FSX Upgrade Dual to Quad Core Worthwhile ?

[marklaur]

Currently I have an Intel E8500 dual core processor 4 gig ram and a Nvidia GTX280 video card.
Running XP SP3 32 bit. (and will be for the forseable future)

I still find FSX to run too poorly for my liking with this setup and are considering upgrading to a quad core. For my budget I think the best I could afford would be a i7 960 (3.2 gig) processor and one of the latest ATI HD 5870 single core cards.

If I load any fancy scenery I often get out of memory messages then FSX crashes. Also AI traffic at the levels I like in FS2004 slow down FSX to the point I do not use it any more.

Would I get any realistic performance increases with the above upgrade. I would be running at stock speeds, no over clocking.

I recently looked at some bench marking statistics in an Atomic PC magazine I get and it indicated only a few FPS increase would be obtained. The article was about 6 months old.
Is this correct? Or would there be any other benefits like scenery load any better?

I am not really a settings tinkerer, so I only rely on my hardware.

Just not sure if would get any value for money with the upgrade. But I would like to use FSX a little more as well.

Regards MarkL

[Navy Chief]

Currently I have an Intel E8500 dual core processor 4 gig ram and a Nvidia GTX280 video card.
Running XP SP3 32 bit. (and will be for the forseable future)

I still find FSX to run too poorly for my liking with this setup and are considering upgrading to a quad core. For my budget I think the best I could afford would be a i7 960 (3.2 gig) processor and one of the latest ATI HD 5870 single core cards.

If I load any fancy scenery I often get out of memory messages then FSX crashes. Also AI traffic at the levels I like in FS2004 slow down FSX to the point I do not use it any more.

Would I get any realistic performance increases with the above upgrade. I would be running at stock speeds, no over clocking.

I recently looked at some bench marking statistics in an Atomic PC magazine I get and it indicated only a few FPS increase would be obtained. The article was about 6 months old.
Is this correct? Or would there be any other benefits like scenery load any better?

I am not really a settings tinkerer, so I only rely on my hardware.

Just not sure if would get any value for money with the upgrade. But I would like to use FSX a little more as well.

Regards MarkL

Mark,

I rebuilt my system a few weeks ago. Aside from a different processor, I installed many of the components you listed:

OS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
CPU i7 Extreme 980X @ 3.33GHz
RAM 16.0GB Triple-Channel DDR3 @ 667MHz (9-9-9-24)
Motherboard ASUSTeK Computer INC. Rampage III Extreme (LGA1366)
Graphics VT2430-M ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
Hard Drives
244GB Hitachi HDT722525DLA380 ATA Device (IDE) 29 °C
488GB Seagate ST3500320AS ATA Device (Unknown Interface) 27 °C
488GB Western Digital WDC WD5000AAKS-00A7B2 ATA Device (IDE) 29 °C
488GB Western Digital WDC WD5000AAKS-00V1A0 ATA Device (IDE) 29 °C
Optical Drives
HL-DT-ST BD-RE WH08LS20 ATA Device
Audio
Realtek High Definition Audio

This thing screams now. I set my framerates to about 40, and it rarely wavers from that....

NC

[txnetcop]

The i7 960 and up are absolutely awesome! You would also benefit with one of the new Nvidia GTX470 FERMI or ATI 5850 or above series video cards as icing on the cake!
Ted

[mike678]

Hi Mark,

The i7 will definitely help keep FPS high with lots of AI and autogen. It will not however stop the out of memory problems you are having. For that you need a 64 bit OS. If you are going to the trouble of building a new system I would recommend Win7 64 rather than sticking with XP 32.

[ZEUS67]

I build my own rigs when I have the money. For a gamer specifications, which also works with FSX, I usually go to the Alienware (http://www.alienware.com/) webpage and see the details of their machines and then I go and buy the components, that way I know that I have a machine that will perform as I want.

[strykerpsg]

The i7 960 and up are absolutely awesome! You would also benefit with one of the new Nvidia GTX470 FERMI or ATI 5850 or above series video cards as icing on the cake!
Ted
Ted, anyway to find out the limits of current mobo to accept upgraded i7 processors? I have a Dell 730X with a i7 940 processor. While certainly no slouch, have been watching the Extreme processors dropping in price. Thanks

Matt

[Stratobat]

Hi Guys,

Speaking of quad cores, what kind of performance would one get out of an AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz Black Edition processor with four gigs of DDR3-1600 RAM and an EVGA GeForce GTX 460 1Gb superclocked graphics card?

Regards,
Stratobat

[txnetcop]

Ted, anyway to find out the limits of current mobo to accept upgraded i7 processors? I have a Dell 730X with a i7 940 processor. While certainly no slouch, have been watching the Extreme processors dropping in price. Thanks

Matt

That motherboard has the standard Intel chipset and should handle any i7 processor upgrade. There are amplified chipsets with the ASUS and Gigabyte motherboards but I would stay with what you have and just upgrade the processor when you consider price/performance. You will not see as much of a performance upgrade however just going to the i7 960. Your best bet would be upgrade to a Nvidia FERMI video card

[txnetcop]

Hi Guys,

Speaking of quad cores, what kind of performance would one get out of an AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz Black Edition processor with four gigs of DDR3-1600 RAM and an EVGA GeForce GTX 460 1Gb superclocked graphics card?

Regards,
Stratobat


The 965 unlocked Black Edition is a good processor but I would go with the new six core especially since you are not talking about that much more money.

[Stratobat]

Hi Ted,

Thank you for the reply.


The 965 unlocked Black Edition is a good processor but I would go with the new six core especially since you are not talking about that much more money.

Which Hexacore are you talking about and why would you go with it?

Regards,
Stratobat

[Bjoern]

I wonder if an upgrade from four to six cores would be worth it. It's to more cores for scenery loading after all...

[ryanbatc]

Your main problem is the 32bit OS

That's why you're getting OOMs....

HAve you tried adding the 3GB switch?
http://forums.flightsim.com/fswiki/index.php/OOM_Error

[Stratobat]

I wonder if an upgrade from four to six cores would be worth it. It's to more cores for scenery loading after all...

Doesn't really help you if the program doesn't recognise those six cores.

Regards,
Stratobat

[Bjoern]

Doesn't really help you if the program doesn't recognise those six cores.

FSX does (via "AffinityMask").

[Stratobat]

FSX does (via "AffinityMask").

I didn't know that. Thanks, Bjoern :salute:

Regards,
Stratobat

[stansdds]

Your main problem is the 32bit OS

That's why you're getting OOMs....

HAve you tried adding the 3GB switch?
http://forums.flightsim.com/fswiki/index.php/OOM_Error

I started getting the OOM error after installing Active Sky X. The 3GB switch, with userva=2560, seems to have helped. Obviously a single, uninterrupted 2 hour flight is not a conclusive test, but seeing as how the previous three 2 hour flights ended with a OOM error, it's an encouraging sign.

I've considered a "cheap" upgrade to a Q9650, but I'm not sure if that would be all that great of an improvement since I'm running a 800 MHz FSB and RAM.

[txnetcop]

Hi Ted,

Thank you for the reply.



Which Hexacore are you talking about and why would you go with it?

Regards,
Stratobat

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849 For use with AM3 boards.

Using Affinity mask as Bjoern said you can set up your processor for use of all cores in FSX

[mikew]

Just curious...
Is there a huge difference between the i7 930 and the i7 960 other than the operating frequency? Is it worth almost double the price for the 960 over th 930?

Thanks,
Mike

[DennyA]

1) Get rid of XP. There is no good reason to run XP in 2010, and your PC will become more and more of a security risk as time goes by. (If you're playing some ancient game that can't be made to run in DosBox or a virtualization app, then set up a dual boot.) Win 7 64-bit will use your entire 4GB of RAM, and you should find things run smoother.

2) The Q9650 isn't going to give you anything like the speed increase you'll get from an i7. The new architecture speeds things up significantly.

3) MikeW, if you're willing to futz around with overclocking, and you have decent RAM (since overclocking sometimes pushes memory speed up a bit), that i7 930 can run at i7 960 speeds.

[stansdds]

1) Get rid of XP. There is no good reason to run XP in 2010, and your PC will become more and more of a security risk as time goes by. (If you're playing some ancient game that can't be made to run in DosBox or a virtualization app, then set up a dual boot.) Win 7 64-bit will use your entire 4GB of RAM, and you should find things run smoother.

2) The Q9650 isn't going to give you anything like the speed increase you'll get from an i7. The new architecture speeds things up significantly.

3) MikeW, if you're willing to futz around with overclocking, and you have decent RAM (since overclocking sometimes pushes memory speed up a bit), that i7 930 can run at i7 960 speeds.

That's what I was thinking, better to put the cost of a Q9650 towards a new system. I agree, today Win XP is no longer the best, Windows 7 rules and the 64 bit version is the best route.

[Bjoern]

Say Ted, do you think it's worth getting an upgrade from DDR2 to DDR3?

This is what I'm currently running:
http://www.sysprofile.de/id109664

I want to push the Q9450 a bit more (to 3.6 Ghz), but my FSB refuses to play along (topped off at 405 Mhz).




I didn't know that. Thanks, Bjoern :salute:

No problem.

[Stratobat]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849 For use with AM3 boards.

Using Affinity mask as Bjoern said you can set up your processor for use of all cores in FSX

Hey Ted,

These are the prices I can get the following processors for in my part of the world. Please note that I have converted the currency in to US Dollars using http://www.xe.com/ucc/


AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Processor - $221.62

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Processor - $276.03

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Processor - $399.56


Would I see enough of a performance increase between the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor and the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition processor to justify the extra expenditure?

Regards,
Stratobat

[txnetcop]

Hey Ted,

These are the prices I can get the following processors for in my part of the world. Please note that I have converted the currency in US Dollars using http://www.xe.com/ucc/


AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Processor - $221.62

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Processor - $276.03

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Processor - $399.56


Would I see enough of a performance increase between the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor and the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition processor to justify the extra expenditure?

Regards,
Stratobat

That has a a lot to do with your willingness to overclock. The 1090T hasn't even unlocked all of it's potential yet. There are some new boards and new BIOSes that are really giving the 1090T some horsepower that heretofore were not being seen. I have a friend on staff at Maximum PC that rates that 1090T as the most improved processor ever to come from AMD. Our tests at TECHCORP have shown that processor to be a dynamo still to be unleashed. Admittedly I am still more impressed with the i7980X but look at the price difference.

The 1090T stock is impressive but not so much more than the OC'd 965 Black Edition unless you are willing to unlock it and take it to it's potential. If you can get the six cores working to their full potential by trial and error in FSX you will have a really fine system on your hands. It does take a little more work than say using the i7980X which is a killer right outta the box, again you save a ton of money. I was running my unofficial tests at TechCorp on the 1090T OC'd to 4.2Ghz and was running FSX full blast at 40fps and rarely did I see it drop no matter what I threw at it.

You cannot OC the 965Black to match the speed of the unlocked OC'd 1090T. It is an entirely different processor with much more potential. Can you justify spending that much more...I can't tell you that. It really depends on how much you have in the budget. If you are doing it just for FSX I would say no. Invest in a really good video card and push the 965 Black to 3.8Ghz or higher.

New games are coming that really take advantage of these six core processors. I know for a fact that new X-Plane 10 does. I'm hoping Microsoft's new flightsim offering will too. Rise of Flight does also.

Here is good article on the 965BE versus the new six core processors from AMD http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-black-edition-623177/review?src=rss&attr=reviewall

[txnetcop]

Say Ted, do you think it's worth getting an upgrade from DDR2 to DDR3?

This is what I'm currently running:
http://www.sysprofile.de/id109664

I want to push the Q9450 a bit more (to 3.6 Ghz), but my FSB refuses to play along (topped off at 405 Mhz).





No problem.


Bjoern DDR3 when combined with Win7 64bit has definite advantages over DDR2. My test unit is a i7960 6GB unit and really ROCKS eveything I throw at it. However I didn't see the huge difference in DDR3 over DDR2 on the 775 socket systems...yes there is some, but not so much as to warrant buying a new 775 board that uses DDR3.

Using DDR2 you should still be able to push the Q9450 to 3.6. For my home unit I had a Q9550 running Patriot PC2-9600 1200mhz ram at 4.0Ghz on air. It ran FSX very very well with Win7.

[txnetcop]

Just curious...
Is there a huge difference between the i7 930 and the i7 960 other than the operating frequency? Is it worth almost double the price for the 960 over th 930?

Thanks,
Mike


Mike if you are not afraid to OC the 930 the performance is adequate and you can save a little money. However if you OC the 960 a little it really shows it's taillights to the 930! If you really want a barn-burner go for the 980X WOW what a ride!

[Bjoern]

Using DDR2 you should still be able to push the Q9450 to 3.6. For my home unit I had a Q9550 running Patriot PC2-9600 1200mhz ram at 4.0Ghz on air. It ran FSX very very well with Win7.

Well, I can't. The multiplier of a 9450 is 8 at best and my board's usable FSB range ends at a little over 400 Mhz.

[txnetcop]

Well, I can't. The multiplier of a 9450 is 8 at best and my board's usable FSB range ends at a little over 400 Mhz.

I did this on an EVGA 780i with Tuniq tower cooling two or three years ago:
CPU Core - 1.375v
CPU FSB - 1.325v
SPP (NB) - 1.45v
MCP (SB) - 1.5v
SPP (NB) << - >> MCP (SB) - 1.3v
GTL Ref: Lane 1,3,4: +20mV, Lane 2: +30mV
Timings 5-5-5-18
FSB 1850/4 = 462.5
Memory below the FSB is at 1066
18520
3.7Ghz

[Stratobat]

Thanks for the advice, Ted.

Regards,
Stratobat

[marklaur]

Well it looks like I will be upgrading to a quad core, or after reading some of the replies the new AMD 6 cores may be worth a look.

At work out IT dept, always buys Intel as they think AMD will not last as long. (They keep PC's about 6 years if they can in the labs, for HPLC equipment)

From a quick look even the AMD motherboards are cheaper. I would presume the Gigabyte ultra durable boards would be built to the same standards, but their AMD boards are much cheaper. In Australia at least.

Is there any truth in what they tell me about Intel lasting longer than AMD?

Regards MarkL

[Stratobat]

Hey Mark,


Is there any truth in what they tell me about Intel lasting longer than AMD?I think both brands offer a three year warranty on their processors but there are a number of mitigating factors to consider before you can arrive at an outright answer. For example, reckless overclocking can reduce the life of your components (Althought by how much I do not know) and poor housekeeping can also limit the life of your components.

I've had the same AMD machine for the past four years now.

Regards,
Stratobat

[txnetcop]

Well it looks like I will be upgrading to a quad core, or after reading some of the replies the new AMD 6 cores may be worth a look.

At work out IT dept, always buys Intel as they think AMD will not last as long. (They keep PC's about 6 years if they can in the labs, for HPLC equipment)

From a quick look even the AMD motherboards are cheaper. I would presume the Gigabyte ultra durable boards would be built to the same standards, but their AMD boards are much cheaper. In Australia at least.

Is there any truth in what they tell me about Intel lasting longer than AMD?

Regards MarkL

I prefer Intel personally. They really are faster processors, but AMD isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I do like what AMD has brought to the marketplace, escpecially when you consider what you pay for price/performance. If AMD was going to go under why would they rename their video cards AMD Radeon and remove the ATI label from now on? I think the two will rival each other for several years to come.

[warchild]

I'm impressed by what i see with the new I7s and the AMD offerings, but truth told I'm still running an old q6600 quad core with 8 gigs of DDR2 of ram. Its mildly overclocked to 2.6 ghz, and water cooled, but thats as special as it gets. My usual fsx performance gives me between 40 to 100 fps with most sliders set above the halfway point, and some maxed out. Even Tokyo barely causes it to flinch.

[harleyman]

Personally my experience with the I cores is they run HOT HOT HOT

and IMO offer only some memory gains over the socket 775 , say Q9650 or 9550 OCed to 3.4 and up on air

I suggest you water cool any i7

[txnetcop]

I'm impressed by what i see with the new I7s and the AMD offerings, but truth told I'm still running an old q6600 quad core with 8 gigs of DDR2 of ram. Its mildly overclocked to 2.6 ghz, and water cooled, but thats as special as it gets. My usual fsx performance gives me between 40 to 100 fps with most sliders set above the halfway point, and some maxed out. Even Tokyo barely causes it to flinch.


Yes Pam you see it really comes down to what you can live with. For instance if you own the PWN series by ORBYX you do not have to turn your sliders all the way right to enjoy some very nice scenery. The same is true with some parts of FSX stock. However if you are a scenery maniac like me and just have to have detail the AMD six core and i7 are the only way to go especially if you want speed and max scenery. It costs to see more that's just the way it is with FSX. The good news is that it doesn't take a mainframe to run FSX well anymore. If you don't mind settling for a little less on the slider side of FSX, Harleyman's E5200(or E5500) with a G31/G41 motherboard can run FSX well, and he builds it for a great price.

Harleyman is right there is a definite benefit to water cooling even if you just use the H50 Corsair ( http://www.guru3d.com/article/corsair-h50-cpu-cooler-review/ )system which is very inexpensive to keep that CPU cool. My test system uses Reserator II and keeps the CPU at less than 50C running FAR CRY 2 and the latest HALO at full graphics and CPU set.
Ted

[warchild]

Yes Pam you see it really comes down to what you can live with. For instance if you own the PWN series by ORBYX you do not have to turn your sliders all the way right to enjoy some very nice scenery.
Ted

Well yes, i agree.. But i also run SceneryTek (sp?) North America and Asia, Ultimate Traffic, UT2, FTX, GEX, REX2-overdrive, ASA, The Solomon Islands, and a few others. Plus the planes i fly like the CS C-130 have been notorious for frame rate problems..

the only drawback i see with my particular system, is that, another year down the road, and i wont have any choice but to build another computer, but it does point up one pertinent fact. in FSX quads and more rule.. Duals can get by ( barely ) and singles are best left to grandmothers still running dos 3.1.

[Bjoern]

I did this on an EVGA 780i with Tuniq tower cooling two or three years ago:
CPU Core - 1.375v
CPU FSB - 1.325v
SPP (NB) - 1.45v
MCP (SB) - 1.5v
SPP (NB) << - >> MCP (SB) - 1.3v
GTL Ref: Lane 1,3,4: +20mV, Lane 2: +30mV
Timings 5-5-5-18
FSB 1850/4 = 462.5
Memory below the FSB is at 1066
18520
3.7Ghz

What cooler?

[txnetcop]

What cooler?

This one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835154001 ya better have a deep case for this one Amigo LOL

[kilo delta]

This one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835154001 ya better have a deep case for this one Amigo LOL

A fantastic cooler,however. I ripped out several liquid cooling systems (Alienware liquid cooling units and Coolit TEC coolers)and replaced with this cooler as it performed better. I've a Corsair H50 sitting here and I'll give it a try on my sim pc at some stage....although my PC's temps are fine even with the chip oc-ed to 4.2ghz.

[Bjoern]

This one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835154001 ya better have a deep case for this one Amigo LOL

Don't worry, I've got my case open 24/7 anyways. The air intakes on it are too small to support all the coolers.

[warchild]

Welllllll.. ok,, this is about as practical as a bladeless potato peeler, but since your talking about cooling, quads and all things in between.. I got this from evga yesterday.. The first sound you hear is the sound of metal getting super cooled :) enjoy..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOfHN_MV8yc

You may now return to topic ::lol::.
Pam ;)