What is the best CPU for fs2004 ?

[Guest Sean Reeder]

wattage has very little to do with heat output.If that was the case P4's wouldnt be wall heaters.

[acmech 2]

Thank you so much for the advise but now I am confused ??? I wish I could find a site that tested hardware using fs9 or fx10 that would be great...

[Bob Scott 7,721]

>wattage has very little to do with heat output.If that was>the case P4's wouldnt be wall heaters.It has everything to do with heat, as the figures I quoted are the thermal power or thermal design power of the CPU, not the total power consumption. To compare, a 3.4 GHz P4 Prescott has a total thermal power of 115W...so yes, the figures do indeed tell us it's a heat monster.Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Guest Sean Reeder]

acmech i dont have sites that specifically test fs2004 but here are some cpu benchmark sites.http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htmlgo to cpu chartsremember price to performance is also very important.Good luck on your hunt.

[jamiee 0]

acmech,At the end of the day, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Processor at 2.93GHz, 1066FSB, LGA775, 4MB Cache is the fastest processor on the market in terms of pure performance per clock speed.The QX6700 Quad runs at the same clock speed as an E6700 but has the four cores which will give it an advantage over the X6800 in certain situations. Flight Simulator isn't one of them unfortunately - simply because it requires pure clock speed and ignores multiple cores.Now for the price, I'd consider getting a QX6700 (since it costs the same as a X6800) and overclock it. They are known to reach 3.0Ghz easily.But that's me... you on the other hand might have no desire to overclock or may have no real need for a quad core CPU. That being the case, then just grab an X6800 and enjoy :)I'm currently running my E6700 at 3.0Ghz & it runs FS2004 very well.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

[Bob Scott 7,721]

>acmech,>>At the end of the day, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800>Processor at 2.93GHz, 1066FSB, LGA775, 4MB Cache is the>fastest processor on the market in terms of pure performance>per clock speed.>>The QX6700 Quad runs at the same clock speed as an E6700 but>has the four cores which will give it an advantage over the>X6800 in certain situations. Flight Simulator isn't one of>them unfortunately - simply because it requires pure clock>speed and ignores multiple cores.>>Now for the price, I'd consider getting a QX6700 (since it>costs the same as a X6800) and overclock it. They are known>to reach 3.0Ghz easily.>But that's me... you on the other hand might have no desire to>overclock or may have no real need for a quad core CPU. That>being the case, then just grab an X6800 and enjoy :)For me, the deciding factor in the decision for an X6800 versus the quad core QX6700 was heat...the quad core is going to need something exotic for cooling if overclocked...I can run the X6800 at 3.6GHz on air (Zalman 7700-Cu fan) in a 30 deg C room.Given that the second core of the X6800 is barely used when running FS, the quad core just doesn't make sense to me...the X6800 can be overclocked (at low voltages, too) to much higher performance than the QX6700.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[jamiee 0]

I fully agree Bob.In most cases the X6800 is the better if not more sensible option.I'm cooling my E6700 with a Zalman CNPS9500 and it does quite a decent job of keeping things cool.Unfortunately I got a week 24 batch CPU & like most, it doesn't like to overclock all that well. Best I can get is just over 3.3Ghz stable, but I have to pump loads of voltage into it thus increasing the heat. At 3.0Ghz I can run stock voltage without issue.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

[acmech 2]

Thanks,How well is --->" I'm currently running my E6700 at 3.0Ghz & it runs FS2004 very well".Also which video card are you using.I currently own the AMD fx55 with 4gigs of ddr 400 ,nvida 7900 1024 mb and (2) 10,000 rpm raptors .Even with this system some addons in fs2004 will still drop the frames down to 12 fps with 100% traffic, durning a weather situation and in some addon scenery like fly tampa seattle.I don't want to up grade and see just 2 to 4 frame increase. If that is the case I will just wait another year(But I am ready to up grade if there is a CPU that will push the sim) .I purchased my AMD procesor 2 years ago at full price back then when it first was on the market.Still to this day I see good results with it. Two weeks ago I built a rig for a friend of mine . He used the AMD fx 62 with the new ddr2 800mhz .Even with this new equipment my system still is about only 1 to 2 fps different from his in the same situations.Although ,Its been awhile since I have built a rig with a Intel processor and wanted to know how good are they really. I would just hate to blow $1500 bucks and find only 3 fps increase in performance. I am not knocking down any processor. I just think for all of us SIMMERS this kind of information is a MUST HAVE!Thank You

[Bob Scott 7,721]

Well, as with most things in life, there are no guarantees. All I can tell you first hand is my experience upgrading from a 3.06GHz P-4HT machine with a 256MB 6800Ultra and 1GB of 1066MHz RDRAM to a X6800 Controe at 3.2Ghz, 2GB of DDR2-8000 and a 768MB 8800GTX was nothing short of striking. I keep the frame rates locked at 30, and 30 is where they stay...with a PMDG 744 at SimFlyers Atlanta, ActiveSky 6.5 generating bad wx, Radar Contact 4 generating ATC, full suite of 38m to 306m FSGenesis mesh and 2-4 windows open on a second monitor. Nothing I've thrown at it yet has dropped the frames below 30.My previous system gave acceptable performance with frames locked at 22 fps most of the time, but the aforementioned mix of plane, scenery, and add-ons would have my older system performing with frame rates in the single digits. Happy simming with the previous system involved careful scenario management...if flying the PMDG B744 into JFK, best do it with clear wx, or alternatively I could take the TinMouse B732 there with bad weather thrown in. But not a scenario with all the preformance hits all thrown in together. Now I can do that, and it's a great feeling!As a preliminary benchmark, FSX runs Jordan Moore's Bell 412 at 25 fps over Phoenix with sliders way to the right and only a reduced default.xml and the fiber frame fraction tweak. Still too early to tell how it'll run with a bunch of add-ons added to the mix...they don't really exist yet.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[acmech 2]

Bob,Thanks for your input!I am sure for most of us out there that have upgraded at least once since fs2004 first came out.This post will help someone besides myself make a good decision on their nexr up grade. Yes, most systems will run fs2004 but it has almost been a mystery which system will actually allow you to enjoy all the addons we have picked up throughout the years all at once.Its good to hear their is a system able to push this sim at a pace for the hardcore simmer.Thanks again!

[Bob Scott 7,721]

I can't describe how neat it is to be able to run FS9 and any add-on combo that you can think of with utter and complete impunity.Flew a low-vis approach into FlyTampa KSFO in the PMDG 737 the other day...when I taxied clear the hair on the back of my neck was standing up...CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Guest dpc]

Not sure about the Opti but I just replaced my 4000+ with the FX-57 San Diego. Its also a 2.8 processor. You can pick it up at Newegg for $319 and it comes with a nice cooler, pipes and everything. I have it comfortably running at 3.0. I desided to stay single core until I build a new machine in a year or so. (letting the FSX/Vista/Dual-core/DX10 dust settle a bit). I'm very pleased with this cpu.