The 2600k is a faster gaming CPU than the 980x, as EVERY REVIEW has shown.

Every?FailNot that these new chips are worthless - their great, but the statement above and ones like it (Hype) are laughable!Hope everyone knows how to read these numbers correctly, you know - Clock per Clock..taking TurboBoost into account etc...low res used to take the GPU out of the equation..The first are from Hardocp and Stock speeds are with TurboBoost=on of 2500k=3.7 and 2600K=3.8 compare with I7-920=3.6 and I7-980, also two from Anands and link to Bit-techCheck out Crysis here: http://www.bit-tech....ridge-review/10

So basically, apart from FSX, 980x owns all.

Yes, in CivV there´s 1,5 fps difference between chips with price difference of 700 USD...

So basically, apart from FSX, 980x owns all.

All? Dont misinterpret, and BTW the 980X does just fine in FSX.More cores are better at keeping the dreaded dynamic blurries at bay, as long as you are using the settings correctly at a good overclock, I.e., using internal FPS limiter

some gameing benches on some forums/reviews the 980x is faster than 2600k, some the 2600k faster, all in all pretty darn close! Depends who and what you read; however, the price difference is riduclus between the two; even more so when you factor in a video card etc...so most 980x owners seem to have said the upgrade to a 980x is not worth it for FSX alone and seem to all agree with a hardly noticelable difference in preformance, but god there is a bitterness in the price aspect! I believe those extra cores help in situations where I would like them too, on the minium side, and I would buy one if I could get a good gtd oc on air, but without that gtd and I simply cannot afford it, so will save those 700 USD between the two cpu's for the 1366 replacement due the end of this year, but again we need high clock speeds for FSX, so who the hell knows!

some gameing benches on some forums/reviews the 980x is faster than 2600k, some the 2600k faster, all in all pretty darn close! Depends who and what you read; however, the price difference is riduclus between the two; even more so when you factor in a video card etc...so most 980x owners seem to have said the upgrade to a 980x is not worth it for FSX alone and seem to all agree with a hardly noticelable difference in preformance, but god there is a bitterness in the price aspect! I believe those extra cores help in situations where I would like them too, on the minium side, and I would buy one if I could get a good gtd oc on air, but without that gtd and I simply cannot afford it, so will save those 700 USD between the two cpu's for the 1366 replacement due the end of this year, but again we need high clock speeds for FSX, so who the hell knows!

Yeah, thats why there is also a 920 included..If you look carefully at the benchmarks I posted you can see the $200 I7-920/930 seems to do just fine - clock for clock

yea, its a pity mine is useless above 3.8! If I could get more overhead I would keep her:))

Every?FailNot that these new chips are worthless - their great, but the statement above and ones like it (Hype) are laughable!Hope everyone knows how to read these numbers correctly, you know - Clock per Clock..taking TurboBoost into account etc...low res used to take the GPU out of the equation..The first are from Hardocp and Stock speeds are with TurboBoost=on of 2500k=3.7 and 2600K=3.8 compare with I7-920=3.6 and I7-980, also two from Anands and link to Bit-techCheck out Crysis here: http://www.bit-tech....ridge-review/10

Let me get this straight. You're using games benched at resolutions of 1024x768 and 1280x720 to demonstrate that the 980x is "faster at games" than the 2600k? Really? No one uses those resolutions while gaming. This isn't 1998. Then a whole 1 FPS in Civilization, ooh!!! Wow, an extra 1 FPS for only 3x the cost, amazing!Here's a review from one of the most thorough and trusted benchmarking sites on the web, it's in German but numbers are universal. It tests far more applications than any other review out there, including a resolution people actually use in real life (as well as the lowest resolution supported to demonstrate maximum theoretical performance difference in real world applications) and also lists minimum FPS for games.

Exactly. Crank up the settings to full, get the HD monitors out and run em all at 1920x1080. Let's see the results then.

How does CPU mark results translate directly to FSX performance? Anybody know? For example, my 950 OC'd to 4ghz scored 8,979.0 on the CPU mark results. What does that mean exactly for FSX?

Considering my stock clocked 980x scored 11,004, I don't think it means much. Obviously the higher the better, but there isnt that great of increase between a 4GHz 950 and stock 980x, yet a huge difference in passmark.

Exactly. These benchmarks don't tell us anything about frames per second increases in FSX from processor to processor. We also don't know what these measurements really mean. For example, a CPU that measures 6000 might average 25 FPS in FSX while one that measures 11,000 might average 26 or maybe 32 FPS in FSX. It is all relative.

Show me a game that utilizes 6 cores, let alone 12 threads. You can't. Your test case does not exist. The 2600k is a faster gaming CPU than the 980x, as EVERY REVIEW has shown.

Actually... SimCity 4 which came out in 2003/4 I believe will spread itself out on every single core available. Of course that's one fairly useless example there since the game runs fine with 512MB ram, integrated graphics, and a 2ghz single core processor.

Actually... SimCity 4 which came out in 2003/4 I believe will spread itself out on every single core available. Of course that's one fairly useless example there since the game runs fine with 512MB ram, integrated graphics, and a 2ghz single core processor.

There are a few games that will spawn off worker threads when run on multi-core systems (FSX is one of them), but the work performed by these threads is trivial and does not significantly alter the performance of the application, which is the underlying point here.

Let me get this straight. You're using games benched at resolutions of 1024x768 and 1280x720 to demonstrate that the 980x is "faster at games" than the 2600k? Really? No one uses those resolutions while gaming. This isn't 1998. Then a whole 1 FPS in Civilization, ooh!!! Wow, an extra 1 FPS for only 3x the cost, amazing!

Please, Not all of us are noobs, Max.The whole reason behind benching low res and high res isnt obvious enough for you?Depends if you want to swing the wieght towards the CPU or the GPU as clearly demonstrated in any benchmark result which is why they are done in different resolutions for instance: testing a GPU you go for higher res.Funny way to read the charts I would say:Let’s look again at clock per clockThat one frame advantage of the 980 that you see is taking place at a lower clock (want to bring TB into the equation?)Lost Planet=20 FPS more with 380X at 4.4 than 2600K at 4.4 and 6 FPS more with 920 at 3.6 compared to 2500K at 3.7 and just 11 FPS less than 2600K at 3.7. Stalker the 980 and 920 wipes the floor with both 2500/2600K clock per clock.Final Fantasy the 3.8 clocked 2600K cant keep up with the 920 clocked the lower at 3.6 Etc...ALL of those results countered the claim YOU made, not to say these chips are not a good or wont be of benefitSelective reading, putting head in sand, not looking at the gauges - It doesn’t really help anyone.