the industry (as a sysadmin) ever since. Always been interested in laptops - first purchase was - if memory serves correctly - a Toshiba Satellite T2115CS with DX4-75 processor, 4 MB of RAM and 350 MB hard disk drive (and Windows 3.1). To this day, laptops appeal to me - much to the chagrin of my wife, who doesn’t seem understand why we need 5-10 of them at any given time ;-).

Please share our article, every link counts!

.170

> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Archive of our own reviews > X-Plane 10 Benchmarked

Klaus Hinum, 2014-02-15 (Update: 2016-10-10)

Pos	Model	< Prev Next > X-Plane 10.25 (2013)
Pos	Model	low 1024x768 low (fps_test=1) test_flight_c4	med. 1366x768 med (fps_test=2) test_flight_c4	high 1366x768 high (fps_test=3) test_flight_c4	ultra 1920x1080 ultra (fps_test=4) test_flight_c4
159	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile	81.8	46.6	24.5	24.5
166	AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop)	72	42.2	21.8	20.6
205	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M	120	58.7	32.6	27.3
209	AMD Radeon R9 280X	89.1	47.8	24.8	18.6
224	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680	95	43.1	24.1	20.1
242	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M	108.9	52	28.5	22.4
249	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti	105.7	46.8	26.4	21.7
251	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M	101.9	50.8	27.1	22.1
257	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²
261	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M	100.4	49	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²
262	AMD Radeon R9 M290X	71.7	41.4	22	16.4
263	AMD Radeon HD 8970M	81.7	46.3	23.7	17.2
269	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M	82.2	39.2	21.5	17.1
272	AMD Radeon R9 M390	84	52.5	24.7	19.8
275	AMD Radeon HD 7970M	67.9	38.8	20.2	14.7
282	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M	105.4	54.3	28.5	16.8
300	NVIDIA GeForce MX150	104.2	54.6	29.8	21.9
306	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M	104.1	48.8	25.8	17.1
311	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ³	0ⁿ³
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >X-Plane 10.25
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
317	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX	83.1	39	21.3	13.7
326	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M	0ⁿ⁵	0ⁿ⁵	0ⁿ⁶	0ⁿ⁶
329*	AMD Radeon RX Vega 11	65.9	44.7	20.1	0ⁿ²
333	AMD Radeon HD 6870	69	35.7	18.4	14.3
337	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M	104.3	50.6	26.1	14.9
366	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX	82.5	38.9	22.3	13.7
400	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M	82.2	38.4	18.7	10
402	AMD Radeon HD 8850M	56.4	27.2	13.5	11.7
404	AMD Radeon R9 M265X	66.8	30.5	14.7	9
414	NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M	79.7	38.1	19.8	10.5
420	AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	18.2
421	NVIDIA GeForce 940M	80.5	41.6	21.6	11.1
446	NVIDIA GeForce 840M	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	10.5
448	NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M	71.1	33.7	16.7
451	AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)	54.5	23.2	11.3	8.5
452	Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200	62	29.8	13.5	11.1
453	AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	8.2
461	NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M	89.1	41.9	16.7	9.9
464	Intel Iris Graphics 550	30.3	22.7	19.1
470	NVIDIA GeForce 830M	54.6	27.4	14.1
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >X-Plane 10.25
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
485	NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M	73.4	33.9	12.9
487	NVIDIA GeForce 825M	43.1	25.4	11.3
499	NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M	84.9	41.1	18.3	14.2
503	AMD Radeon HD 8750M	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	11.7
505	AMD Radeon R7 M270	59.6	31.5	13.4	5.1
506	AMD Radeon R7 M265	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	4.2
511	NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M	65	27.6	13.1	6.4
531	AMD Radeon R7 M260	54	30.7	13.5	11.8
551	Intel UHD Graphics 620	49.3	19.8	10.1	8
564	AMD Radeon HD 8670D	60.1	29.4	12.1	8.5
568	AMD Radeon R6 (Kaveri)	28.4	11.8	5.1
588	AMD Radeon HD 8570D	54.5	26	11.3	7.6
593	AMD Radeon HD 8670M	51.2	24.8
613	AMD Radeon HD 8650G	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	8.7	6.5
618	NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M	46.6	15.5	6.9	4.5
624	AMD Radeon R5 M255	56.1	34.3	14.6	12.2
628	NVIDIA GeForce 820M	68.2	29.2	12
632	NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M	80.2	33.9	12.3
634	AMD Radeon R5 M240	21.2	12.9	6.4
636	AMD Radeon R5 M230	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >X-Plane 10.25
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
640	AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)	31.7	17.7	9.6
646	Intel HD Graphics 6000	40	13	6.9
649	Intel Iris Graphics 5100	41.1	21.8	10.3	8.5
653	Intel HD Graphics 4600	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	9.4
655	Intel HD Graphics 5500	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²
682	AMD Radeon R5 (Kaveri)	23.6	13.2	5.9
686	AMD Radeon HD 7660G	42.8	19.2	8.7	5.8
726	Intel HD Graphics 4400	30.2	18.4	8.8
727*	AMD Radeon HD 8610G	29	14.3	5.7
761	Intel HD Graphics 5300	26.7	10.7	3.9	3.4
769	AMD Radeon HD 7480D	43.7	17.6	7.6	5.1
770	Intel HD Graphics 4000	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²
776	AMD Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)	27.4	16.7	6.3	2.7
777	AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)	21.3	11.1	4.8	4.3
779	AMD Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)	17.8	10.7	5.1
782	Intel HD Graphics 4200	26.2	13.9
791	AMD Radeon HD 8450G	38.6	17.5	7.5	5.4
795	AMD Radeon HD 8400	21.4	10.9	4.9	3.4
813	AMD Radeon HD 8350G	36.7	15.5
814	AMD Radeon HD 8330	17.7	9
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >X-Plane 10.25
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
838	Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)	11.8
851	Intel HD Graphics (Haswell)	22.1	13
880	AMD Radeon HD 8280	15.8	7.8
897	Intel HD Graphics 3000	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²	0ⁿ²
915	AMD Radeon HD 8210	11.2	5.5
919	Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)	15	7.6
953*	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	11.8	6.9	3.4	2.5
962	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	12.8	6

Legend
5	Stutters – This game is very likely to stutter and have poor frame rates. Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, average frame rates are expected to fall below 25fps
	May Stutter – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, stutters and poor frame rates are expected.
30	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 25fps
40	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 35fps
60	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 58fps
	May Run Fluently – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, fluent frame rates are expected.
?	Uncertain – This graphics card experienced unexpected performance issues during testing for this game. A slower card may be able to achieve better and more consistent frame rates than this particular GPU running the same benchmark scene.
	Uncertain – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game and no reliable interpolation can be made based on the performances of surrounding cards of the same class or family.
The value in the fields displays the average frame rate of all values in the database. Move your cursor over the value to see individual results.