Hello,Still a 95% FS9 user, but with the many new fantastic looking addons that are being released for FSX (seen the Aerosoft Catalina :( ), I am starting to look into what to get to fully transfer to FSX.Basis would definately be a big computer upgrade, so I'm able to run FSX in all it's glory at a decent fps.I've read a lot of good things about AMD's Phenom II and it has an attractive pricing.On the other hand; my past 3 computers were AMD equiped (mostly cost-driven decisions at that time) and I've always had more or less a feeling that I would have been better off with an Intel CPU. (Never managed with FS9 to get into a constant 20+ fps range, while I've seen Intel equiped rigs doing a constant 30+ fps in similar situations (scenery, aircraft, weather and AI).So here's the question; money issue's aside; what should I get. An Intel quad Core i7 or an AMD Phenom II X4 ???Thanks for any input you can give me.Best regards,Frank

My vote goes for the Corei7. Either the new stepping i7 920 (not the original release) or if you can wait a bit then get the new i7 950 to be released next month. Once the i7 950 is released the older i7 940 should also come down in price a bit.

The new Phenom II 940s 955s are up there with the Core i7 965 and 940s and goes for 245 dollars. I think the best choice for me if I was upgrading would be to get then Phenom II 920 or 940, and then go mad on overclocking, that will definitely get you up with the i7s. The only thing with the new BE PII 955 is it doesn't overclock as well as the 940 and sometimes the 920 for some reason. Maybe it has something to do with AM3, but I doubt it. You can still get a hefty 600-800 MHz OC on the 955 though.

Core i7 Extreme without a doubt but if you got the cash to blow, if not then Core i7.

The new Phenom II 940s 955s are up there with the Core i7 965 and 940s and goes for 245 dollars. I think the best choice for me if I was upgrading would be to get then Phenom II 920 or 940, and then go mad on overclocking, that will definitely get you up with the i7s. The only thing with the new BE PII 955 is it doesn't overclock as well as the 940 and sometimes the 920 for some reason. Maybe it has something to do with AM3, but I doubt it. You can still get a hefty 600-800 MHz OC on the 955 though.

I seriously doubt that, especially in FSX. I think the i7 still whoops arse on AMD in FSXHowever, I have been hearing good things about the new AMD chips and I would love to see a comparison to a 4GHz i7.-jk

I seriously doubt that, especially in FSX. I think the i7 still whoops arse on AMD in FSXHowever, I have been hearing good things about the new AMD chips and I would love to see a comparison to a 4GHz i7.-jk

And I seriously doubt that what you are saying is true. CPUs work generally the same, just differnt architecture, so if AMD and Intel perform very close in one game, it will very likely be close in another game. GPUs are a whole different thing, because you have drivers involved, and very different ways of rendering which can make two cards very close in crysis but completley far apart in FSX unlike CPUs. Intel has never whooped AMDs arse in FSX, unless you are talking about graphics cards, in which you would mean nVidia and AMD....AMD Phenom II 955 BE review. Stock Frequency.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=3551&p=14http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...955,2278-9.htmlhttp://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/9.htmAMD Phenom 920 & 940.http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-i...-review-test/17 Very close to Core i7 performance, and also VERY cheap, compared to Intel. 1,000 dollars for an extreme edition 965 is crazy. Hardware gets old, and if you invest that much on just your CPU every time, you will not be saving any money.

And I seriously doubt that what you are saying is true. CPUs work generally the same, just differnt architecture, so if AMD and Intel perform very close in one game, it will very likely be close in another game. GPUs are a whole different thing, because you have drivers involved, and very different ways of rendering which can make two cards very close in crysis but completley far apart in FSX unlike CPUs. Intel has never whooped AMDs arse in FSX, unless you are talking about graphics cards, in which you would mean nVidia and AMD....AMD Phenom II 955 BE review. Stock Frequency.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=3551&p=14http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...955,2278-9.htmlhttp://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/9.htmAMD Phenom 920 & 940.http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-i...-review-test/17 Very close to Core i7 performance, and also VERY cheap, compared to Intel. 1,000 dollars for an extreme edition 965 is crazy. Hardware gets old, and if you invest that much on just your CPU every time, you will not be saving any money.

Hey there, I gave some credit to the new 955 BE and I wasn't trying to be rude but since you like it that way I'll say this: You are way off the mark. You're comparing apples to oranges and Intel WILL kick the snot out of AMD for this sim. Do I have to pull up the pages and pages of Nicks posts about this stuff? You need to understand the sim is in it's own league and none of your references mention anything about it. If you're trying to convince us that AMD right now can hang with ANY clocked i7 in FSX you're in for a learning experience.And Frank (OP): you don't need the $1000 chip to get what you want from the i7. Trust this: If AMD had a chip out that outperformed the i7 in FSX we'd all know about it by now.Cheers-jk

You're comparing apples to oranges and Intel WILL kick the snot out of AMD for this sim. If you're trying to convince us that AMD right now can hang with ANY clocked i7 in FSX you're in for a learning experience.

The latest from AMD can

Thank you guys for all your feedback.I do find it peculiar that you never see FSX in the CPU benchmarks, while we all know our beloved sim is a very CPU depending application. In my opinion it would really add to the quality of the benchmark if one knows how a certain CPU performs under FSX (or FS9 for that matter).It will take a while before I can actually go out and buy the stuff, so I'll have some time left to make a final decision. Best regards,Frank

Thank you guys for all your feedback.I do find it peculiar that you never see FSX in the CPU benchmarks, while we all know our beloved sim is a very CPU depending application. In my opinion it would really add to the quality of the benchmark if one knows how a certain CPU performs under FSX (or FS9 for that matter).It will take a while before I can actually go out and buy the stuff, so I'll have some time left to make a final decision. Best regards,Frank

From time to time you do see Tom's Hardware using FSX in Benchmarking for both graphics cards and CPUs. AND, AMD has been shown to be better in some cases regarding performance over Intel chips. However, regarding the I7 vs. Phenom II's, I cannot honestly say in that case. I do know that the Phenom IIs are an incredible chip, especially for the price. AMD chips have been long regarded as generally better for gaming over Intel for quite some time, but that started changing when the Core series started coming out.

I believe the i7 is prbably better for FSX than the Phenom II but the price differnce makes a Phenom II system a great deal.I'm sure the Phenom II will be good for what I normally do. Im not an overclocker and I dont run many complex addons (although it would be nice to try something like the fligt1 mustang). Hopefully my new system can give me a better experience than what Im used to. If it does then I will have much better performance at a cost that is about half what I would need for an i7 system.Is i7 really worth twice the money? To some Im sure it is. Me? I like AMD anyway.seriously:the new motherboard was 80 bucks ( i hope that works out- i feel like I showed up a drag race with a Volkswagen but time will tell - its an M3A78-CM)4 Gig ram was about 40 bucks (DDR2 800) and I got the Phenom II 940 for 189 at newegg. (you have to watch them. I saw it one day for 189 but I couldnt afford it yet and then it went up to 225 and I would have had t pay shipping and then it went back down to 189 with free shipping.)The one really good reason that I can think of for going Intel is that most FS enthusiasts seem to go with Intel and so any problems that come up are more likely to be encountered by more people which menas they get more attention and are more likely to find/have a solution.If you go AMD, there might be fewer people to ask "How do I..." type questions (or other help questions)but then again - the more people we can get to go with AMD, the more likely we are to have solutions already available.hmmmmmm...reality. a curious SOB :)

I am very open-minded about HW and I would trade the Intel platform for the AMD in an instant if I thought it would be better in FSX. Also I don't really do anything else buy fly sims on my system so I understand I only have that as a basis for selecting Intel. Not only that but I slam my FSX with just about every addon in the book.I would love to see AMD overtake Intel because yes, the prices are much better and that means value. Intel charges an arm&leg for the good stuff beyond the point of being fair I think.-jk

You guys have it all wrong. Did you guys even bother to check the links that I posted to the benchmark. To the guy that said the latest AMD can't even compete with an OCed Intel or i7. Have you even seen the benches? Have you seen how the AMD clocks. Do you know that the benchmarks are all run at stock specs? AMD has NEVER I repeat NEVER gotten there &@($* beaten so bad in FSX that it makes them look stupid. NickN did not say AMD is worse than Intel in FSX, he was talking about NVIDIA and AMD/ATi, but the drivers have since improved.The i7 is definately not worth the money. I wouldn't even buy it if I was Bill Gates, because Intel needs to learn how to price reasonably... and its not like the i7 slaughters the Phenom IIs, the Phenom IIs even perform better in some benches..

AMD Phenom II 955 BE review. Stock Frequency.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=3551&p=14http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...955,2278-9.htmlhttp://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/9.htmAMD Phenom 920 & 940.http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-i...-review-test/17 Very close to Core i7 performance, and also VERY cheap, compared to Intel. 1,000 dollars for an extreme edition 965 is crazy. Hardware gets old, and if you invest that much on just your CPU every time, you will not be saving any money.

And Frank (OP): you don't need the $1000 chip to get what you want from the i7. Trust this: If AMD had a chip out that outperformed the i7 in FSX we'd all know about it by now.Cheers-jk

Have you seen a benchmark that compares the i7 and the Phenom IIs, have you seen how close they are? CPUs will perform very close in test A if they performed very close to each other in Test B. Again I think you are thinking about nVidia vs ATi, because in FSX that is a whole different stories. GPUs need DRIVERS which varies the performance for different games. The architecture of AMD and nVIdia are very different, unlike Intel and AMD. There are no big differences in the way things are rendered, or different ways of unified shading, or stream processors, and nVidia processor cores. Infact, AMD has LESS stream processors (shader units) than nVIDIA and they still can compete. nVidia can perform 1 MADD (Multiply-Add) for each stream processor while AMD can perform 5 MADD operation for each stream processing unit. So if we take the AMD 3870 or 4870 and divide it by 5320 Stream Processing Units on the 3800 series / 5 MADD = 64 ALUs / Stream Processors.800 Stream Processing Units on the 4800 series / 5 MADD = 160 ALUs / Stream Processors.Nvidia 8800 GT / 1 MADD = 112 ALUs / Stream Processors.Nvidia GTX 280 / 1 MADD = 240 ALUs. / Stream Processors.So that is why I think you are thinking of graphics. NickN has never said anything about AMD being slaughtered by Intel, but he has said that about ATi and Nvidia. CPUs are not so different in the way things are processed, or how many operations can be performed one ALU or FPU etc. Again, CPUs do NOT have drastic differences in performance and architecture compared to games if you compare Test A and Test B. There has also been no Intel i7 vs Phenom II benchmark for FSX, so I do not know how you think AMD gets there arse kicked, when CPUs are similar.

You guys have it all wrong. Did you guys even bother to check the links that I posted to the benchmark. To the guy that said the latest AMD can't even compete with an OCed Intel or i7. Have you even seen the benches? Have you seen how the AMD clocks. Do you know that the benchmarks are all run at stock specs? AMD has NEVER I repeat NEVER gotten there &@($* beaten so bad in FSX that it makes them look stupid. NickN did not say AMD is worse than Intel in FSX, he was talking about NVIDIA and AMD/ATi, but the drivers have since improved.The i7 is definately not worth the money. I wouldn't even buy it if I was Bill Gates, because Intel needs to learn how to price reasonably... and its not like the i7 slaughters the Phenom IIs, the Phenom IIs even perform better in some benches..Have you seen a benchmark that compares the i7 and the Phenom IIs, have you seen how close they are? CPUs will perform very close in test A if they performed very close to each other in Test B. Again I think you are thinking about nVidia vs ATi, because in FSX that is a whole different stories. GPUs need DRIVERS which varies the performance for different games. The architecture of AMD and nVIdia are very different, unlike Intel and AMD. There are no big differences in the way things are rendered, or different ways of unified shading, or stream processors, and nVidia processor cores. Infact, AMD has LESS stream processors (shader units) than nVIDIA and they still can compete. nVidia can perform 1 MADD (Multiply-Add) for each stream processor while AMD can perform 5 MADD operation for each stream processing unit. So if we take the AMD 3870 or 4870 and divide it by 5320 on the 3800 series / 5 MADD = 64 ALUs800 on the 4800 series / 5 MADD = 160 ALUsNvidia 8800 GT / 1 MADD = 112 ALUsNvidia GTX 280 / 1 MADD = 240 ALUs.So that is why I think you are thinking of graphics. NickN has never said anything about AMD being slaughtered by Intel, but he has said that about ATi and Nvidia. CPUs are not so different in the way things are processed, or how many operations can be performed one ALU or FPU etc. Again, CPUs do NOT have drastic differences in performance and architecture compared to games if you compare Test A and Test B. There has also been no Intel i7 vs Phenom II benchmark for FSX, so I do not know how you think AMD gets there arse kicked, when CPUs are similar.

That's a lot of color you used in your post. Like I said. If AMD could keep up with the i7 we'd all know it by now. You just don't understand what you're talking about nor have you read very well. And you're comparing AMD to Intel based on FRAMES PER SECOND??? Shame on you! I'm sure Nick will show up sooner or later and put this to rest (please!) Edit: Actually he's smart enough to stay out of this one.-jk

That's a lot of color you used in your post. Like I said. If AMD could keep up with the i7 we'd all know it by now. I'm sure Nick will show up sooner or later and put this to rest (for now)-jk

and they DO keep up. Would you care to see the benchmarks. This is the 3rd time I've posted them.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=3551&p=14http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...955,2278-9.htmlhttp://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/9.htmAMD Phenom 920 & 940.http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-i...-review-test/17 Very close to Core i7 performance, and also VERY cheap, compared to Intel. 1,000 dollars for an extreme edition 965 is crazy. Hardware gets old, and if you invest that much on just your CPU every time, you will not be saving any money.CPUs PERFORM SIMILAR In gaming applications, they are not very different in techniques unlike GPUs and don't require drivers. Therefore, if they perform similar in Test B they will perform similarly in Test A.That's the thing. You DON'T know, that is why you keep thinking the Phenom IIs are getting there arses kicked, when they are NOT, and actually performing better than the i7 in some benches. Even the Phenom 940 keeps up with the i7.