Archived

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

Recommended Posts

1st of all, I don't want to overclock.What is the best choice of CPU for FSX (if possible, with Vista x64) among these:*) Core i7-920 (2,67 GHz)*) Core-2 Duo E8600 (Wolfdale; 3,33 MHz)*) Core-2 Quad Q9650 (Yorkfield; 3,00 GHz)Andreas

Share this post


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

1st of all, I don't want to overclock.What is the best choice of CPU for FSX (if possible, with Vista x64) among these:*) Core i7-920 (2,67 GHz)*) Core-2 Duo E8600 (Wolfdale; 3,33 MHz)*) Core-2 Quad Q9650 (Yorkfield; 3,00 GHz)Andreas
I know you dont want to O/C Andreas but if it is any guide I went from an E8500 at 3.9Ghz to a i920 at 4Ghz. I feel that the frame rate generally improved by around 20%. For example I used to taxi around UK 2000 Gatwick at 12-14 fps in the PMDG747. The frame rate is now in the 15-17 range.Not much I know but the smoothness improvement is fairly noticable.Not sure what the price differences are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Howard I read your system specs. You gotta be kidding me. With a system like that you are only pulling 17 fps. There is something wrong here (aka MS problem). You are making me want to stay with fs9 for sure! I hope all the people that are saying they are getting 25-30 fps with FSX reads your systems specs becasue they are obviously full of kaka. You can't get much better than your system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can make you screens with my Q6600 @ 3,2 4 GB DDR2-800 and a 8800 GTX @ 1920x1200 with ~20-30 FPS....People should read first atm a i7 sucks to play games every good 775 system will kick a i7 in the butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can make you screens with my Q6600 @ 3,2 4 GB DDR2-800 and a 8800 GTX @ 1920x1200 with ~20-30 FPS....People should read first atm a i7 sucks to play games every good 775 system will kick a i7 in the butt.
Not sure about that. The screen area of the TH2Go is roughly twice that of your monitor (2.3 Mp vs 4Mp). All my settings are maxed out except autogen 1 notch down, no self shadowing, AI 80% (My Traffic X), GA traffic 16%, Road traffic 15%, UTX, ASX, UK2000 and PMDG747. DX10 and bloom are on. Water is 2x low.In the same scenario FS9 with GEX, ASX, Ultimate Traffic, UTX, UK2000, PMDG747 averages around 30-40 peaking at 60 with everything on maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can make you screens with my Q6600 @ 3,2 4 GB DDR2-800 and a 8800 GTX @ 1920x1200 with ~20-30 FPS....People should read first atm a i7 sucks to play games every good 775 system will kick a i7 in the butt.
Not for FSX. A core i7 @ 3.6GHz and above on DDR3 1600 (CAS7) or better memory will cream that 775 system for smoothness and visual clarity.I've had both. The Q9650 at 4.2 GHz on DDR2 and now the i7 @ 4.08GHz and DDR3 1624. The i7 is much smoother and the FPS doesn't flutter nearly as much, and the clarity of the scenery and ability to handle autogen at high levels is better too.Any other game would not gain the advantage with the i7 but FSX is in it's own separate league. -jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1st of all, I don't want to overclock.What is the best choice of CPU for FSX (if possible, with Vista x64) among these:*) Core i7-920 (2,67 GHz)*) Core-2 Duo E8600 (Wolfdale; 3,33 MHz)*) Core-2 Quad Q9650 (Yorkfield; 3,00 GHz)Andreas
If you don't ever intend to overclock then those choices are pretty close. The advantage that i7 gives you won't help a whole lot at those speeds, especially since you won't be able to run your RAM at DDR3 1600+ with the 920 at stock bclocks (920 doesn't have the memory multipliers).If you could run the duo core at least 600MHz faster than the quad core (that means you have to overclock it) then the duo would have the advantage, otherwise you're better off with the quad core 9650.So it's close with no overclocking. Overclocked the choice is clear...i7!-jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any other game would not gain the advantage with the i7 but FSX is in it's own separate league.
Well if only one Game "realy supports" the i7 it is crap but hey thats just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if only one Game "realy supports" the i7 it is crap but hey thats just my opinion.
Your immature and uninformed response simply confirms that you should be on the Far Cry and Crisis forums, not on an avaition simulation forum.And your opinion is what is actually "crap"-jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your immature and uninformed response simply confirms that you should be on the Far Cry and Crisis forums, not on an avaition simulation forum.And your opinion is what is actually "crap"-jkEdit: I can put my i7 system up next to your Q system and send you crying home to mommy in FSX.
:( Please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:( Please...
OK. I'll simmer down. Took out that last part. :( -jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if you could send me crying home to mommy? How much did your sys cost? I only paid a little over 800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what if you could send me crying home to mommy? How much did your sys cost? I only paid a little over 800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I7 920 all the way. Kick's 775 &@($* in FSX gaming.Sure it not suitable for crysis, but hes want a CPU for FSX! i7 out performs the 775 on FS gaming.Here's a link of a i7 review on FSX ultra high -> http://www.flybva.co.uk/fsxenhancements/CoreI7/And a video of a guy who owns a i7 and plays FSX on ultra high ->

Cooler master, do you get the gist of what Ahinterl want? He wants to select a CPU that best suits FSX not your "CSS, COD" what good or not...i7 isn't crap, what crap is that you can't afford it. BTW put your name on your signature, it require by rules. Don't even get how people don't read rules... -Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took out that last part-it was a bit much. My comment on your opinion is based on this: There's a difference between knowing the capabilities of an i7 system because you researched and followed the directions of experienced professionals and have seen both sides of the fence, and thinking the i7 cpu is just "crap" because it doesn't play your crysis, COD, counter strike, or whatever other game you have any better than a 775 system. This is an avaition site. The primary true-to-life avaition "game" here is FSX so that's what matters. Go to guru3d and write what you think. But come here and label the fastest, strongest chip for FSX (in the right hands) as "crap" and you'll be flammed I promise you. -jk
I sorta think this is the kid who's jealous of people with the fancy new toys that everyone else has so it must suck. :( :( In two years or even less than that something better is going to blow the i7 out of the water for FSX and any other game...such is life and such is the way of technology. Of course there are so few games still that support multi-core processors but I've heard even that most games still did fairly well or performed better with the i7. Again it's the smoothness that goes with it. FSX isn't the only 'game' that benifitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I7 920 all the way. Kick's 775 &@($* in FSX gaming.Sure it not suitable for crysis, but hes want a CPU for FSX! i7 out performs the 775 on FS gaming.Here's a link of a i7 review on FSX ultra high -> http://www.flybva.co.uk/fsxenhancements/CoreI7/And a video of a guy who owns a i7 and plays FSX on ultra high ->
Cooler master, do you get the gist of what Ahinterl want? He wants to select a CPU that best suits FSX not your "CSS, COD" what good or not...i7 isn't crap, what crap is that you can't afford it. BTW put your name on your signature, it require by rules. Don't even get how people don't read rules... -Vincent
It's helpful when we get a slider-setup to compare. For instance, the player at flybva is getting ~ 20FPS at KSEA/RW34/default 737 Vcockpit with a specific slider setup. He has the i7 at 3.0. With that identical FSX setup (at 1920x1080, BTW), a Q6600@3.6Ghz gets ~20-22FPS. These are all UFPS / Unique Frames Per Second (ie, No sutter'n).In these comparisons, the i7 continues to show a ~ 15% clock for clock performance benefit over a core2Q. So, a core2Q@3.0/4G-DDR2@800/9800GT system will run (about) with an i7@2.6/6G-DDR3@1600/GTX260.Unless a builder O/Cs an i7 BeYonD ~ 3.2Ghz, there appears to be no benefit beyond a Q6600@3.6/4G-ram@800/9800GT system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the comments.Seems that even if FS(X) demands for high CPU clock rates, the lower clocked i7 can be the better choice.Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites