Dilemma over CPU for FS9 and maybe FSX

[Ray Proudfoot 8,952]

My current FS system is now four years old and despite changing the graphics card (to support a 24" display) and increasing the RAM to 3Gb I feel it's taken me as far as it can.I do have FSX but because of my hardware I cannot enjoy the experience. FS9 has been transformed with Ultimate Terrain, GE, Ultimate Traffic and FS Global and many 3rd party airports. But I have to avoid the larger airports (EGLL, KLAX, KORD) because the frame rate drops to single figures. I fly the PMDG737 (80%) and Concorde (20%). The PSS Concorde is not available for FSX but even if it were I would be reluctant to dump FS9 as it still looks good and I have invested so much in it.So, I'm looking at building a new system primarily for FS9 to last until FSXI arrives in 2-3 years but also for occasional FSX use.I've decided on the following components to run under XP:-Antec Sonata III case 500 Watt PSUAsus P5K Premium Wi-Fi AP mobo2Gb Corsair XMS2-8500 RAMBFG 8800GTX 768Mb500Gb Hitachi DeskstarZalman CNPS9700LED coolerHowever, where I cannot decide is what processor to get. I'm stuck between the Core2Duo E6850 3Ghz running at 1333FSB and Core2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz running at 1066FSB. Pricewise there's nothing between them.I cannot work out if the higher FSB of the E6850 will outperform the Q6600 or whether the Quad processor will outperform the Duo. Whilst FSX can take advantage of multiple core processors I doubt FS9 can so in order to maximise my frame rates and overall performance does it make sense to go for the Core2Duo with faster FSB and clock speed?Finally, I run all other FS-related software on a second PC so this one will only be running FS9 and the Project Magenta MCP.Advice appreciated please.

[Guest jimcooper1]

Ray,I'd go for the E6850(I have an X6800 2-core)Jim

[Ray Proudfoot 8,952]

Thank you Jim. I posted the same question elsewhere and had the same recommendation. :-)

[FLEX1978 373]

Both of those will run FS9 maxed out with complex aircaft. You will have the biggest smile on your face when you get your new system up and running :)Rob

[Guest Ben74]

whoo hoo, upgrade time! congrats. i just upgraded from an althon 64 3500+ to a core 2 quad Q6600, and i am astonished by the performance of the Q6600. i'm running FSX though. if you're committed to FS9, then the C2D is probably your best choice. see this article about overclocking duo vs quad. the duo will OC to a higher freq, and yield better performance in games that can't use mutliple cores.http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/i recommend considering overclockability when choosing your components. huge gains in FPS can be had for free. it just takes a little bit of reading. here's a great thread on overclocking C2Ds and C2Qs.http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/240001-2...ads-duals-guidei used this thread's advice to overclock my Q6600 to 3.2ghz, and i'm still using a relatively old medium performance zalman CNPS7000 CPU cooler.i experimented with overclocking using a standard 9x FSB multiplier, versus using a 7x multiplier and bumping up the FSB. the system ran hotter in the latter config, and yielded no FPS gains in FSX. some people will tell you that running your memory at higher freqs won't yield real world performance gains, but i found that to be untrue with FSX. i got more FPS running the memory at 1066 than 800.good luck!

[Mace 1,910]

The key is that either the quad OR the dual will allow you to run FS9 with sliders maxxed. So really for your specific apps and usage it makes no difference.If I were planning to rebuild it in 2 years time (i.e. FS11 timeframe) and if I ran as you do (mostly FS9) then I would be tempted to get the dualie and of course o/c it a little for the FSX usage (else why buy the P5K and Zalman).I don't see anything in your proposed build that will harm you, unless you are going to do some pretty good overclocking. If you are going for some significant overclocking, I'd re-think the ram, and the power supply. But for typical use and a moderate overclock you will be ok with those. With FS9 you won't need to overclock at all.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

[Ray Proudfoot 8,952]

Hi Ben,Thanks for your reply and the link to those articles. It's close to my bedtime now but I'll read them tonorrow and come back to you. The right research does pay dividends but all this overclocking malarky needs careful thought to avoid frying the CPU!:-eek

[Ray Proudfoot 8,952]

Thanks Rob. You have no preference of one over the other especially for FS9?

[Guest Ben74]

i was a little intimidated by overclocking at first too, but i found it to be pretty easy and actually really fun. just monitor your temps and go in baby steps, and you won't be risking much at all.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,952]

Thanks Rhett. As someone who posts here a lot I value your opinion.I'm new to overclocking so I plan on starting with zero o/clock and then as I learn more about it increase the FSB speed and observe the effects (temp and performance).I very much doubt I'll be into anything extreme regarding o/clocking so those components will hopefully suffice.I will be running at 1920*1200 so that's why I decided on the more capable 8800GTX.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,952]

<>It all seems to revolve around selecting the FSB speed. Simple enough I suppose. What needs to be planned for is the extra heat and choosing the right CPU cooler. Some are so large they may not fit in my proposed Antec Sonata III case.If you know of any that would I'd appreciate the models.

[Guest Ben74]

the zalman cooler you mentioned in your first post is an excellent choice for overclocking. it's smaller than the popular thermalright tower coolers, so if you're concerned about space, then go with the zalman.note that it's important to choose a mobo and memory that overclock well. also, the CPU stepping is very important. those tom's hardware articles can tell you more about stepping.i'm very happy with my gigabyte P35-DS3R mobo. the DS3 series is popular for overclocking, and there's lot of info and help available for them. just note that you should not use gigabyte's @BIOS utility for updating the bios. it erased the bios on my first board. newegg replaced it though!

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Dual core for sure. FS9 (and FSX) eats up clock speed over core count.Gary

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

Hi there,I just finished building my new PC, pending OS installation.Instead of the E6850 I choose the new E8400 (around 170Euro) at 3Ghz.It's the new Penryn core build at 45nm requiring less energy and producing less heat.Tests I've read on Tom's Hardware and such give it very good credit.Alternatively you could go for the E8650 at 3.16Ghz but the price leap is noticeable (E8650 costing about 270Euro), and doesn't justify the amount of extra money vs performance differences.Note that you will need a P35 (or newer) based mobo to support the new Penryn CPUs>George DorkofikisAthens, Hellashttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

[Ray Proudfoot 8,952]

Hi Ben,Thanks for the tip on the Zalman. Very useful tip on the stepping number. I'll make sure I get the lower voltage processor. Easy to miss things like that on retailer's websites.I'm now thinking of the MSI P35 Neo2. I was initially put off my what I thought were water pipes but they're actually heat pipes. I'm not brave enough to introduce water to a system just yet. The comparison of the C2D and Quad processors on TomsHardware gave a good review of the MSI and I've always liked their boards.I chose the memory from this review www.custompc.co.uk/labs/120996/corsair-twin2x2048-8500c5d-dominator.html which seems to rate it very highly. Prices are now much lower than those quoted.I'll avoid Gigabyte boards for the reason that they should look after your BIOS settings a bit better than you describe! :-eekI'm still working my way through those articles - very interesting!:-)