Hey guys.I want to upgrade from my E6600 to an i5 or i7. I really like the price of the i5-750/1156 platform. It seems to me the only thing I'd be losing versus the i7/1366 platform is hyperthreading which is turned off for overclocking anyway and FSX doesn't use it. And I suppose x58 motherboards have other features like full bandwidth 16x PCI-E slots but again, since FSX doesn't use SLI I won't miss that plus all the other features you pay the premium for. And does FSX even with add-ons really need more than 4gb? I've heard some people say that 1366 is more future proof, but new sockets later this year are superseding both 1156 and 1366 and I only upgrade every 3 years or so anyway. I could save quite a bit of money going with i5, so I'm curious as to what advice anyone here has.

1136 X58 boards utilize DDR3 triple channel memory for higher performance. Also, with an X58 board, it is possible to run the i7 980 Gulftown.

Hey guys.I want to upgrade from my E6600 to an i5 or i7. I really like the price of the i5-750/1156 platform. It seems to me the only thing I'd be losing versus the i7/1366 platform is hyperthreading which is turned off for overclocking anyway and FSX doesn't use it. And I suppose x58 motherboards have other features like full bandwidth 16x PCI-E slots but again, since FSX doesn't use SLI I won't miss that plus all the other features you pay the premium for. And does FSX even with add-ons really need more than 4gb? I've heard some people say that 1366 is more future proof, but new sockets later this year are superseding both 1156 and 1366 and I only upgrade every 3 years or so anyway. I could save quite a bit of money going with i5, so I'm curious as to what advice anyone here has.

Biggest differences are no hyperthreading as you've noted (not a factor for FSX), dual versus triple-channel RAM, so 4GB instead of 6 GB for a single bank of DIMMS and some loss of bandwidth especially at the higher clock speeds, loss of the 12x memory multiplier (not really much of an issue when clocking around 4GHz with locked CPU mults), and only 16 PCIe channels (moved to the CPU on the i5), so no possibility for x16 SLI configs (again, not an issue for FS).FSX with a lot of add-ons can push memory utilization high--I've seen over 3GB in some extreme situations. As long as you're running a lean mean Windows config with all the extraneous processes shut down, 4GB is enough. That said, all it takes is a little bit of paging when it comes to FS to really disrupt smoothness. I don't have any hands-on experience with the i5-750, but reports are that it overclocks well...it looks like it should work pretty well for a dedicated FS machine.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hey guys.I want to upgrade from my E6600 to an i5 or i7. I really like the price of the i5-750/1156 platform. It seems to me the only thing I'd be losing versus the i7/1366 platform is hyperthreading which is turned off for overclocking anyway and FSX doesn't use it. And I suppose x58 motherboards have other features like full bandwidth 16x PCI-E slots but again, since FSX doesn't use SLI I won't miss that plus all the other features you pay the premium for. And does FSX even with add-ons really need more than 4gb? I've heard some people say that 1366 is more future proof, but new sockets later this year are superseding both 1156 and 1366 and I only upgrade every 3 years or so anyway. I could save quite a bit of money going with i5, so I'm curious as to what advice anyone here has.

With my mid-range budget in mind I have come to the same conclusions as Alex and the Core i5-750 looks about right but for the same money here is Australia I can get a i5-661 which un-clocked has a higher Turbo Boost clock than the i5-750 (3.6 Ghz versus 3.2 Ghz) but only 2 cores (since threads don't matter in FSX) versus 4 cores. Given the standard clock speeds for these two processors I assume I will be able to overclock the i5-661 more. Does anybody know if that is right? Given FSX is somewhat clock speed bound, would 2 cores at 3.6Ghz be better for FSX than 4 cores at 3.2Ghz.A online PC builder I was looking at is over-clocking the i5-750 to 3.6Ghz and the i5-661 to 4.0Ghz so (for the same money) I am caught between aiming for the higher clock speed or the extra cores. Any thoughts?Thanks, Brett

With my mid-range budget in mind I have come to the same conclusions as Alex and the Core i5-750 looks about right but for the same money here is Australia I can get a i5-661 which un-clocked has a higher Turbo Boost clock than the i5-750 (3.6 Ghz versus 3.2 Ghz) but only 2 cores (since threads don't matter in FSX) versus 4 cores. Given the standard clock speeds for these two processors I assume I will be able to overclock the i5-661 more. Does anybody know if that is right? Given FSX is somewhat clock speed bound, would 2 cores at 3.6Ghz be better for FSX than 4 cores at 3.2Ghz.A online PC builder I was looking at is over-clocking the i5-750 to 3.6Ghz and the i5-661 to 4.0Ghz so (for the same money) I am caught between aiming for the higher clock speed or the extra cores. Any thoughts?Thanks, Brett

For FS9 I'd go with the higher clock speed...for FSX a dual-core is suboptimal--you need at least three cores to do the job right.With a good aftermarket CPU heatsink, the 750 should not be limited to 3.6 GHz. I'm guessing that shop is limiting the overclock based on temp limitations using the crappy intel heatsink.Personally, I'd go with the 750 quad and put a few $$ towards a good aftermarket heatsink. All the discussions I've read show that chip capable of clocks in the low 4GHz range without much work at all.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

For FS9 I'd go with the higher clock speed...for FSX a dual-core is suboptimal--you need at least three cores to do the job right.With a good aftermarket CPU heatsink, the 750 should not be limited to 3.6 GHz. I'm guessing that shop is limiting the overclock based on temp limitations using the crappy intel heatsink.Personally, I'd go with the 750 quad and put a few $$ towards a good aftermarket heatsink. All the discussions I've read show that chip capable of clocks in the low 4GHz range without much work at all.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Thanks Bob, I decided to abandon FS9 entirely when I move to my new PC system so the the i5 750 is what I was leaning too -- it seems to be a decent power/price compromise and all the tech mags/sites write it up as good value. Consistently since SP2 for FSX everybody seems to be saying quad core is the way to go (but don't ignore clock speed). My budget isn't super tight but it won't stretch to an i7 965!I looked at those overclock models from that store I mentioned and they do provide an non-standard heat sink but it is only a cheap Coolmaster TX3 (and I was wrong, they overclock to 3.8 Ghz not 3.6) so I guess the slightly conservative boost is for their warranty purposes. I did some more searching around the net and it seems people are definitely clocking the i5 750 to 4 Ghz + so with 4 cores that should provide smooth FSX performance even in congested flight zones.Thanks again. Regards, Brett

I was wondering if you are interested in SATA 6.0 or USB 3 is that feasible on the i5 / P55 board or do you need x58 to get the PCIe throughput?scott s..

Is this understanding correct:For FS9, recommendation is i5, fastest speed, as doesn't use more than one coreFor FSX, recommendation is i7 as does use up to 4 cores.????Ghiom

Is this understanding correct:For FS9, recommendation is i5, fastest speed, as doesn't use more than one coreFor FSX, recommendation is i7 as does use up to 4 cores.????Ghiom

No, not exactly. For FS9, the fastest dual-core configuration you can muster is optimal. For FSX, I recommend the fastest quad-core you can afford. An i5-750, which is a quad core i5, should be suitable for both FSX and FS9.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hi, my son has a core i5 650 (3,20GHZ), and me a core i7 860. I must admit that the core i5 is equal or faster than the core i7. at default speeds , both in FS9 and FSX. So i agree with Bob that clock speed, seems more importatnt for FS.Regards.Miquel.

for FSX a dual-core is suboptimal--you need at least three cores to do the job right.

FUD. There is absolutely no proof on that: FSX is happy with only 2 cores, because clock speeds is the thing that matters. An i5 650 at 3.2 GHz is better than ANY i7 below 3.2. Period.

FUD. There is absolutely no proof on that: FSX is happy with only 2 cores, because clock speeds is the thing that matters. An i5 650 at 3.2 GHz is better than ANY i7 below 3.2. Period.

Here we go :(

FUD. There is absolutely no proof on that: FSX is happy with only 2 cores, because clock speeds is the thing that matters. An i5 650 at 3.2 GHz is better than ANY i7 below 3.2. Period.

How does one define "Better?"More fps? Less stutters?

I ran my i5-750 at 3.61 GHZ for quite a while with stock cooling - never saw core temps above 75C - I now run a CoolerMaster Hyper212Plus/Two Fan CPU cooler and never see core temps above 48 C at 3.61GHz.Flying my test flight over KSEA/275knots at 2500 feet with almost all settings to max, but no AI traffic, with GEX/REX and 8xAA 2x2SuperSampling 1680x1050 resolution, 4GB DDR3, and a four year old OCd 8800GTS video card I seldom see less than 23 fps with FPS locked at 30.CPU speed is all that is important - I have done many tests going from one CPU to another, one video card to another, and changing memory settings - CPU speed is what really matters.

Running an E6600 at 3.04GHZ with 4 GB DDR2 - using my standard KSEA test flight - best FPS was 15.3Using IDENTICAL settings with my stock (2.67 GHz) i5-750 4GB DDR3 & the same hard drives, video card, same drivers, power supply, audio card...etc - best FPS was 13.22.67 (stock i5-750) /3.04 (OC E6600) = .88 15.3 FPS * .88 = 13.4 FPS which is almost exactly what I measured increasing the i5-750 to 3.71 GHZ and changing nothing else gave 20.5 FPS3.71 GHz (OC i5-750) / 3.04 GHz (OC E6600) = 1.22 1.22 * 15.3 FPS = 18.7 FPS which is quite a bit below what I actually measuredIt appears that the higher overclocking of the i5-750 results in better utilization of the four cores.