I3 530 & FSX

[bangoman 2]

average frames with RAM @ 1600GHz :4 cores: 18.2052 cores: 18.060RAM @ 1200GHz and 2 cores: 18.208That's a 4GHz I5 750. The more I test things the more I wish I had not changed my order. I'm pretty sure an I3 @ 4.3- 4.4 would perform betterAbout memory speed, same results I got with my AMD setups: no difference

Hi dazz. Thanks for sharing your experience. I was about to post in my thread (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/293875-new-system-musings/) that I was about to order a quad core Intel i5. Now your experience has got me thinking. (Good choice of airport BTW...) Maybe the Clarkdales might be a better option. As for i3-540 vs i5-650 (both dual core Clarkdale), the only difference seems to be Turbo Boost (and 0.14 ghz stock clock). As for memory speed, my research had come to the same conclusion and I have since lowered my choice of RAM to 1333mhz rather than 1600mhz.If you have them, what were your minimum frame rates on the above?

[dazz 69]

Hi Dario thanks for sharing your experience with us which heathrow was it that you were running?

those tests where made at UK2000 Heathrow scenery

Hi dazz. Thanks for sharing your experience. I was about to post in my thread (http://forum.avsim.n...system-musings/) that I was about to order a quad core Intel i5. Now your experience has got me thinking. (Good choice of airport BTW...) Maybe the Clarkdales might be a better option. As for i3-540 vs i5-650 (both dual core Clarkdale), the only difference seems to be Turbo Boost (and 0.14 ghz stock clock). As for memory speed, my research had come to the same conclusion and I have since lowered my choice of RAM to 1333mhz rather than 1600mhz.If you have them, what were your minimum frame rates on the above?

minimum like 13 or 14 for an instant, but most of the time it was between 16 & 23 EDIT: I did another one:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg5592, 300000, 14, 24, 18.640And the frame breakdown:(notice there's only one 14 and two 15s)FPS242323232323232223222219181717171717151616181718181717171717171617161716171716161617161716171716141716171817171817171717171717181717161717171718171816181717171817171617171716171717171617161716171718171717171517161718181818181918181918181818181918191918191818191818181818191819191819191818181819171818171717171616171717181717171717161818181816181818181819171818181919191920201717182019192019212019192021202020212019201920202021212021202120212120212122212121202020212022222222212221222222212221221920222221222222222122212121212221222021202120202019191919191919191918191818201919191820171820182019192019

[bangoman 2]

Hi Dazz,I presume that last run was at two cores at 4ghz?The dual core i5-660/661 is similarly priced to the quad core i5-750/760. The former seems to get up to 4.6ghz with little sweat. So the choice for me is 0.6ghz extra on two cores (HT and turbo boost disabled for OC) or 0.6ghz less on 4 cores.Or pocket $100 and get an i3-530/540 which will get me to 4.2-4.4ghz on air. As we are OC'ing the HT/TB of the Clarkdale i5s becomes less important.I read somewhere that more cores might help improve load times - do you notice any perceptible difference when you are on 2 vs 4 cores?

[dazz 69]

Yes, that was @ 4GHZ / cores 0 & 1. Load times seem to be the same, but I would love it if more people chipped in and tried it themselves so we had more data to work with. So far only dez did and he said (in your thread) that FSX was still smooth on two cores.Is the I5 6xx really that much better of an OCer compared to the I3-5xx? I'll do some research but 4.6 seems a bit too much. Bare in mind that 32nm chips are vulnerable to high voltages, so even on custom liquid cooling and nice temps you don't want to push your Vcore too much or you might fry it for good

Hi Dazz,I presume that last run was at two cores at 4ghz?The dual core i5-660/661 is similarly priced to the quad core i5-750/760. The former seems to get up to 4.6ghz with little sweat. So the choice for me is 0.6ghz extra on two cores (HT and turbo boost disabled for OC) or 0.6ghz less on 4 cores.Or pocket $100 and get an i3-530/540 which will get me to 4.2-4.4ghz on air. As we are OC'ing the HT/TB of the Clarkdale i5s becomes less important.I read somewhere that more cores might help improve load times - do you notice any perceptible difference when you are on 2 vs 4 cores?

[bangoman 2]

You're right - 4.6ghz is a bit too much for the i5-660/1. I must've read it wrong somewhere. 4.2-4.5ghz may be a suitable range to quote, although with increased voltages... Interestingly 4.2 was on the stock cooler:http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1170/14/http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-650-660-661-review-test/9Another thread from Jan 2010 I keep referring to:http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/274213-28-proposed-systemThese guys seems to go for quad over clock, although there is someone who has done something similar as you with an i7 - trying out different numbers of cores etc..I'm tempted to go dual core Core i3-5xx instead of quad core Core i5-7xx, if only to see what it can do and see if your suspicions are right!Keep us posted!

[bangoman 2]

Oh and something from the Canucks:http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/31521-intel-core-i3-540-clarkdale-lga1156-processor-review-18.htmlImpressive 4.5ghz from the i3-540.

[dazz 69]

That's very good information to know regarding you changing your CPU from AMD to Intel, thanks for that appreciate it. Regarding the 2 cores, I think that the FSX is only programmed for 2 cores as far as I know.So, the other 2 cores are really not used. Also, it makes the system run hotter if it was a 4 core. My tempertature when I was using the 4 cores used to reach to 50 or 52 c on the load but now the other cores are disabled the temperature on the load is 41 to 42 c .

I'm also going to disable 1 or 2 cores... if I can find how to do it in this BIOS

Interestingly 4.2 was on the stock cooler:

wow, that's amazing, prolly below 1.3 Vcore. I really hope that it works great for you if you eventually decide to go with it.Let us know how you do please

[dazz 69]

Thanks dez.The thing is that in my old Asus AMD mobo, I could choose exactly which cores to disable, I mean ANY combinationI can see you can choose to have cores 2 & 3 disabled.In my current P7P55D-E I can choose: ALL / 1 core / 2 cores so I'm not sure which ones are being disabled and I can't choose to run it on 3 cores (I'd like to disable core 2 as it's the first to fail stress tests)

[bangoman 2]

I pulled the trigger and bought a Core i3-540, with the Gigabyte H55M-UD2H and some G.Skill Ripjaws 4GB RAM. Whilst it doesn't look great on paper, I wanted to see what I could do with C$350 (approx).I also saw this:http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-athlon-ii,review-31946-4.htmlWhich has a link to this:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-core-i3-athlon-ii,2666.htmlYes I could've afforded the extra $$$ for the quad core i5, but curiosity got the better of me to see what I could do on a budget!It won't be until next week when I can post some meaningful results as I will be working.

[dazz 69]

what planes & addons will you be using please?

[bangoman 2]

I use FSX as an adjunct to my real world private single engine flying and mostly to keep up my instrument flying skills so my add-ons will be limited to Acceleration and Flying Club X (if I can find the disc, just migrated from UK to Canada). I've not tried scenery add-ons - I may have to invest in some VFR England scenery so I can "visit" my old flying training areas.I may have a look for the same add on as you just to compare notes although I have no idea how to fly a 747, nor have I ever been to LHR!

[dazz 69]

So cool that you have the PPL. It's something I've been wanting to do for yearsDon't worry about the addons, just get what you need or want. If you are curious and want to compare performance I can always disable them, but I'm sure the I3 will do great for your purposes

[sweetlou 0]

So cool that you have the PPL. It's something I've been wanting to do for yearsDon't worry about the addons, just get what you need or want. If you are curious and want to compare performance I can always disable them, but I'm sure the I3 will do great for your purposes

Hello Dario - I am looking to build a new FSX system and it sounds like my evaluation is similar to your experience. Any thoughts/regrets on selling the AMD1095T in favor of the I5? If you had to do it again, from a cost/benefit perspective would you consider the AMD route? (I was about to pull the trigger on an AMD/MSI Mobo combo and then I read this thread). What type of performance can I expect with moderate settings and complex add-ons (Level D or PMDG)?Bango Man - Any experiences to report with the I3 build?Thanks All,Eddie

[dazz 69]

Don't pick the 1090T. It costs more than the I5 750 and it performs 20-25% worse clock for clock. Stick with Intel. I've heard that many times (still failed to do it myself) and now I have proof.It's hard to predict performance on mid settings cause it also depends on addons, VC vs 2D panels, airport... but I would say no less than 30 FPS

Hello Dario - I am looking to build a new FSX system and it sounds like my evaluation is similar to your experience. Any thoughts/regrets on selling the AMD1095T in favor of the I5? If you had to do it again, from a cost/benefit perspective would you consider the AMD route? (I was about to pull the trigger on an AMD/MSI Mobo combo and then I read this thread). What type of performance can I expect with moderate settings and complex add-ons (Level D or PMDG)?Bango Man - Any experiences to report with the I3 build?Thanks All,Eddie

Bangoman said he won't be able to report back till next week

[sweetlou 0]

Don't pick the 1090T. It costs more than the I5 750 and it performs 20-25% worse clock for clock.

Thanks, I have been a long time AMD builder but am seriously considering the dark side.What about the Phenom II X4 (on the lower end, cost/benefit)? Tom's hardware had a fairly convincing write-up (vs. i3-540) linked to by Bangoman.