Best proccessor For FS9

[Guest Paul_D]

I am currently running an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 Ghz, E6700, I think my video cards are two much for my roccessor to handle thus giving me an opposite effect as I have recently upgraded video cards from 2 X Nvidia 7950 GTKO 256mb to 2 X 8800 GTOC 512mb. After this I actually lost FPS. My only thought is my video cards could be out doing my proccessor so I was just curious as as to what would be better. Can FS9 run Core2 Qauds, or should i go with a huge dual core like 3.33 core2 duo. Any help would be appreitiated... I also have 4 Gigs of DDR2 ram so I know that is not the issue, I am almost certain its my Proccessor. My video cards are not set up for SLI with regards to FS, I use enhancer due to AA issues, I am more interested in what woud be a better proccessor to buy, Core 2 Duo, or Core 2 Qaud for my FS2004.EVGA 680 SLI motherboard2 X EVGA 8800GT 512mbIntel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 4MB2 X SEAGATE 320GB 7200RPM 16MB SATA II Hard Drives2 X 2 gigs Redline Series DDR2 XP2-8000 RamOCZ 700W GameXStream Power SupplyFS9.1Vista SP2Trackir 4Paul ( Toronto Canada ).

[Guest Boeing Skunk Works]

The 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo is plenty of processor for FS9. It cannot take advantage of a dual core processor, but it does lighten the load for other background processes that have to run to keep your computer alive.FS9 will also not take advantage of any SLI arrangement. You have more than enough computer to run FS9 at max or nearly max settings. I am, on only a 2.0 Ghz C2D processor running three displays on two cards with a lot of add-on scenery.The only change I would make is to upgrade to XP or XP Pro if you are going to strictly run FS9 on this machine.

[Guest abarter]

EVGA 680 SLI motherboard2 X EVGA 8800GT 512mbIntel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 4MB2 X SEAGATE 320GB 7200RPM 16MB SATA II Hard Drives2 X 2 gigs Redline Series DDR2 XP2-8000 RamOCZ 700W GameXStream Power SupplyFS9.1Vista SP2Trackir 4Paul ( Toronto Canada ).

FS is CPU intensive so the more ghz you can get, the better. As was stated above, dual core may help running background tasks better, freeing up resources for FS, but I can't say you will get FPS out of it. Your video card(s) are fine, but you could have saved some money on the SLI config as it's of no benefit to FS9. I have the Core 2 Duo E8400. I have it overclocked from the stock 3ghz to 3.4ghz without a hiccup. You may try to do the same with your 2.66ghz and see if you can attain 3ghz. That's an 11% increase in CPU speed and it should reflect in FS9 with a 1 or 2 fps increase.Andy ( Toronto Canada - howdy neighbour)

[Guest Paul_D]

Howdy to you to, I am actually not right in Toronto, Richmond Hill is my Home. I run full WOAI Plus my own AI and fly to and from very complex scenery like Mega Airport Heathrow, Cloud9/FSdreamteam KLAX/KORD/KJFK, and would like to bring my FPS up a notch. Currently at KJFK with 100% AI and all sliders at max PMDG 747-400 VC I am rendering around 15 fps. I understand that you cant utilise SLI but from what I understand you can utilse both core's on your proccessor, it little trick I saw on another forum. When I run FS I see both cores being utilsed under my task manager. I just feel I can get more FPS to smooth out my operations in such large airport, hell with default cessna at a dafult airport I could probly run 60-100fps. But I like flying my LDS767/PMDG747/PMDGMD11 ect.. at the large addon airports with lots of cool AI traffic, "really puts you in the pilots seat".Paul ( Toronto ).

[Guest abarter]

I run full WOAI Plus my own AI and fly to and from very complex scenery like Mega Airport Heathrow, Cloud9/FSdreamteam KLAX/KORD/KJFK, and would like to bring my FPS up a notch. Currently at KJFK with 100% AI and all sliders at max I am rendering around 15 fps. I understand that you cant utilise SLI but from what i understand you can utilse both core's on your proccessor, it little trick I saw on another forum. When I run FS I see both cores being utilsed under my task manager. Paul ( Toronto ).

I saw that trick too and tried it, but I didn't notice a difference. I'll try it again when I get home this evening and see if it helps. I forgot to mention that I upgraded from Vista 32 to 64 a few weeks and I saw a 2 FPS increase. FS9 still runs as a 32 bit app, but the device drivers for the video cards, motherboard, CPU, and sound card, are 64 bit which indirectly sped FS9 up a little. I'm in Toronto too, and the Vista 64 CD cost me $13 to have delivered. Might be something worth looking into. If you're in the north end of Toronto check out Tigerdirect's web site to watch the price of CPU's.

[Guest Paul_D]

Thanks for the link to Tigerdirect, I had no idea this place existed, I wil compare there CPU prices with Canada Computers... See who has the best deal. So what do think, core2 Duo, or Core 2 Qaud? What do you thik is the best proccessor for FS2004 here?TigerdirectIntel Core 2 Duo E8400 Processor BX80570E8400 - 3.0GHz, 6MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Wolfdale, Dual-Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan$248.99Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 Processor BX80569Q9650 - 3.0GHz, 12MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Yorkfield, Quad-Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan$482.99Canada ComputersIntel Core 2 Duo E8600 Socket LGA775, 3.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6MB L2 Cache, 45nm $356.99Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 Quad-Core Socket LGA775, 3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 12MB L2 Cache, 45nm $438.99Paul ( Toronto Canada ).

[Kosta 122]

I upgraded recently from E6600 OCed to 3,4Ghz to E8600 OCed to 4,0Ghz. I saw much improvement in FS9, so I think you are too going to.Quad with less Ghz is slower for FS9 than C2D with more Ghz, that is a general rule - also my opinion is that L2 cache helps (E8600 has more then E6600), but the shared one on the Quad also will help less than the one on the E8600.Keep in mind that FS9 uses only ONE core, it makes no use of any other. The faster that one, the faster is your FS9 going to be.In short, I think for FS9, the best deal is the fastest C2D, OC it the best you can, and you got yourself a monster. I know I have one ;)That also said, OCed i7 to 4,0Ghz would probably beat my E8600@4.0 in FS9...

[psolk 3,040]

I upgraded recently from E6600 OCed to 3,4Ghz to E8600 OCed to 4,0Ghz. I saw much improvement in FS9, so I think you are too going to.Quad with less Ghz is slower for FS9 than C2D with more Ghz, that is a general rule - also my opinion is that L2 cache helps (E8600 has more then E6600), but the shared one on the Quad also will help less than the one on the E8600.Keep in mind that FS9 uses only ONE core, it makes no use of any other. The faster that one, the faster is your FS9 going to be.In short, I think for FS9, the best deal is the fastest C2D, OC it the best you can, and you got yourself a monster. I know I have one ;)That also said, OCed i7 to 4,0Ghz would probably beat my E8600@4.0 in FS9...

FS9 and I love our E8500 @ 4.25 consistent, 4.45 peak :( but I would also bet an i7 @ 4.25-4.45 would out-perform my box too. :( -Paul

[Guest Paul_D]

Thanks for the tip Word Not Allowed, I will keep that in mind. I will probly buy the 3.33 Core 2 Duo, the price is reasonable. any other advice wouls be most welcome... I have never really tried overclocking so I am not really to sure as to what I would need to do. I now I need a good overclocking utility but I am not sure from there. I7 is not an option for me as I have a 775 socketset, I would have to buy a new motherboard, Ram, And CPU, to much money for me to spend right now.Paul ( Toronto Canada ).

[Kosta 122]

I know nothing much about eVGA's mainboards, but here are few tips:1) You need to monitor your temperatures: Everest2) You have to test the CPU at 100%: Orthos, OCCT3) You have to test the mainboard: I do it with the Winrar which has lots of texture files rared (proved to be a good tool, since on an non-OC system it gives no errors, on too much OC it starts giving CRC errors, but CPU is still stable, you have to repeat the extract couple of times to be sure)To start OCing, you go on like this:- always do it in small steps, like 0,1Ghz- first go up with the FSB- keep the memory on the lower multiplier so that its out of the calculation- check the Vcore per specification, set it to that, and go with the FSB until you can boot into windows or even computer turns on (don't worry, if it doesn't, switch off on the PSU, wait 10sec, and turn on back again, BIOS will normally reset)- go windows, monitor by everest, run Orthos/OCCT - temperature on the Intel E8600 shouldn't be higher than 65C on full load for an hour or so, and Orthos/OCCT shouldn't give errors- if all OK, up the FSB, if error, up the Vcore, monitor TempThat's the cycle basically.You can play a bit with the Northbridge temperature, and monitor Mainboard temperature after that - ensures more stability on overall system. Capacitors can usually take up to 100C, but I would be worried if my mainboard did more than 60C. Mine is now doing 45C. Its all about the nominal temperature (non-OC).And forget any "utilities" for overclocking. Stable overclock is always achieved by yourself. And if you need help, there are numerous forums with much better experts than I am (i.e. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/) + you can ask here :)Hope it helps a bit :)

[flytrumpet767 68]

Thanks for the link to Tigerdirect, I had no idea this place existed, I wil compare there CPU prices with Canada Computers... See who has the best deal. So what do think, core2 Duo, or Core 2 Qaud? What do you thik is the best proccessor for FS2004 here?TigerdirectIntel Core 2 Duo E8400 Processor BX80570E8400 - 3.0GHz, 6MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Wolfdale, Dual-Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan$248.99Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 Processor BX80569Q9650 - 3.0GHz, 12MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Yorkfield, Quad-Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan$482.99Canada ComputersIntel Core 2 Duo E8600 Socket LGA775, 3.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6MB L2 Cache, 45nm $356.99Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 Quad-Core Socket LGA775, 3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 12MB L2 Cache, 45nm $438.99Paul ( Toronto Canada ).

Hi Paul,Not sure if the E8500 is available to you,but if yes it would be a good choice.It's quite a bit less $ but is very good at OC and beat the E8600.It really depends on your MOBO though.I tried to OC my E8500,but unfortunately my MOBO won't let me pass 3.9.Which is still about 20% over stock speed.In FS9 everything maxed with AA settings in Nhancer at combined 8SQ,I get a solid 50 FPS at FS dreamteam KJFK in LDS with about 50% traffic.My video card is a 9600GT.Hope this helpsRichard

[Kosta 122]

FS9 and I love our E8500 @ 4.25 consistent, 4.45 peak :( but I would also bet an i7 @ 4.25-4.45 would out-perform my box too. :( -Paul

I would like to know how did you get your motherboard to be stable at such high FSB? What is it, multi 9 or 9.5? Meaning FSB 450 or 470? I can't get my mobo stable past 400.

[flytrumpet767 68]

I would like to know how did you get your motherboard to be stable at such high FSB? What is it, multi 9 or 9.5? Meaning FSB 450 or 470? I can't get my mobo stable past 400.

Word Not Allowed,In see you have a ASUS P5Q deluxe MOBO(I have a P5QL pro).After some research it seems it's very tricky to pass the 1600 limit without crashing with this board.I have now my FSB at 400 at 9.5 and it runs great at 3.8 with low voltage and temps.There is probably no noticeable difference in FS9 from 3.8 to 4.Maybe it's the same deal for your board.Richard

[Guest Paul_D]

all this info is very much appreciated, Like many of you I just like to enjoy My FS2004 to its full potential, nobody like having FPS issues, I know I am runing alot of AI, but this is the way i like it, as close to real as possible, yesterday I was departing KJFK en route to KMIA, I was holding in line with a Kuwait Air A340-300, a Egypt Air 777-200 and a Lan Chile 767-300ER, Along with a few American Eagle Embrear 140's and Jetblue E190's and A320's. Oh, I cant forgetthe Emirates A380-800, it brings my airports to life and gives me the pleasure of feeling that realism as though I am actually there. Paul ( Toronto Canada ).

[Madpuppy 0]

I have the E6700 as well, on a P5W board, 4G RAM, one X1950 vid card, etc. Have the CPU clocked at 3.2GHz--just pulled it back a bit from 3.4. Rock stable.I run FS9 locked to 25 fps--all sliders maxed--and only see fps down into the 13 range at, say, FSDreamTeam's JFK with 92% AI, ASA, PMDG B74F, RC4, etc. I'd say you have plenty of power to run FS9.Oh, running XP Home...