dual vs quad core

[gavinc]

Hi,
I have been given the green light to get an new gaming pc, however in this economic climate I can't just go out and get the biggest baddest machine around.

All other things being equal am I better off with a Core Duo E8500 at 3.16 GHz or a Q8400 Quad core at 2.66 GHz?
In other words do 4 slower cores beat 2 faster cores in the world of FSX?

thanks
Gavin

[IanP]

FSX barely uses other cores, even after SP2. I'd still recommend speed over numbers of cores, but you can always palm other applications off onto second, third or fourth cores if you like, thus freeing up more CPU0 time to actually run FSX...

[harleyman]

I run FSX flawless on an E5200 duo core OCed to 3.3

I rin FSX flawless on a E8600 CPU too.

Point is they are both dual core, and both OCed somewhat

[Henry]

i would trade my Quad for a dual
H

[kilo delta]

Do you plan on overclocking? If so, go with the quad as it'll help avoid "the blurries"....ie. it helps to load textures faster. If not, go with the fastest dual core chip that you can afford.
In order to get the most from your system you'll also need to pretty good RAM...~1200mhz would be perfect (if your motherboard will support it).:)

[lukecrowley571]

I'd definitely go dual core. I built a new rig not so long ago with an E8500 and an ATI Radeon HD 4890 graphics card. Flying the Aerosoft F-16, which is a pretty big framerate hog, over Washington DC (default terrain) was as fast and smooth as you like. I run without autogen, but otherwise use around 75% on all sliders.

[DaveKDEN]

2.4 GHz Quad Core Q6600 o/c'd to 3.0 GHz. Runs like a champ - with the exception of high density scenery areas. A huge improvement with the o/c to 3.0 GHz. Ran nice at 2.4, but runs great at 3.0. Still have issues with minor stutters with high autogen setting and conifer trees (not sure why it's just confiers), but no problems with texture blurries at all. Running a 768MB NVidia 8800 GTX card.

Dave

[hey_moe]

I have a quad core and it is the third one I have owned. I really haven't seen that much of a difference in the speed of my pooter. The new processors that are out today you can really over clock with no heat issues what so ever.When I get ready to replace this set up I will go with a dual core.Mike

[CG_1976]

From a Athlon users end I see no difference between my one Dual or Quad.

[RyanJames170]

well if i was to do my CPU choise over agian i would go a with a Q9650 or Q9550 and go ot 3.4 or 3.6 GHz the extra 6 mb of cach can be handy.

as for the dual core side..
the E8400 i have running at 3.6 ghz dose prety well with my set up
ie the 790I and 4 Gb of DDR3-1333 ram with the CPU i have

i recently upgraded to 8 GB i would if i was you keep the Ram in the 4+ GB range so you have more room later on down the road and get a good GPU to.. i seen a increase going from a 512 8800GT or what i have now

[Lionheart]

I have a quad core and it is the third one I have owned. I really haven't seen that much of a difference in the speed of my pooter. The new processors that are out today you can really over clock with no heat issues what so ever.When I get ready to replace this set up I will go with a dual core.Mike


Oh man! That would be nice.

FS might not be able to handle dual quads, but other games can.

Apple has a dual quad. Big price tag, but its a Lambo...



Bill

[rvn817j]

The 'Tom's Hardware' site evaluates various $$ value builds from time-to-time. I was just reading today about recent builds - a $700 budget build, a $1200 intermediate build and a $2500 gamers dream build (or similar names).

Sometimes the write-ups on the various builds use FSX as an evaluation tool, sometimes they don't. In the write-up I was reading the writer talked about how he (or she, I'm not sure) would have liked to have evaluated the newest AMD chip (the socket AM3 955 BE - a quad core) because the AM3 socket now supports DDR3 memory. That AMD chip is (only) $165 and is 3.2 ghz and has 6MB L3 cache. The AM3 boards are relatively inexpensive (about $100 for a 785GX AMD chipset which supports hybrid crossfire (if you get a 5700 or 5800 series video card)). Compared to the core i7 or core i5 solution this is less expensive. Even compared to the E8600, the price is similar.

My point is (finally, I get to the point) - last week I ordered my first AMD board and CPU in 7 years. I ordered a AMD AM3 955 BE quad core, a $90 785GX board and some DDR3 memory. I will wait for the 5700 and 5800 graphics cards to come down in price (I like the hybrid crossfire and the Eyefinity options) and will run the rig on a 4850 card I have for now. I'm also starting clean with a Win7 install. When all is done, I will report back my FSX experience with this set up.

[fsafranek]

... I will report back my FSX experience with this set up.

Please do and thanks for the info.
:ernae:

[SolarEagle]

I've used FSX with everything from single core to duals and quads, and having spent many weeks benchmarking over the years I would not build an FSX rig unless it's a quad. The main reason is terrain texture loading and smoothness. A quad has twice the terrain texture loading performance of a dual core, and seeing sharp ground textures is important to me.

Adding cores will not improve your frame rate, but it does reduce stutters and blurries. Personally I would go for the fastest quad you can get. In fact, I would take a lower clocked quad over a higher clocked dual core, no question about it.

Before I built my i7 rig I ran for a long time with a 3.0Hz Quad core after upgrading from a 3.5GHz Dual core. After I got the Quad the Dual went back in the box and never came back out. Despite a slightly lower frame rate with the lower clocked Quad I was much happier with it.

EDIT: My signature seems to have vanished and I see no way to add it again, but my curent system is this:

Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem Quad @ 4.2GHz
EVGA GTX260 216 710/2500MHz
OCZ Platinum CL7 6GB
EVGA Intel X58

[dswo]

I've used FSX with everything from single core to duals and quads, and having spent many weeks benchmarking over the years I would not build an FSX rig unless it's a quad. The main reason is terrain texture loading and smoothness. A quad has twice the terrain texture loading performance of a dual core, and seeing sharp ground textures is important to me.

I haven't done a lot of benchmarking. I moved from dual (E6600) to quad (Q6600) at identical clock speed a year and a half ago. No improvement in framerates, but textures come into focus rapidly. Makes photoscenery much more fun.

[gavinc]

Thanks for all the input guys.

Gavin

[warchild]

I know a lot of folks will rave about dual cores for games, but i run a q6600 quad at 2.4 ghz and a gtx 260 and i'm getting fourty frames a second with fraps running full bore.. that means i'm at nearly sixty frames a second during normal times when i'm not using fraps.. i dont know if i've got it tweaked right or not. i dont claim to be a genius and i left ther i.t. industry eight years ago, but my performance is outstanding.. Considering i only have four gigs of ram ( 800 mhz ) i cant complain at all..
Since words dont show much heres a little film i made last night to give you some idea, and yes, it's a shameless plug for a project i'm currently working on as well.. Apologies for the quality. i only had movie maker to work with, and fraps was capturing the full 1920x1080 screen.. Theres nan hd version as well there.
Pam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXCEzfMtMk

I have another clip with fraps recording at half frame and is much smoother which i'll also post, however, anyone will tell you, fraps puts a heavy load on any machine, and it isnt nearly as smooth as when your flying without it..

[Daube]

GHz make the FPS.
Cores make the crisp textures.

[warchild]

GHz make the FPS.
Cores make the crisp textures.

I think i agree with you. When i put the water cooling back on this system and get another four gigs of ram, i want to punch it up to around 2.7 ghz and tie in that gtx 260 using CUDA, turning my machine into basically a baby super computer..

Thats another option the gentleman asking the original question could look at. it's called GPU computing, and makes use of the GPU's cores as processor cores, making the machine a small but very effective parallel processing powerplant. he'd have incredible graphics AND extremely smooth frame rates..

[jmig]

I know a lot of folks will rave about dual cores for games, but i run a q6600 quad at 2.4 ghz and a gtx 260 and i'm getting fourty frames a second with fraps running full bore.. that means i'm at nearly sixty frames a second during normal times when i'm not using fraps.. i dont know if i've got it tweaked right or not. i dont claim to be a genius and i left ther i.t. industry eight years ago, but my performance is outstanding.. Considering i only have four gigs of ram ( 800 mhz ) i cant complain at all..
Since words dont show much heres a little film i made last night to give you some idea, and yes, it's a shameless plug for a project i'm currently working on as well.. Apologies for the quality. i only had movie maker to work with, and fraps was capturing the full 1920x1080 screen.. Theres nan hd version as well there.
Pam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXCEzfMtMk

I have another clip with fraps recording at half frame and is much smoother which i'll also post, however, anyone will tell you, fraps puts a heavy load on any machine, and it isnt nearly as smooth as when your flying without it..

Nice! :) Not many post-WWI and pre-WWII aircraft around.

[harleyman]

Pam is a terror of the skies....:applause:

[Brett_Henderson]

Doesn't it really boil down to; is a quad worth the price difference over a dual ? Does anyone believe that speed/cache being equal, that a dual is better than a quad ?

Logically assuming it's a question of whether or not the quad is worth the extra money... My research shows that there's as little as $50, and as much as $100, between similar dual/quad comparisons (similar meaning similar stock-clocks and cache).

If you're going to keep this computer for more than 24 months.. that might be the best "extra" money you spend on it.

[warchild]

yeahhh, when i built this machine, i figured it had to last for at least five years, cuz i'll never have that kind of money again. With that, i tried to plan it out so that in five years time it would still be running the newest software without the typical "too slow" problem you get when technology changess. thats why i went with a quad.
heres that second clip i promised by the way.. you can see the difference. Fraps is horrible on frame rates, but even then, the quad barely notices it..

http://www.youtube.com/user/urushira#p/a/u/0/YtakRKvmGP8

[Bjoern]

GHz make the FPS.
Cores make the crisp textures.

Wise words.


Get a quad, overclock it, have the best of both worlds.

[harleyman]

Wise words.


Get a quad, overclock it, have the best of both worlds.



Ahhh Hush....................LOL :icon_lol:

[rvn817j]

(See my note above containing some introductory remarks about this build.)

I took the motherboard (MB) [a Gigabyte MA785GMT-UD2H] out of the box and set it on the enclosed foam pad. I installed the AMD quad core 955 Black Edition processor (BE for overclocking) into the AM3 socket and two 2 gig sticks of Patriot DDR3 1600 ram into the board. Put the thermal paste on the processor and then installed the processor fan. (Cost of these 3 parts at Newegg was: MB - $85; proc - $166; RAM - $102. I also bought 640Gig hard drive (HD) for $75.)

Used a case I bought last year on sale for less than $100 and the power supply was acquired last year on sale for under $100. I also had on hand an ATI 4850 video card that now sells for about $100. So you may be seeing a trend here - I only buy on sale and never try to buy the 'bleeding edge' of technology. This is all last year bleeding edge stuff.

I popped the board, HD and video card into the case, and unlike some builds, it went together pretty smoothly. (This case has 2 big fans and 1 smaller fan for the HD and it is really quiet and 'roomie', I like it very much.)

I had also acquired Win7 (Home Premium Ed.) from Newegg (OEM version for builders - save a couple bucks). Loaded Win7 (fastest load so far in my trials and tribulations with various versions of Windows). Updated the MB Bios (F5 version), and chipset, LAN, audio and video drivers to Win7 versions. All went well!

Now I did a simple (10%) overclock (3.2 to 3.5+ MHz) on the processor in the Bios setup by slightly increasing the frequency. It also slightly increased the memory speed, so get reasonably good memory when you shop.

You can tell the components are working well together and fast just by the many times you have to re-boot and this build was humming along!

Finally it is time to install FSX and and Acceleration (I was running out of steam last evening so no add-ons installed yet). The FSX and Acceleration installs went well except for the Acceleration SDK which I could not get to install last evening. The machine is quick and smooth.

So, I loaded the default Baron at KJYO with all sliders to the right (and full realism) except the traffic sliders (which I left at ~25%) and the water effect slider (which I left at the midpoint). Out of KJYO and into KIAD I was getting between 40 and 60 FPS. That is very good compared to what I see on some of my dual core Intel chips, but I have never done a build with only FSX installed on the computer.

As I get more data on this build I will share it here.

[stansdds]

Try Opa Locka, Florida, and see what your computer can do. Mine tends to run in the mid-teens to mid-twenties in such high density areas.

[harleyman]

I think that you will get good performance from that AMD build..

But the true test comes once your FSX install has all its extras ...Include some weather, add in some raffic, and you will begin to see your AMD start to buckel down and have to work for its living..

Couple that running only 2 gigs and things will change..Hopefully not so much ...

[rvn817j]

Couple that running only 2 gigs and things will change..Hopefully not so much ...

Although I tried to economize with this build and get a good performing machine, I didn't economize to that extent - I put in 2 x 2 gigs. So, in that respect, it should be OK.

In fact, I liked the DDR3 memory speed so much I ordered some for an ASRock X48 (TurboTwinz) board I have that currently has DDR2 installed, but will also accept DDR3. That is an Intel E8500 (mild overclock) with 4870's in crossfire and Vista. I do not have FSX loaded on it, but now that I've committed to this comparison, I will end up (eventually) with a head-to-head test of comparable dual core and quad core builds.

I'll be loading, loading, loading add ons this weekend and report results (hope I can find all my passwords, etc.)

[jmig]

Although I tried to economize with this build and get a good performing machine, I didn't economize to that extent - I put in 2 x 2 gigs. So, in that respect, it should be OK.

In fact, I liked the DDR3 memory speed so much I ordered some for an ASRock X48 (TurboTwinz) board I have that currently has DDR2 installed, but will also accept DDR3. That is an Intel E8500 (mild overclock) with 4870's in crossfire and Vista. I do not have FSX loaded on it, but now that I've committed to this comparison, I will end up (eventually) with a head-to-head test of comparable dual core and quad core builds.

I'll be loading, loading, loading add ons this weekend and report results (hope I can find all my passwords, etc.)

Looking forward to reading your findings. This is interesting.

I have my system (specs listed below) locked at 30 FPS. It tends to stay there 905 of the time. I run a full complement of add-ons.

The only major sucker of frames not working is MyTraffic 5.? (latest one). It is not working right. Even though it installed, I see little traffic. I haven't taken the time to worry about it, yet.

[trisager]

...A quad has twice the terrain texture loading performance of a dual core, and seeing sharp ground textures is important to me.

Adding cores will not improve your frame rate, but it does reduce stutters and blurries. ...

I switched my 3.0GHz dual-core for a 3.0GHz quad a while ago (neither overclocked), and the above has been my experience, too. Clouds are also more stable, with less "popping".

Tom

[harleyman]

Clouds are a FSX problem and can be fixed with the Swarm Cloud fix..



I missed that you had a 2X2 set...I thought you just had 2 gigs..sorry

Yes..I like to build too with DDR3 Mem....It has some advantages even for dual chanel mem

[Bjoern]

Ahhh Hush....................LOL :icon_lol:

Ha, never! :jump: :d

[rvn817j]

A quick re-cap - The parts chosen for this build are listed in one of my notes above and were chosen because of the relatively modest pricing. The modest pricing primarily applies to the mother board and the processor. I am not going to debate AMD vs. Intel (I have both and this is my first AMD build in about 8 years), but an AMD processor was chosen for its low price in the quad core arena and its overclockability. On to the rest of the story and some stats ---

I have gotten the 3.2 ghz 955 Black Edition (BE) processor to overclock to 3.6 ghz without breaking a sweat just be increasing the frequency in the bios setup. I used a ATI 4850 graphics card and used the tuning program within the Catalyst driver to speed it up a bit (it does it automatically).

My FSX setup consists of UTX, GEX, one piece of add on scenery (Plum Island, but I plan on getting more) and a number of additional aircraft (both payware and freeware [thanks to many of the guys on this site]).

In GEX most objects are turned on, but some of the most resource intensive were not. In FSX most sliders are all or most of the way right except water effects and vehicles. Anisotropic is selected and anti-aliasing is left unselected. Other than that, I have not attempted to optimize the graphics in any way.

So with this set up I checked various aircraft at the same location (but different times). The aircraft I get the slowest frame rates with are Aerosoft F-16 and Isis T-6 at dawn going into KIAD (FPS between 20 and 35). I have used limited (at 35) and unlimited FPS. With FPS limited the pictures seems to be slightly 'crisper' than unlimited and also seems to run a touch smoother, but either way is the best I've seen in FSX.

I am truly shocked with the graphics I am getting out of this ATI 4850! Seems the old saying is proven once again - FSX needs processor horsepower, not graphics horsepower. It also seems my general computer with this cpu, m/b, graphics card and Win7 perform well together - smooth and all systems (like the sleep function which both turns off and on when I move the mouse) function well.

I will be doing more tests during the week and next weekend - trying an ATI 4890 in the rig and, possibly, putting solid state memory as my boot / FSX drive. I will also be working on the Core2 E8500 when my DDR3 memory arrives. It's got Vista 64 so it could be handicapped (lol).

If anyone has an idea about how I can improve the performance (which, in my experience is good already) please let me know. If anybody wants me to test a 'tweak', I'll do that also. (I was looking at the frame limiter program as a potential test.)

[harleyman]

That system needs no tweaks except the TBM in the config..


The 4890 is awsome...I fly FSX on a 3850 with great results....

[rvn817j]

What is the TBM? (I'm familiar with some stuff, but most of the people on this site know so (so so so soooo) much stuff that I'm here to learn with the hope of enhancing my simulator experience.) Of course, I'll post any improvements when I pop in that 4890!

[harleyman]

With your set up all you should ever have to redo in the FSX config ie the

TBM (texture bandwidth Multiplier)


Its default at 40....

I change mine to 10 for ATI cards to eliminate stutters...You can also test(after using 10 first) 20 30 60 70 80 90 100....


After you find the one thats smooth..keep it there always...

To test you need to do more than a quick flight...Pick any airport as your permenant test place...Always use that same start point...Fly a circuit and land...About 15 minutes..if it stutters at take off that setting is no good...Close FSX and change it and retest....Typically 10 is best for all my ATI cards...




After that is good...You can get better crisper scenery with this also in the FSX config..


LOD ( Level Of detail) Its default to 4.5..... I run 6.5 or 7.5

CAUTION...If you make one scenery change within FSX, the LOD will always default back to 4.5 ...So watch for that......

Once you have it tuned...Save that profile ....Good to go

[rvn817j]

Your last response caused me to remember one small thing I noticed, but failed to previously mention in my write-ups. When I start up in takeoff position at an airport and pan around in outside view there is a "triangle" (that flashes) on the asphalt behind the aircraft. It's not real distracting so I kind of ignore it. Any idea how to correct that issue?

[rvn817j]

I just happened to see this article on Tom's Hardware comparing various Quad Core Processors. I'm very budget minded so I'm always looking to get the most "bang for my buck". Here is a link to the article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-core-cpu,2499.html

The article does not come right out and say it, but today's 'value minded' buyers should seriously consider an AMD socket AM3 processor (like the 965 or 965 Black Edition with huge overclocking potential) coupled with an AM3 motherboard costing about $100. I've been to the $$ bleeding edge of technology in the past and I'm now comfortable that you don't need to be there to get great performance!

[Snuffy]

Wise words.


Get a quad, overclock it, have the best of both worlds.

LOL! You O.C.ers kill me. LOL!

[Blade124]

Don't forget that all 4 cores are used for loading, so using a quad loads faster than a dual.

[Bjoern]

LOL! You O.C.ers kill me. LOL!

Why?

It's no harder than...err...it's easier than being married at least. :icon_lol:

[harleyman]

Ted, txnetcop has done some testing on the AMD black..Its very good, not quite up to Intel, but still does a great job for FSX....

Many off the shelf rigs are AND cause they are cheaper to build...











I just happened to see this article on Tom's Hardware comparing various Quad Core Processors. I'm very budget minded so I'm always looking to get the most "bang for my buck". Here is a link to the article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-core-cpu,2499.html

The article does not come right out and say it, but today's 'value minded' buyers should seriously consider an AMD socket AM3 processor (like the 965 or 965 Black Edition with huge overclocking potential) coupled with an AM3 motherboard costing about $100. I've been to the $$ bleeding edge of technology in the past and I'm now comfortable that you don't need to be there to get great performance!

[CG_1976]

Yep but a custom built AMD/Nvidia rig zings no oc req.

[txnetcop]

Yep but a custom built AMD/Nvidia rig zings no oc req.

Well actually this is not entirely true. An OC'd AMD Black Edition 955/965 runs FSX and many other games a little faster than a non-OC'd CPU. Also you will see mountains of evidence at many of the Tech sites showing the huge differences OCing can make in other games as well. We have verified this at TechCorp over and over...so there is benefit to OCing. Another evidence is that motheboard , memory, video card, and CPU mfgs are now producing products meant to OC without damage as long as they are kept cool.

Scott, Blade124, brought up another important truth. In FSX if your system is properly configured you will get a speed increase in all games where quad cores are meant to be utilized and FSX is definitely quad core capable...just difficult to tune. If you buy the new A2A Accusim products you will be happy you own a quad core as access and movement is so very smooth and fast when configured properly.

One more point, not all quad systems work the same, even of the same make and model components as not everyone configures their systems properly. There are even model differences in CPUs and GPUs and memory revisions, which is why you want to verify which exact CPU or GPU or memory module is being purchased. There are different revisions of motherboards and how they work with modified chips and BIOS. All of this matters which why you see some people with the same specs as others but their system runs FSX or other games badly. It matters how you configure your purchase and your final setup.

I'm sorry I have been away, I am inundated with family issues and TechCorp testing rigors right now. I will try to add where I can but no promises. Keep up the good work Harleyman!

Ted

Oh yeah by the way AMD Black Edition AM3 runs FSX very well...period!

[rvn817j]

I had some time over this past weekend for tweaking and testing my latest 'economy' build using an AMD 955 Black Edition processor with GIGABYTE GA-MA785GMT-UD2H AM3 motherboard and Win7. I threw in an ATI 4890 graphics card and an 80 gig SSD (I had it laying around). The most recent overclock on the AMD 955 is 3.7 GHz with stock components. That makes about 16% overclock and still no adverse reaction. I ran the ATI tuning program on the video card so I am also getting some o/c on the graphics processor. I moved my FSX files form my hard drive to the SSD with only one issue which was quickly corrected (once identified).

In FSX I set the FPS to 33 and I now get between 25 and 33 FPS continuously. After completing the reconfiguration (with a blue ray disk drive) I moved the installation from my shop area to my living room and hooked it to my HDTV. Now, the FPS rate is good and the scenery is rich. (The blue ray is also quite good and, if you have NetFlix, you can instantly download to your computer and watch on HDTV.)

I would rate this motherboard / processor combination as an excellent value. The Win7 rating on all the components in this rig are over 7 except for the economy hard drive I used which came in at 5.9. (I have not gotten a rating on the SSD.)

To make the long story short -- this rig has worked without a fault (meaning no BSODs, no lock ups, no glitches, no restarts and a properly functioning 'sleep mode') since I first built it 2 weeks ago and it runs FSX very well. The AMD concept of making its motherboard chipsets, graphics cards and processors work well together is --- well ---- working! It also appears Win7 works well.

Next tests: (1) Replace the ATI 4890 with an ATI 5770 (a newer, economy minded video card that I may be able to 'hybrid crossfire' with the motherboard's integrated graphics chip) and (2) test my dual core Vista machine with DDR3 memory. (If you want to know more about this inexpensive m/b go to www.newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com) for many write-ups on this product.)

Now if I could only figure out how to get a B-52 cockpit working with the CS B-52 exterior!

[Seaking055]

Ever since I paid out for a now "old" Intel CPU QX6850 3ghz CPU I have never looked back with FSX, I have it o'clocked to 3.6 and it runs like silk. fsx is well known for the better cpu you have the better, it's not so much how much ram you have.

Just my two cents worth, I'm no real techy.

[gavinc]

Hi,
Finally got the new rig delivered and FSX is installed with SP2.

All I can say is wow.
I went for a quad core I5 on a Gigabyte motherboard with 4 GB of RAM, a 750 w power supply and a XFX GTS 250 w 512 MB. went with Windows 7 64 bit as the OS.
Using the Gigabyte tools it was dead easy to over clock to 3.0 GHz, if I have no issues in the next few days I will see if it can go any higher (the over clocking utility does have a higher setting)

Just went flying for the first time and what a difference, there is no way that my old system would manage bad weather, night lighting, and no ground blurries. And absolutely not with a steady 25 fps:applause:

Of course I haven't started messing about with it yet, that should break it good:icon_lol:

[Mickey D]

Please do and thanks for the info.
:ernae:

Reckon we should upgrade from gas to electric setups Frank? :icon_lol:

[fsafranek]

What? Who? :sleep: