Core 2 vs i7 Benchmarks

[SolarEagle]

Here's some bechmarks showing the type of clock per clock performance gain that can be expected when moving from Core 2 to i7. I posted this in one of the threads in the guides forum, but I figured it would get more exposure here, and being that this is excellent info and hard to come by that might be a good thing for those who like me having been looking for this data for some time. I was estimating a 30% gain and these results seem to confirm that, ranging from a 21% to 50% gain at equal clocks.

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5878944&postcount=4

Here's one benchmark of sorts:
i7 920 @ 2.8 vs. q9550 @ 2.83
* All sliders full max except traffic, which is zeroed out
* 4GB ram & ATI 4850 video in both
* In B-737 cockpit, full wide view, sittling on default Runway at krno with fair wx in mid-day

q9550= average of 27 fps
i7 920= average of 40 fps

Most games don't see much improvement with Nehalem, but it looks like those who predicted that MSFS X would benefit were absolutely right.

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5879770&postcount=12

Just did a FRAPs test on a local flight over Seattle in F-18 at 1500 ft & 300 knots over the same route. Nehalem still rules but the margin was a bit lower this time:

Q9550 @2.83Ghz= 17fps average in fraps
i7 920 @ 2.8 Ghz= 21 fps average in fraps

That's a 23% increase in frame rate for i7, which isn't as good as the 50% I saw sitting on the runway, but lots of tests will be necessary to bracket the performance difference.

The i7 ran much smoother, though, and produced a considerably-better flight experience. I suspect the Nehalem will gain ground at higher Ghz, due to better memory handling. I hope to have mine up to 3.8Ghz later in week to do more tests

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5882993&postcount=36
http://nextlevelhardware.com/FSX.jpg

[Kiwikat]

How do you think those would compare to a E8600 at 4 GHz?

I'm stuck between the E8600 and Q9550 so I'm curious how the E8600 stacks up against the overclocked quads. I'd run the Q9550 at 3.4 or 3.5 if I got it and the E8600 at at least 4 GHz.

[kilo delta]

As FSX is capable of utilising multiple core...i'd heartily recommend going for an overclocked quad. If you don't want to overclock then go with the chip with the highest clock....in this case the E8600.
I'd my E8500 running at 4.4GHZ+ on an older system and , although it performed admirally, both of my quadcore sytems running @ 4GHZ will provide a better gaming experience in FSX.

I remain unimpressed with the i7 fsx benchmarks that have been released thus far. I'd like a lot more in game fps before I shell out on a new system just yet. :)

[MM]

SolarEagle, thanks for posting the comparisons. Useful perspective.

Mike

[ryanbatc]

How bout texture loading? It's hard to measure that. Were all the textures loaded equally between the two systems. Have you tried changing the LOD RADIUS to like 6 or higher? I was hoping that these new i7's could run higher than stock 4.5. I can't stand the small load radius for textures, it drive me insane - compared to what FS9 was able to do.

[SolarEagle]

Textures load much better on a quad than a dual, as well as fewer stutters, which is why I much prefer a lower clocked quad over a higher clocked dual.

I've not heard anything specific about imporvements in texture loading on i7 though it's said i7 provides a much smoother experience overall with more consistant frame rates.

[stansdds]

I'm starting to wish that I had opted for a quad instead of a dual core CPU. My E6850 is now running very smoothly at 3.6GHz and absolutely no overheating or stability issues, but I still can't turn up all the visual goodies in FSX like I can in FS9. Regardless of any performance improvements or lack thereof in the new Core i7, the LGA775 is dead and the LGA1336 platform will become the new standard, so I'm not likely to swap out CPU's, I'll just wait another year and build a new computer.

[Panther_99FS]

Since I've been dead in the water now with no FS PC for a few weeks, I've been saving for an i7 based system. (I figure starting off with an excellent motherboard will allow for future i7 CPU upgrades).

But still, that extra "only 7 FPS" can mean the difference between a terrible 13FPS & a good 20FPS :mixedsmi:

[MCDesigns]

I remain unimpressed with the i7 fsx benchmarks that have been released thus far. I'd like a lot more in game fps before I shell out on a new system just yet. :)

Same here!

P, good luck with the new rig, I sure hope they stay with the LGA1336 platform for all our sakes, nothing worse than a socket change AFTER you get a new mobo.

[kilo delta]

If possible, anyone in the market for a new PC should hold off till Summer '09 when 2nd gen i7 systems and cpu's will be available and prices will have settled.

PS. I wouldn't rule out LGA775 systems just yet! Some people have been getting very acceptable performance in FSX especially with the advent of the 45nm Intel chips :) Now that i7 is the new kid on the block there'll be some great bargains on the "old" hardware.

[stansdds]

Same here!

P, good luck with the new rig, I sure hope they stay with the LGA1336 platform for all our sakes, nothing worse than a socket change AFTER you get a new mobo.
That is one of the reasons that I am no longer a fan of AMD. Socket 939 was the platform of the future, great! I bought one, then Socket AM2 was it, nope, AM2+ is the future, nope, AM3! Meanwhile, Intel chugged along really well with LGA775. When it came time for a new computer, I ditched AMD and their socket of the month club and went to the LGA775.

LGA1336 is brand new, we'll see how it does. If the Core i7 CPU's start to show a significant advantage over the Core2 series, then I think the 1336 will be around for a long time.

[Panther_99FS]

If possible, anyone in the market for a new PC should hold off till Summer '09 when 2nd gen i7 systems and cpu's will be available and prices will have settled.

Funds permitting,
You're asking the impossible out of me...- wait 9 months before I can play FSX again? :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

[MCDesigns]

Funds permitting,
You're asking the impossible out of me...- wait 9 months before I can play FSX again? :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

It's a tough call, we all want the latest hardware to come out to have the power to max out FSX and then when they drop the ball and reality kicks in, we have to make some tough spending choices.

Myself, I was really betting on the hype that there would be a 30%+ increase with Nehalem, but that isn't the reality without lots of $$ and overclocking.

So my game plan is just to upgrade my mobo/vidcard and get a good LGA775 CPU and hope I get the better performance I should upgrading from what I have now. Sad thing is, I get unusually good performance with what I have now, LOL.

Hopefully when FS11 comes out in 2010, the hardware will be out to actually give you a good experience and I'll do a full system then.

[kilo delta]

I hear ya, P :)........there's never a "right" time to build or buy a PC as there's always something new on the horizon. I too am considering a new i7 computer but i'm going to hold off until i've had the opportunity to test out my desired configuration on a "try before you buy" basis. :isadizzy::wavey:

[Panther_99FS]

I'm keen on the i7 because FSXI as I understand it *should* be designed around i7 architecture and Windows 7 OS :mixedsmi:

[Kiwikat]

If FSXI runs on an i7 I don't see why a Q9550 running at 3.5 GHz or so would have any problems with it. You can run FSX maxxed out on the Penryn quads and get very very good performance. I honestly don't see why people would spend the extra money for the i7 unless they are doing other things with the computer, like video processing.

Grab the Q9550 and a Xigmatek cooler, and you can easily overclock to 3.8 GHz. That's what I've decided I will be doing very soon. My total build cost will be around 1900 dollars, tower, monitor, OS, and input devices included. If you have all the rest, the tower would be around 13-1400 dollars, much more affordable.

[Panther_99FS]

Grab the Q9550 and a Xigmatek cooler, and you can easily overclock to 3.8 GHz.

Negative on the quad.
i7 is very easily overclocked also.

Funds permitting, I'm going for the i7. Besides, with games other than FSX, the i7 performs much better than the quad...

[Panther_99FS]

There's some nice i7 information in this thread that Aerosoft has gathered--> http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=21858

[Kiwikat]

If I had the extra 200 dollars or so it would take to make a decent i7 build, I'd probably go for it. I don't even have the money I need for the Q9550 build...:isadizzy:

I wish college were free... :costumes:

[Panther_99FS]

I wish college were free... :costumes:

At one point during my college career, I was working 2 different jobs at the same time...
It's worth it in the long run though :wiggle:

[Panther_99FS]

Note their F-16 screenshot FPS comparison...


There's some nice i7 information in this thread that Aerosoft has gathered--> http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=21858

[Kiwikat]

Note their F-16 screenshot FPS comparison...

Interesting... the i7 920 is actually cheaper than the Q9550, but the motherboard and ram are more. Spending 150 dollars on 6 GB triple channel ram and 300 dollars on a motherboard is a bit steep. Plus there don't seem to be any decent native LGA 1366 CPU coolers.

On some tech forum I saw someone using the 920 with the Asus P6T and a cooler master heat sink/fan and had it overclocked to 4.0 ghz stable. Can you imagine the FPS that'd give? :costumes:

[MCDesigns]

There's some nice i7 information in this thread that Aerosoft has gathered--> http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=21858

LOL, he got lucky on that screenshot, wouldn't base a build on that alone

[kilo delta]

Let's see the fps using real weather over Aerosoft London X with all sliders maxxed out and very high resolution (1600x1200 minimum) with 8x AA and 16x AF :)

[Panther_99FS]

Let's see the fps using real weather over Aerosoft London X with all sliders maxxed out and very high resolution (1600x1200 minimum) with 8x AA and 16x AF :)

I'd love to see comparison shot with the Quad in these conditions...:mixedsmi: