Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

happyflyer53

Q9650 Or E8600?

Recommended Posts

Hello all !This is my current system mainly used for FSX:Intel Q6600 Quad Core (not OC)ASUS Maximus Extreme MoboCorsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3-1333ATI Radeon HD 3870X2Antec P182 with PC Power & Cooling 750W QUADSeagate 500GB and Seagate 1GBSamsung 245B 24' 1920x1200FSX frame rate is so so...I wish to put in a faster CPU (to be OC).Question: E8600 Duo Core or Q9650 Quad? Is the Quad worth the extra money?Does FSX fully use the Quad technology?Also, I plan to replace the 3870X2 by a 8800 Ultra.Any comment will be appreciated.HF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi HF.You may want to consider a 2 Step upgrade and see what / how much you can get out of your present combo. If that does not meet your needs spend as much as you can afford, a Quad will get you a more lasting upgrade, but by looking at your trend that is not something you are concerned about, the other will save you some money, now, and get close to the same performance for MSFS.The two step that I would try is, OC the 6600 to max., see Nick's and Sam's posts on this board for details, and Benchmark, if not happy add the Video and see what you get. If that is not up to your threshold go for the new MOBO and CPU, if time is not an issue for you. If you have XP 64 stay with it. If you have to buy an OS, get the Vista64, at least SP1, do not get Vista32 or anything without SP in it TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second that you should look at maximizing your current rig, especially the oc potential of the Q6600.The Q9650 is an excellent overclocker (relative to other quads) - it will not easily (if at all) go as high as the E8600 may but even at 3.4GHz the Q9650 will offer framerates pretty much on par with the E8600 at 4GHz. FSX will use all 4 cores, especially if you like your addons, so a quad is the way to go.The 8800 Ultra will be a very decent upgrade over the 3870x2. FSX does not benefit from SLI at all unless you run a 30" screen. The 9800GTX+ is also well worth a look.So, get the 8800 Ultra/9800GTX+ and oc that Q6600 as much as you can! The GTX260 Core216 also offers pretty good price/performance ratios and may well end up being a better buy in the longer term if you plan to move with it across to i7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll second that you should look at maximizing your current rig, especially the oc potential of the Q6600.The Q9650 is an excellent overclocker (relative to other quads) - it will not easily (if at all) go as high as the E8600 may but even at 3.4GHz the Q9650 will offer framerates pretty much on par with the E8600 at 4GHz. FSX will use all 4 cores, especially if you like your addons, so a quad is the way to go.
Is it true that a quad such as the QX9650 has an advantage over a dual core CPU when it comes to avoiding blurries and maintaining sharp scenery?At the moment, my E8500 is providing me a really great FSX experience. However I do get blurries in fast aircraft such as the F-18. I'm not expecting an increase in frame rates but I was wondering if the quad would help with fast aircraft. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question! I will be the first to admit that it is beyond my ability to even try answer with any sense of certainty. There are a lot of possible reasons for blurries and when you throw a very fast jet into the equation you are beginning to ask a lot of FSX. I do recall there being a discussion on the Aerosoft forums about this exact issue with relation to the F-16 they have just released so have a look there. Stuff like UTX, GEX etc are not going to help any either, that's for sure.Will be very interested to see where this topic goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it true that a quad such as the QX9650 has an advantage over a dual core CPU when it comes to avoiding blurries and maintaining sharp scenery?At the moment, my E8500 is providing me a really great FSX experience. However I do get blurries in fast aircraft such as the F-18. I'm not expecting an increase in frame rates but I was wondering if the quad would help with fast aircraft. Thank you.
A quad core is a good choice for helping with the blurries over a dual core of the same or similar clock speed. You have two more cores to work the DEM and Texture tiles, so the right LOD has a better chance of being loaded by the time it reaches you. My observation is for maximum FPS go dual core so that you can get the best overclock. For best visuals, go quad.RegardsSimon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A quad core is a good choice for helping with the blurries over a dual core of the same or similar clock speed. You have two more cores to work the DEM and Texture tiles, so the right LOD has a better chance of being loaded by the time it reaches you. My observation is for maximum FPS go dual core so that you can get the best overclock. For best visuals, go quad.RegardsSimon
But let's say you overclock a QX950 to 3.8Ghz, will you be getting the best of both worlds in terms of FPS and visuals? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But let's say you overclock a QX950 to 3.8Ghz, will you be getting the best of both worlds in terms of FPS and visuals? Thank you.
That would be the best of both worlds. However you might get well over 4Ghz on a top end 45nm dual core like the E8600 if FPS is the only criteria under consideration. Do look at what the core i7 has to offer too, discussed elsewhere.My Q6600 goes to just over 3.5Ghz before the heat gets too much, and that makes for a good FSX experience in all respects if you don't go nuts over the sliders.RegardsSimon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But let's say you overclock a QX950 to 3.8Ghz, will you be getting the best of both worlds in terms of FPS and visuals? Thank you.
That's correct. But at a hefty price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's correct. But at a hefty price.
You mean the price of the QX9650 itself or are you referring to something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the price of the QX9650 itself or are you referring to something else?
The extreme edition processors QX are not cheap and are not likely to see siginificant price reductions. If that is the price range you can shoot at, it would be well worth looking at h the i7 940 or 965.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The extreme edition processors QX are not cheap and are not likely to see siginificant price reductions. If that is the price range you can shoot at, it would be well worth looking at h the i7 940 or 965.
I wasn't referring to the extreme QX. So a regular QX9650 is not good enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't referring to the extreme QX. So a regular QX9650 is not good enough?
The "regular QX9650" doesn't have an X in the model. The X means Extreme. In other words: There is a QX9650, and a Q9650. Huge difference in price, same chip otherwise (unlocked multiplier of the QX model aside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't referring to the extreme QX. So a regular QX9650 is not good enough?
The Q9650 is an excellent quad core, the best non-extreme one out there in fact. The new stepping makes it a better overclocker than a lot of other quad cores. The QX9650 is about twice the price (close on 1000US) but with its unlocked multiplier you can achieve much higher stable clocks and you have more options about how you get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Q9650 is an excellent quad core, the best non-extreme one out there in fact. The new stepping makes it a better overclocker than a lot of other quad cores. The QX9650 is about twice the price (close on 1000US) but with its unlocked multiplier you can achieve much higher stable clocks and you have more options about how you get there.
My apologies, I totally did not notice the difference at first between the 2 model names. That price is definitely a killer though. When you say much higher stable clocks, what numbers are we talking about here? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites