Archived

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

Guest dacman

i5, i7, i9, I'm going crazy!

Recommended Posts

I'm currently working on the specs of my new computer which will be used both for work and for the occasional FSX flight.My hardware guy has given me the choice of an i5, i7 or i9 processor. From what I've read here, the i7 is more common than the i5. My question is, will the i9 make FS run any faster (ie better frame rates) over the i7 given that everything else stays the same, or is spending the extra money on the i9 just a waste of money?Thanks!Dean

Share this post


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

is spending the extra money on the i9 just a waste of money?
I didn't know an i9 core cpu was on the market (other than grey market). Therefore, I wouldn't know how much it costs.FSX wouldn't benefit from 6 cores anyway. The i7 would be advantagous over the i5 for other applications that use hyperthreading (FSX doesn't). The 1366 socket is advantageous over the 1566 socket for 3-channel memory and potential for future upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm currently working on the specs of my new computer which will be used both for work and for the occasional FSX flight.My hardware guy has given me the choice of an i5, i7 or i9 processor. From what I've read here, the i7 is more common than the i5. My question is, will the i9 make FS run any faster (ie better frame rates) over the i7 given that everything else stays the same, or is spending the extra money on the i9 just a waste of money?Thanks!Dean
Though FSX can take advantage of scheduling threads on up to 32 cores, how much of an advantage the Six core I7-980 (I9) has over a good quad we wont know until we can test it. Since it will be in the $1000 range, it would make sense to wait until you can compare it cheaper bargains like the I7-920 DO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as an i9. Are you sure you heard that right? The upcoming 6-core chips are still i7s. Anyway, if you want the most performance possible you have to overclock and you should be looking at the i7s only. 6 core vs. 4 core isn't so important, but the upcoming 6 core chips are built on a smaller manufacturing process which may allow for higher clockspeeds (i.e. better overclocks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with the I7 now as it has the same Mobo LGA1366 socket as the I9 (aka I7-980x), if the I9 does come out to be a world beater then you will always have the option to upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no such thing as an i9. Are you sure you heard that right? The upcoming 6-core chips are still i7s. Anyway, if you want the most performance possible you have to overclock and you should be looking at the i7s only. 6 core vs. 4 core isn't so important, but the upcoming 6 core chips are built on a smaller manufacturing process which may allow for higher clockspeeds (i.e. better overclocks).
Max, Intels own publications have been calling it the I9 for quite a while, regardless of it being branded the I7-980/970
I would go with the I7 now as it has the same Mobo LGA1366 socket as the I9 (aka I7-980x), if the I9 does come out to be a world beater then you will always have the option to upgrade.
2nd that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - cite one then. Show me a link to a page at intel.com that mentions the name "i9".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul - cite one then. Show me a link to a page at intel.com that mentions the name "i9".
Oh come on, arn't there better things we can debate, like world peace and hunger? :( First, no one outside of the company NDA have access from intel to the official I9 sections at all and that goes for most all future unreleased product until close to launch time. If you did have access the NDA is very strictly inforced, and unless you have private connections you can only gain access thru the forums of which you can find plenty of I9 post if you want to your own search.Assumed or not All the slides and presentations from Intel as published by most every trade journel on earth showed the same logo from Intel calling it I9 since before June of last year even well after the IDF in Sept.So many still of course refer to it as I9 untill the actual released name sinks in.http://www.techpowerup.com/97604/Details_o...ed_Core_i9.htmlhttp://www.pcworld.com/article/182906/inte...s_of_speed.htmlhttp://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/leak...thing_inbetweenhttp://communities.intel.com/search.jspa?r...mp;rankBy=10001http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews...tel-Core-i9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for proving my point. The only link in your list to an intel website is to posts made by users on their forum. At no time or place has an Intel official used the phrase "i9". The name i9 arose in the community as *speculation*. The product(s) which were speculated to be named i9, are all i7 9xx series parts. The 980x being the first to market, launching next month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for proving my point. The only link in your list to an intel website is to posts made by users on their forum. At no time or place has an Intel official used the phrase "i9". The name i9 arose in the community as *speculation*. The product(s) which were speculated to be named i9, are all i7 9xx series parts. The 980x being the first to market, launching next month.
Sure,Yeah, I agreee up to a point, there ws at least that much speculation from Intel employees and no doubt the marketing dept kicked it around, and since everyone in the industry rubs shoulders with someone else the closer you got to Intel the more you heard I9.I doubt anyone at Intel refuted the I9 moniker when speaking with press at events or the i9 wouldnt have stuck like it did for so long.the original poster called it a "I9" and you said "there is no such thing".Anatoliy Kuznetsov, the author of BitMagic was interviewd by Intels Andrey Karpov in-house developer in "Program Verification Systems" quote "In view of the mass expansion of Intel Core i5-i7-i9, it would be reasonable to release a SSE 4.2 version of the library" http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/BitMagic-Library/The poor fool, doesn't even know there never was such thing being refered to by Intel or those in the "know".Its a real quote, bottom of page, it must have been floated by enough people as I9 or it would have been refered to as I9 and would have been edited out by Andrey, but what ever.Come on Max, liten up!Can we debate something better? Like which which of these was fastest and in what order, A12, Sr-71 XB-70A-2 or Mig25?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no such thing as an i9. Are you sure you heard that right? The upcoming 6-core chips are still i7s. Anyway, if you want the most performance possible you have to overclock and you should be looking at the i7s only. 6 core vs. 4 core isn't so important, but the upcoming 6 core chips are built on a smaller manufacturing process which may allow for higher clockspeeds (i.e. better overclocks).
The I9 was rumored to be the next Intel chip. That has been resolved by the announcement of the imminent release of the 980x.I'm a bit confused over your statement that 6 core vs. 4 core isn't so important as I have lately been throwing around the thread from Phil Taylor's blog that the more cores you have the faster your speed and GHz no longer is the main factor: http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...od-measure.aspx. Unfortunately, Phil indicated that FSX was not really programmed to handle many cores and they had planned to do that in future updates. But FS is dead and there will be no future engine updates so we have to live with what we have until a new FS engine is developed by Microsoft or another developer produces a better product. I think your statement that 6 cores vs 4 cores aren't so important is technically correct as it is only a 2 core increase from the 975x and that will probably not make much of a difference in FSX. Best regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Westmere 6 core is actually a die shrink from 45nm to 32nm. This should result in lower temps (compare the GTX 280 with the 285). Lower temps would enable better OC:ing potential. IMO the new processors seems very interesting and I sure hope to be able to upgrade in a couple of months :( These i7 920 and 940 processors are getting old by now. Time to move on.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3733

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, if it what you propose were true, quad core chips would net higher FPS than dual core chips at the same clockspeed from the same family of CPUs, yet this is not what we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a fairer statment would be that duels run most default scenery as well as a quad, and it sure was not what we had hoped for, but when loading highly detailed landscapes and add-ons quads hang in there much better than duels delivering a steadier frame rate as well as maintaining the drawing of terrain textures when the duels just can not not keep up and the terrain starts to turn in to a blur, and there is a real benefit for more cores. - ALL testing done on SP2.Hopefully the dye-shrink and larger cache will yeild even better frequencies and a steadier bottom end to the memory subsystem..I am looking forward to trying, but am as everyone else a bit reserved about it esp considering the price.As far as the number of cores FSX has been programed to runActually both Phil and Sueng Woo Kim have siad that FSX is programed to handle up to 32 cores."As far as practical limits on number of usable cores, currently SetThreadAffinityMask onlyallows explicit scheduling of threads on 32 cores (the mask is a dword) on Win32. So that's oureffective limit on number of cores. But as soon as there is a way to explicitly schedule them, we canhandle 256 cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a fairer statment would be that duels run most default scenery as well as a quad, and it sure was not what we had hoped for, but when loading highly detailed landscapes and add-ons quads hang in there much better than duels delivering a steadier frame rate as well as maintaining the drawing of terrain textures when the duels just can not not keep up and the terrain starts to turn in to a blur, and there is a real benefit for more cores. - ALL testing done on SP2.Hopefully the dye-shrink and larger cache will yeild even better frequencies and a steadier bottom end to the memory subsystem..I am looking forward to trying, but am as everyone else a bit reserved about it esp considering the price.As far as the number of cores FSX has been programed to runActually both Phil and Sueng Woo Kim have siad that FSX is programed to handle up to 32 cores."As far as practical limits on number of usable cores, currently SetThreadAffinityMask onlyallows explicit scheduling of threads on 32 cores (the mask is a dword) on Win32. So that's oureffective limit on number of cores. But as soon as there is a way to explicitly schedule them, we canhandle 256 cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites