FSX Review on Quad Q6700

[jackcnd 0]

Yesterday, I helped build a new FSX system:Q6700 CPU @ 3.2gHz, 320 FSBP5K Deluxe MB, bios 4.04eVGA 8800 GTS 640MB, new driverAntec P182 CaseOCZ 600W P/S2 x 1GB Crucial Balistix RamFSX SP1Vista 32It's a screamer system on paper with those 4 CPU's at 3.2GHz.I'm disappointed to report the Q6700 runs VERY HOT in the p5K, it idles at 50-55C even with speedstep on, the under load it hits well over 60C ,close to 70C at times. It was a very not day too that didnt help.Those temps even in the 3 fan P182 case quickly drive up temps and soon all fans are running full out and loud, even at stock clocks similar heat generated.OK, so you will take the heat and noise for the performance...Well, FSX does NOT seem to handle the quad chip very well. My duo system runs smoother and much quieter. With the duo, the CPU hits 75-100 most of the time, and its runs smooth.With the Quad, its was not smooth. I seen graphic glitches when panning up/down a rolling bar, and the CPU did not balance the load well, it often ran at just +/- 25% then would jump to 33% -90% and then back to 25%. 25% indicates using just 1 cpu and most of the time thats where it stayed.If it performed well at 25 then great, but it did not, you could see delays in scenery loading, and the graphic problems mentioned. Combine that with the noise and heat and I cant recommend a quad system for FSX, unless someone has some suggestions to solve these concerns. Otherwise, it looks like the Q6700 system is going back for a smooth cool quiet e6750 or E6850.Note I ran benchmarks the system was indeed running at 3.2Ghz and just flew running concurrent apps. The Q6700 uses the new G0 stepping and is supposed to run cooler. It did o/c well as many expect. I could run 4 concurrent x64 emulators at 9500%!, compared to just 2 at 8500% on the duo chips. So the quad seems faster at the same clock speed as the duo in that case.

[Guest]

Hmm well I haven't seen much evidence a quad has any real benefit over dual. Thats why I'll be be getting an E6850, as there is no point in getting a quad for games right now.

[tf51d 284]

Someone posted a while back, that they didn't get the performance they were expecting with the quad until they adjusted the AffinityMask settings to use only 3 cores. I believe they set it to use cores 2,3, and 4 which would be I believe that's AffinityMask=13 Which translates to 1110 in binary. This leaves core 1 alone to handle system functions.

[jackcnd 0]

>Someone posted a while back, that they didn't get the>performance they were expecting with the quad until they>adjusted the AffinityMask settings to use only 3 cores. I>believe they set it to use cores 2,3, and 4 which would be I>believe that's AffinityMask=13 Which translates to 1110 in>binary. This leaves core 1 alone to handle system functions. Wish we had of tried that. I'm sure I must of had something amiss, also was using the just released 8800 driver that my explain the graphics issues, as in my duo setup Im using a older version.In the end, I'm very happy with my duo 6750 @ 3.2GHz, it runs very cool about 20C less than the quad did, and performs great in FSX with SP1 and the memory fix.Think I'll sit out this round of quads, and wait for Penryns or the next advancement after those. The Penryns on 45nm may run a fair bit cooler too.

[tf51d 284]

The duo's are said to overclock better anyway, so your probably better off, since you do overclock. BTW not that it matters anymore, but I miscalculated the affinitymask setting. (I had just woke up when I initially posted :-) )It should have been 14 not 13! 13 would have given you Cores 1,3, and 4 or 1101 binary!

[jackcnd 0]

>The duo's are said to overclock better anyway,...The 6750 o/c is limited by its low multipler of 6-8x, best I can do is 8x400 for 3.2. I'm sure a 6850 would hit 9x400 3.6 without problem.The quad 6700 on the other hand goes from 6-10x with a lower base FSB so offers more headroom. I had it at 10x320 out of the box, I'm sure it would have done more, but heat generated in the room, even at stock speeds was too high for my liking in the summer. It was like having a space heater turned up full. :)

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

In that case, the E6600 and E6700 are still good buys with their 9x and 10x mult respectively. They will both easily overclock to the native 1333MHz bus of their brothers, and will likely overclock just as far thereafter - all for $50 less.Gary.

[Mace 1,969]

>In that case, the E6600 and E6700 are still good buys with>their 9x and 10x mult respectively. They will both easily>overclock to the native 1333MHz bus of their brothers, and>will likely overclock just as far thereafter - all for $50>less.>>Gary.Don't you mean $500 less. ?Since someone mentioned it, I'm wondering how well the Penryns will overclock. I suppose time will tell...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[GHarrall 494]

There was no price cut on the E6600 and E6700 so they are actually more expensive now than their 1333 FSB equivalent brothers.If you can find me and E6700 for less than $300 CDN, let me know!!Glenn

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

I was going off pricewatch prices, which has the E6600 (9x266=2.4GHz) at around $210-$220 whereas its 1333MHz equivalent, the E6850 (9x333=3.0GHz), is around $290.Gary

[Guest Adrian Wainer]

I would presume a hardware charactoristic that might be holding the Intel Quadcore back, is that it is really two Conroe Core 2 on a single chip, which means that the two dualies have to use the motherboard bus for their messageing to one another rather than being able directly to communicate with one another on the chip, which they could in an truly intergrated quad-core processor. Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

[jackcnd 0]

UPDATE:Did a install tonight of another quad for a friend, it went perfect this time!FSX never looked so good and ran so fast, and we ran it at stock speeds. This time used a Q6600 with a eVGA 650i MB and eVGA 8800 320MB video card and a Corsair 620HX power supply.Something was clearly wrong with the 1st Q6700 install I reported in the original post of the thread.I can recommend a quad or duo now for FSX, just get a good power supply, I suspect that was the issue with the earlier install.

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

Now the Q6600 dollar question is, if you turn off two of the four cores using the core affinity setting, does it make any FPS / bluriness / stutter difference?Gary

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

Heeelllooo ooo ooo ooo :-)Gary

[Guest D17S]

I saw that test-thread . . . was it here? Can't remember. Setting affinity to force quad-mode made no difference.