Advice on CPU upgrade

[Sarge27 0]

I am currently running an AMD FX-55 CPU. I've read a lot of good things about the Core 2 Duo chips, especially how easily the 6400 and 6600 overclock on the stock fan. I am having trouble finding "apples to apples" comparisons with my current CPU as far as what this upgrade would do for FSX in the end. My questions are, 1) Out of the box, which core duo best compares with the FX-55 for speed, and 2) Which Core 2 Duo gives you the most bang for the buck when you consider stock cooler overclocking ability?Thanks!

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Not quite the exact comparison you were looking for but read this to compare an FX-62 with the top line C2Ds with FSX http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_093a.htmlRe, bang for buck overclocking, the following is an extract of a post I made the other day re this topic:"I find the best way to pick which CPU you should choose in a given class is to find out where the majority are overclocking to with current batches, then pick the one that gives you at least a 95% chance of an overclock to a level that provides a reasonable FSB. In the case of C2D's (and I am quoting from data available at HardOCP forums), the following are average overclocks per family member with associated FSBs in brackets and pricewatch.com lowest price following that:X6800 - 3.64GHz (330MHz) $930E6700 - 3.57HGz (357MHz) $494E6600 - 3.40GHz (378MHz) $313E6400 - 3.26GHz (407MHz) $218E6300 - 3.15GHz (450MHz) $183You can see going for E6700 or above that the price escalates rapidly with minimal increase in achieved overclocks, and the FSB is still way withing current motherboard tolerances. The E6600 and E6400 represent much better value for money for their achievable overclock and a resultant bus speed in the sweet spot range of modern motherboards. The E6300 is quite a battler, but usually requires the more expensive motherboards and RAM to operate at this higher FSB, which offsets the savings you made by going for this little cheapy in the first place.As such, I recommend either an E6600 or E6400 with a mid-range motherboard known to easily hit 400MHz FSB and some brand name DDR2 800 RAM to round it off."Gary

[Guest baja94]

I have the same CPU on a A8n-sli delux. From what I hear AMD will be coming out with the FX-72 but it is not in 939 format. Presently for the 939 format you can go up to FX-62 but its like $600.00 to $700 for it. Seems like a lot of money to me for a little increase in performance

[jdk2 1]

And for that same $600 or so, he could have a Core2Duo 6600, and an nVidia 680i SLI motherboard. I don't think the OP will see that much of an increase to justify the cost, whichever way he chooses to go.There are numerous reports of members getting the most expensive and latest hardware and still haven't found the experience worthwhile. Research the web before throwing a lot of money into the sim. Advances in hardware are going in a direction that won't help FSX greatly for the foreseeable future. Be patient.Jim Karn

[Guest Buck Bolduc]

>I have the same CPU on a A8n-sli delux. From what I hear AMD>will be coming out with the FX-72 but it is not in 939 format.>Presently for the 939 format you can go up to FX-62 but its>like $600.00 to $700 for it. Seems like a lot of money to me>for a little increase in performanceAMD will later (this fall) I think come out with a socket 1207 setup that will use the FX-72-74 running at 3.2 GHz. I think it's the 4X4 setup.It will be based on the K8L CPU. The problem is, and I'm not sure, is if you can use another CPU while waiting for the K8L version?Anyhow, it is supposed to have 2x2 MB L2 and a shared L-3?My system is getting old now:Athlon 64 3400-1MB L2 on a MSI mobo with 1 gig Corsair ram, NV GT-6800NX vid card.I do notice tho that my system seems to perform better than slightly faster CPU's with only 512MB of L2 cache.The extra 512 cache seems to make a big difference.As far as overclocking AMD CPU's I've built a few systems with A64 5200 X2's ( 2.6 Ghz) and overclocked to 3.GHz with no problems.With the sliders at minimum except for global textures I get 12-15 FPS, in FSX.I attribute it to the 1 meg L2, some guy's with supposedly highes end systems get a little less?

[Mace 1,902]

>I do notice tho that my system seems to perform better than>slightly faster CPU's with only 512MB of L2 cache.>>I attribute it to the 1 meg L2, some guy's with supposedly>highes end systems get a little less?> I think the 1mb L2 really does help a lot vs. the 512 mb L2 aMD cpu's.I don't know about the Core2's in this regard.The OP's FX55 is a fine cpu for FS(x), and while a E6600 Core2 would be faster in the sim, I am not sure it is justifiable for the OP given that he would also have to get new ram, new mb, etc. Really it comes down to how much $$ the OP wants to spend for what would be in essence a moderate upgrade.If I had a properly configged FX55-based system I would probably be not so inclined to shell out for Core2 at this time. I also feel that way with my 3700+ San Diego. It has the 1mb cache you mention and it does very very well in FSX, seeming to get better results in the sim, than people with supposedly more advanced cpu's.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian