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.

I won't get sucked into this anymore. Enjoy your sim.-jk

For me I'd want to run an i7 965 against a Phenom II (stock speeds) in FSX SP2 to see FPS, texture loading, stutterness (is that a word hah)The problem with the benchmarks is that FSX responds differently than say Crysis... so you really want to look at scenery loading levels instead of FPS when benching FSXAlso, for value the Phenom is probably the better choice, because like you said most people can't drop a grand on a CPU.... but as far as raw processing power goes, I think the 965 wins over the Phenom II

Yeah, being on the market for a new rig I definitely would like to know how these two CPUs compare in FSX. I have no doubt that Intel is better but the question is whether the difference is worth the extra cost.

Yeah, being on the market for a new rig I definitely would like to know how these two CPUs compare in FSX. I have no doubt that Intel is better but the question is whether the difference is worth the extra cost.

That's indeed basically that I'm trying to figure out here. Looking at the benchmarks of the links posted; I noticed that in games, the Phenom II performs very, VERY, close to the i7. But checking the 3DMark06 benchmark posted in the Guru3D test, I did notice a significant gap between the Phenom II and the i7 in the "CPU benchmark".It seems that the i7 is just plain better in hardcore (floating point calculations) work when compared to the Phenom II. Since FS is known to be depending mainly on the CPU, I guess this means the i7 is the better CPU for FSX.But as someone said; that increase in speed comes at a price. I started this thread with the statement "money issues aside", but I too can not afford a US$1000 CPU.Thanks again for all the input. Eventhough some people get way to emotional on the subject, all input does help me in making up my mind....Regards,Frank

I definitely agree that Intel has the fastest processor out there (The Core i7 965 EE) but I do not think it is worth the money at all. 1,000 is to much for a CPU. Plus if you were building a system that would mean it would be incredibly expensive with other parts. The thing is, the Core i7 does not win by much in most benchmarks, mostly gaming. The i7 only wins by a few FPS in some games like 2-4 FPS. Phenom II beats the i7 by 2-4 FPS in other benches too. I think for the price to performance ratio, the Phenom II is the best choice. Plus the new Phenom overclock very well. AMD got it up to 6.7 GHz on LN2 (Liquid Nitrogen). I think Intel could only get theirs up to 5 GHz. On air, you can easily get up to 3.8 with the Phenom II 940, might be a different story for the PII 955 though :(. I think Intel takes the crown for basic FP calculations though in 3dmark. AMD holds the crown for the most 3DMark points though (the LN2 system)

That's indeed basically that I'm trying to figure out here. Looking at the benchmarks of the links posted; I noticed that in games, the Phenom II performs very, VERY, close to the i7. But checking the 3DMark06 benchmark posted in the Guru3D test, I did notice a significant gap between the Phenom II and the i7 in the "CPU benchmark".It seems that the i7 is just plain better in hardcore (floating point calculations) work when compared to the Phenom II. Since FS is known to be depending mainly on the CPU, I guess this means the i7 is the better CPU for FSX.But as someone said; that increase in speed comes at a price. I started this thread with the statement "money issues aside", but I too can not afford a US$1000 CPU.Thanks again for all the input. Eventhough some people get way to emotional on the subject, all input does help me in making up my mind....Regards,Frank

Hi FrankI understand the cash situation.. the advantage of the 965/975 means you do not lose any memory speed in order to calculate BLCOCK and memory multipliers to obtain the CPU speed.. assuming you use a 920 and DDR3 1600 memory the only way you can hit close to 1600 is if that 920 makes it to 4GHz+ using BCLOCK, and you must use 1600 memory or you can not properly clock the <extreme processors.. so most end up with a memory speed between 1400-1500. The extreme proc will run the rated memory speed regardless of CPU speed. That being said its still a lot of money to pay for full control/max efficiency and one does not have to spend that although it is betterThe newer i7s (D0) stepping are hitting the market soon. These processor correct a clocking issue with their QPI voltage. I would wait for the next release of i7 and go with the 950Reason: The 920 has restricted multipliers and although it is not a real problem they do present a much more difficult time in hitting that 4G mark. The 950 wont and with the QPI voltage issues resolved you have the ability to run DDR3 1866- 2000 memory. With D0 950/975 4.1-4.2-4.3-4.4 will become easier to obtain stable on air. The 920 D0's may also do that as well however there are differences in them that will make it more difficult. So if you do not mind a few hundred more the 950 would be the middle ground not costing 1000 and a better choice.Also, the x58 platform will support the next release from Intel with a BIOS microcode update. Gulftown is 32nm 6 core and is VRM confirmed for x58, therefore you would be buying a platform that will allow you to upgrade through AND past next year with a BIOS update. I am not going to get into the AMD vs Intel debate however I will say that what AMD does not have, regardless of what synth benchie's show, is the communication path between the memory and the CPU, and, they lack the core ability in opts between the cache and the processor/memory subsystem. Hardware sites are infomercials and they try to cater to the larger more influential companies as much as they can. Regardless, FSX is a raw horsepower application in which it literally attacks the memory system with a scrambled mess. The Intel system unscrambles that mess much, much faster than AMD.Also.. AMD memory latency in the past was actually a farce... they had the latency where the benchmark read the result.. problem is their architecture made little or no real world use of it! They have gotten better but that aspect of the AMD system can not touch Intel and unfortunately that is why people think these benchmarks show AMD is really head to head with Intel.they are nothardware sites live on presenting conclusions which in many ways present controversy and buzz... they have to eat too. The real problem with most of them and trying to ascertain perf to FSX through their results is, they rarely if EVER present tests that reflect what FSX thrives on. Keep that in mind. You really have to know what to look for in clues to see what is better for FSX and what is not.. With Intel Q and i7, memory latency is the key to perf since Intel makes TRUE use of it. You want the lowest timing memory possible running the highest speed stable. With i7 920, 950 and 975 D0 stepping procs running above DDR3 1600 will begin to become a norm. You do not absolutely need DDR3 2000 memory as good 7-7-7 or 6-7-6 DDR3 1600 will do the job quite nicely. If you skimp on the memory and buy high timing product, it will show in the FSX result. Best of luck in your build decisions.. I hope that helps

Since this was used to make a point, please look at the charts presented here:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=3551&p=14In chart 1 in order to get a 2.4 frame advantage over 920 it took AMD +540MHz!!In chart 2, same deal! but look at the 6 frame advantage a equal speed (3.2) i7 displays!In chart 3 (MULTITHREAD which FSX uses) +540MHz places it 16.8 frames LOWER!?In chart 4 +540MHz it breaks EVEN with 920! with a 5.5 frame advantage with an equal speed (3.2) i7? I see a pattern here! 5-6 frames lost clock-per-clock and some problems with multithread instructionAnd NONE of those are FSX tests So where is the savings? There are none! 50 bucks less? Please! Is the hair you lose trying to squeeze something out of the AMD proc you will never get worth it? Add insult to injury the money spent on the platform to support it and be stuck?!Take it a step further.. if +540MHz nets that little, what do you think will happen when 920 is clocked? With Intel and the right setup the LATENCY DROPS meaning that AMD coming out of turn 2 and Intel is approaching turn 4 in the raceyou actually LOSE with AMD espcially as i7 clocks UPyou haft'a know what to look for or these hardware sites will take you for a rideI will be the first in line when AMD gets back in the game.. between now and then Intel is money well spent

Since this was used to make a point, please look at the charts presented here:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=3551&p=14In chart 1 in order to get a 2.4 frame advantage over 920 it took AMD +540MHz!!In chart 2, same deal! but look at the 6 frame advantage a equal speed (3.2) i7 displays!In chart 3 (MULTITHREAD which FSX uses) +540MHz places it 16.8 frames LOWER!?In chart 4 +540MHz it breaks EVEN with 920! with a 5.5 frame advantage with an equal speed (3.2) i7? I see a pattern here! 5-6 frames lost clock-per-clock and some problems with multithread instructionAnd NONE of those are FSX tests So where is the savings? There are none! 50 bucks less? Please! Is the hair you lose trying to squeeze something out of the AMD proc you will never get worth it? Add insult to injury the money spent on the platform to support it and be stuck?!Take it a step further.. if +540MHz nets that little, what do you think will happen when 920 is clocked? With Intel and the right setup the LATENCY DROPS meaning that AMD coming out of turn 2 and Intel is approaching turn 4 in the raceyou actually LOSE with AMD espcially as i7 clocks UPyou haft'a know what to look for or these hardware sites will take you for a rideI will be the first in line when AMD gets back in the game.. between now and then Intel is money well spent

All I will say is the Phenom II 955 is different than the 940 in which it natively AM3 unlike the 940 and 920, and it uses DDR3 memory, with different chipsets. So it is more than just the frequency. I am saying that if you look @ the price of an i7 and the cost of their motherboards, it is insane. With AMD you can get a top of the link 790GX or 790FX for 99 bucks or less. No lie. Mine is a 790GX mobo, supports everything from the AM2 Athlon x64, single core, to the Phenom II 955. It has HD 7.1+2 audio, crossfire, 6 SATA ports, high end overclock abilities (BIOS options) and much more for less than 100 bucks. Intel will set you back about 200 to 300 bucks for a good motherboard. AMD also has a direct link to memory (your 2nd to last post), and their FSB (HyperTransport) is a lot faster than Intels.Don't know why, but the other 3 sites got very different results than anand. I think Guru3D probably has the best results, because they have been in the game the longest, and are highly respected. Much different than your other review sites. Anand is also very respected as well though.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...955,2278-9.htmlhttp://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-i...-review-test/17http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/9.htmCore i7 x58 motherboards start at 179 dollars. Insane!http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....amp;Order=PRICE

I'm not going thereIf I did you would see where you are very mistakenyou are assuming way too muchI'm outta this now.. I know better than to get into this discussionEnjoy what you purchased.. :( and I mean thatBut I dont want to debate it because I already know the outcome and which one is going to provide the best FSX experience clock-per-clock at a cost that is in line with what the person paid.

Gman!What about this page at 3DGuru: http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-i...-review-test/14An overclocked AMD Phenom II X4 at 3.8GHz left far behind by a i7 920 when testing "CPU-Bound 3D Rendering". How do you explain this?The AMD Phenom II X4 is a competitor in the mid segment processors. They cannot compete in the top segment, that is i7 940 and 965.Edited: I'd like to see the 3DGuru benchmarks with a Core i7 965 at 3.8GHz with OCZ Platinum XTC DDR3 1600MHz 3x2GB (CL7-7-7-24) compared to that AMD Phenom II X4 at 3.8 :(

Yes, Core i7 is the best out there, I know, and I've said it has the most power. The thing that I don't agree on is its cost. It is not worth the money to me, because the i7 only wins by a small margin most of the time. Lets compare the prices :)Intel Core i7 Setup:

• Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz $279.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819115202
• Foxconn FlamingBlade GTI LGA 1366 | Cheapest X58 motherboard $179.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813186170
• G.SKILL 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) $84.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820231223
• ZOTAC GeForce GTX 260 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 $169.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814500087
• Western Digital Caviar Green WD6400AACS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive $69.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136298Total: $784.95

AMD Phenom II Setup (BTW: The Phenom II 920 and 940 BE are going for the same price!):

• AMD Phenom II X4 940 Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM2+ $189.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819103471
• ASRock AOD790GX/128M AM2+/AM2 AMD 790GX $99.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813157141
• OCZ 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 $47.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820227362
• ZOTAC GeForce GTX 260 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 $169.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814500087
• Western Digital Caviar Green WD6400AACS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive $69.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136298Total: $577.95

200 dollars more for an Intel setup. I even chose high quality parts for the AMD system instead of the cheapest, which raised the AMD price. Still Intel was over 200 dollars more...3DMark06 Record:http://service.futuremark.com/resultCompar...reResultType=14What is that I see? AMD at the top? I though Intel should have surpassed this already? I mean 1,000 dollar CPU and still can't set the record over a 200 dollar AMD... [sarcasm] Intel is so worth the money... [/sarcasm]If Intel lowers their prices to around AMD, I will be the first one in line to get an i7 system, no lie. They also have to promise me that they are competing fairly. Intel would have been screwed a few months ago, but AMD is too nice. Intel has the x86 license, and AMD has the x64-86 license so if AMD doesn't give Intel the x64-86 the permision, they would not be able to produce 64 bit processors anymore, but Intel would probably pull the plug too and take away x86 from AMD. Intel would also lose multi-core license, the integrated memory controller, and other things.http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/128644-2...ket-power-japanhttp://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248396-2...d-intel-germanyhttp://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Eur...-Fine,7683.html

3DMark06 Record:http://service.futuremark.com/resultCompar...reResultType=14What is that I see? AMD at the top? I though Intel should have surpassed this already? I mean 1,000 dollar CPU and still can't set the record over a 200 dollar AMD... [sarcasm] Intel is so worth the money... [/sarcasm]

gman!,The AMD cpu in that comparison is OC:ed to 6GHz, the i7 920 at stocks speed 2.6GHz. I won't call you a liar, but this discussion ends here, right now.

gman!,The AMD cpu in that comparison is OC:ed to 6GHz, the i7 920 at stocks speed 2.6GHz. I won't call you a liar, but this discussion ends here, right now.

Doesn't matter. Intel set the records on their CPUs some time ago and we didn't complain or say it was overclocked too high, we just accepted it. Even when the oced their P4 to 5GHz. This one isn't even at 6 GHz and look at the results. This not too hard of an overclock with the right cooling. http://service.futuremark.com/resultCompar...reResultType=14Highest Core i7: http://service.futuremark.com/resultCompar...reResultType=141,000 dollars and still can't set the record. There are no excuses. If it was really able they would have set the record by now. People that knew AMD was slow, but didn't want to spend bucket loads of money knew Intel was the fastest, and they set the 3DMark record. We accepted, didn't say it has to much RAM, too powerful GPU, etc. Yet people that favor Intel still can't accept that AMD set the record, and Intel is struggling to beat it. If Intel sets the record with their next CPU, you can say all you want, I will accept it.

Doesn't matter. Intel set the records on their CPUs some time ago and we didn't complain or say it was overclocked too high, we just accepted it. Even when the oced their P4 to 5GHz. This one isn't even at 6 GHz and look at the results. This not too hard of an overclock with the right cooling. http://service.futuremark.com/resultCompar...reResultType=14Highest Core i7: http://service.futuremark.com/resultCompar...reResultType=141,000 dollars and still can't set the record. There are no excuses. If it was really able they would have set the record by now. People that knew AMD was slow, but didn't want to spend bucket loads of money knew Intel was the fastest, and they set the 3DMark record. We accepted, didn't say it has to much RAM, too powerful GPU, etc. Yet people that favor Intel still can't accept that AMD set the record, and Intel is struggling to beat it. If Intel sets the record with their next CPU, you can say all you want, I will accept it.

Nothing...NOTHING you use to "back up" ANY of your arguments has ANYTHING to do with FSX. Just choked with 3dmark and Tom's references.And all that propaganda about market manipulations? Oh, and you compare a 6GHz AMD to a 2.6GHz i7?? Clocking aside, like I said before, apples to oranges. And the i7 950 is not $1000. Since everyone has to clock whatever cpu they get for FSX...performance/price comparisons based on default clock speeds don't matter. So no one has to spend $1000 for a cpu unless they want the extra multipliers.Frank (OP): You got the best advice you can get from Nick. All this other static is pointing you in the wrong direction if you want the best sim experience you can get stick with the i7 like Nick said. I agree it's not cheap but you can't cheap out with this simulator. You'll get what you pay for. If you want what the sim is capable of delivering it's going to cost a bit...more than a $700 system I can tell you that. -jk

Highest Core i7: http://service.futuremark.com/resultCompar...reResultType=14

If it was really that important or worth the loss per clock I would post the option to people... do you think I only use/test Intel?If you understood what you were looking at you would also understand that the results you have been showing (high scores over 4GHz for AMD) require LN2 (liquid Nitrogen) to accomplish as the highest stable air cool on those AMDs is about 3.9-4.1. so where is the savings?Better order that LN2 ahead of timehigh Intel score is only 400pts less @ 5Ghz instead of 6... miss that one?3Dmark is absolutely no way to evaluate performance. Between the cheats those kids and pros use and the fact that FSX is a year 2000 triangle rendering engine that has absolutely no association with how 3DMark06 works what you are doing is grasping at straws nowAt the same time most professional overclockers like Kingpin who are out to set a record and nothing else (the system is useless for anything else) do not use Intel because it costs a lot to fry a processor for a high-score so they burn up 2-3 AMD chips to do it instead along with a X2 ATi modern shader based rendering engine video card.. Unfortunately you do not understand the logistics of where your data comes from.That 200 dollar savings posted between those two towers is quite silly too... lets assume the motherboard both support the full clocking ability in their BIOS and it is a fair compare (its not but I am not going to go into why DONT ANYONE BUY THAT)... for 200 dollars that Intel system will be upgradeable to Gulftown, allow the user to run for 2 years without replacement for upgrade and clocked (normally, not extreme on BOTH) will run circles around the stated AMD chips in FSX which means the person will not be cursing at the screen coming into Heathrow And as I said.. I know where this is all going. We all must feel good about our decisions and some see price conspiracies everywhere as this discussion is really getting pointless nowYou get what you pay for, if you know how to use itThere is no such thing as a free lunch... That AMD system will cost in time and enjoymentAlthough, there is something to be said for value in that... if one has never seen the difference, they wont miss it and just assume what they have was worth itFeels better that wayI think everyone just needs to step back as this subject has run its course. Frank appears to be a smart guy and can figure out what is best for him.. see, this thread is about Frank, not what someone else thinks is worth or not worth to them