We've seen that in some cases that the SB 7600k can reach 5Ghz which is a real quantum leap in computers technology.But can we compare this speed with let's say 4.2Ghz on a 1366 plateform with highest mem bandwidth (QPI)? Or at the same clock frequency (and with a different memory bandwidth) is the 980x faster for FSX than the SB because of its 2 additional cores?We don't care what benchmarks say, FSX is our only criteria.I'll pin this thread for a while to centralize your experiences.Your comments are warmly expected :--)

I have no experience, since I don't own it. But why would 2600K be faster at the same clock as 980x when it comes to FSX? FSX doesn't use any advanced CPU features, only clock is relevant (on the CPU ONLY). And cores for textures. So I think in such scenario, 980x is a winner. But at what price? And what is a real world advantage? Negligible at best...

QPI has nothing to do with memory bandwidth. Actually SB has much better memory performance than any 1366 CPU because of it's improved IMC, even with just 2 memory channels.The reason why a SB will be faster clock for clock than any Nehalem is the new and improved architecture. SB has a higher IPC (instructions per clock) than any previous generation. And a 980X is no better in IPC than the resr of the Nehalems, so all SB will be faster clock for clock than any Gulftown. So it's not a matter of being able to afford a 980X, it's just that any SB will outpermorm it

Good qustion David. Good answers Daz:)If heavy areas are a problem for my current pc a 920 do at 3.8 max oc, would the additional cores of the 980x help in scenery loading in heavy large areas if it were oc'd to say...4.4, or would a 2600k oc'd to 4.8 still be better in heavy areas where large airports and scenery add-ons are in use?

Hi all,I don't see how people complain about having i7 920's at 4.2GHz that still have performance issues in heavy areas. My old machine (i7 650 @ 3.2, 8GB 1333, GTS450) ran FSX at almost max settings, with 100% UT2 traffic at say FSDT JFK with manhattanX at close to 20FPS. There was only ever the odd stutter but nothing major.

Without a doubt a Sandy Bridge i7 is faster than a 1366 clock for clock. The question is by how much. Maybe not enough to justify a move on its own (although it depends how big a jump you want to achieve). The memory bandwith issue is relatively insignificant comared to the effect of clock speed. However, the Sandy Bridge potential for overclocking is much greater, particularly if you are willing to take a risk on voltage. My 2600k easily runs at 4.6Ghz 1.35 volts and it allows me to run the settings in the pictures below with GEX, UTX, ASE, FEX, Ultimate Traffic 2 (Max Traffic). At Aerosoft's EDDF taxying the PMDG 747 in VC on 3840x1024x32 the frame rate will fall to about 15 fps. Typically on approach it will be around 20.Edit: Just tried it on low resolution to make sure that Graphics is having no effect and the frame rate on approach is lower than I quoted. Dips to about 11 and typically 13-15.

15 fps works for me! My pc would likely be in the 8-10 mark, the lowest fps that I can take is 11 without making the thing awkward to fly and manover, so if I can fly in a decent add-on ac, 100% ai, big city add-on, airport add-on at 15 fps; then I would be happy as any fps over 12 works for me in the situation you desribed. I could care less about high fps outside the big cities/airports etc, just want as much as I can get flying heavies in big cities with all the bells and whistles on where FSX relies on cpu clock speed to draw the stuff.

Without a doubt a Sandy Bridge i7 is faster than a 1366 clock for clock. The question is by how much. Maybe not enough to justify a move on its own (although it depends how big a jump you want to achieve). The memory bandwith issue is relatively insignificant comared to the effect of clock speed. However, the Sandy Bridge potential for overclocking is much greater, particularly if you are willing to take a risk on voltage. My 2600k easily runs at 4.6Ghz 1.35 volts and it allows me to run the settings in the pictures below with GEX, UTX, ASE, FEX, Ultimate Traffic 2 (Max Traffic). At Aerosoft's EDDF taxying the PMDG 747 in VC on 3840x1024x32 the frame rate will fall to about 15 fps. Typically on approach it will be around 20.

Hi,Why are you running FSX with such low texture resolutions? bumb them up to the max. My slower i5 650 could handle those specs at Aerosoft EGLL with PMDG 744x, UT2 REX & GEX. I admit it was a well tweaked system, but even my system got 15+ FPS with 100% traffic and higher settings than that.

So basically nothing new.

Just depends how you look at it and what you need...oc potential is good on the 2600k and FSX is geared to clock speed...but if you have a good 9xx at 4.2 and over I would not upgrade, but if you are on a 9xx or less at 3.8 or less I would! However Mathijis posted this over at Aerosoft when the 980x came out and still makes me wonder....http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=34077

Hi,Why are you running FSX with such low texture resolutions? bumb them up to the max. My slower i5 650 could handle those specs at Aerosoft EGLL with PMDG 744x, UT2 REX & GEX. I admit it was a well tweaked system, but even my system got 15+ FPS with 100% traffic and higher settings than that.

Hi Alex,Is your new set-up much better than your previous for FSX; did you see a big worthwhile improvement at large airports and heavies on the minimum-side with FSX?

Without a doubt a Sandy Bridge i7 is faster than a 1366 clock for clock. The question is by how much. Maybe not enough to justify a move on its own (although it depends how big a jump you want to achieve). The memory bandwith issue is relatively insignificant comared to the effect of clock speed. However, the Sandy Bridge potential for overclocking is much greater, particularly if you are willing to take a risk on voltage. My 2600k easily runs at 4.6Ghz 1.35 volts and it allows me to run the settings in the pictures below with GEX, UTX, ASE, FEX, Ultimate Traffic 2 (Max Traffic). At Aerosoft's EDDF taxying the PMDG 747 in VC on 3840x1024x32 the frame rate will fall to about 15 fps. Typically on approach it will be around 20.

interesting, and could you make a test witth a 1920x1080 resolution, in same conditions?

interesting, and could you make a test witth a 1920x1080 resolution, in same conditions?

Note that Ive edited the post above and tried it on a lower resolution. The frame rates are lower on approach than I originally quoted but the taxying is about right.

Hi,Why are you running FSX with such low texture resolutions? bumb them up to the max. My slower i5 650 could handle those specs at Aerosoft EGLL with PMDG 744x, UT2 REX & GEX. I admit it was a well tweaked system, but even my system got 15+ FPS with 100% traffic and higher settings than that.

Hi AlexYou must be doing much better on your 2600K system then if you can equal my perofrmance with your older system!As your new system seems to be almost identical to mine. What frame rates do you have on your new system on approach to EGLL (in the 747) using my settings above and UT2 at max. (Maybe its UTX slowing mine down). Should give a rough comparison with EDDF.I will try the texture change but I dont think it makes much perfomance impact.RegardsHoward

Note that Ive edited the post above and tried it on a lower resolution. The frame rates are lower on approach than I originally quoted but the taxying is about right.

That's weird, I thought the lower 1920x 1080 res would yeild a little better fps than the original 3840x1024, maybe thats the 580 gtx's strength? FSX is a weird game:)(

Hi AlexYou must be doing much better on your 2600K system then if you can equal my perofrmance with your older system!As your new system seems to be almost identical to mine. What frame rates do you have on your new system on approach to EGLL (in the 747) using my settings above and UT2 at max. (Maybe its UTX slowing mine down). Should give a rough comparison with EDDF.I will try the texture change but I dont think it makes much perfomance impact.RegardsHoward

Hi Howard,She's currently installing UT2 at the moment. I still have REX and GEX to install and then everythings on...this has been a longggggggggg night. After those are installed, im going to bed (during the day ;)) for a few hours, then I'll do a test flight without any tweaks. I'll then apply a tweaked FSX.cfg and compare again.