Jump to content

Archived

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

David Roch

"The" question..

Recommended Posts

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 :--)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:)(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
You are brave (or crazy like most of us, or both)! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh Crazy...definitely crazy hahah.
No, he's simply an FSX enthousiast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, he's simply an FSX enthousiast!
A very crazy and completely bonkers enthusiast at that. Oh how I love my flight sims....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without a doubt a Sandy Bridge i7 is faster than a 1366 clock for clock. The question is by how much. ... 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.
Historically, generic benchmarks have given little clue about the likely impact of new technology on FSX. I suspect that the same is true of SB - which is why we need more hands-on reports like this: thanks.Just to give a point of reference for anyone interested:In the same scenario (PMDG 747 at Aerosoft EGLL), with an i7 975 @ 4.4GHz, a GTX285 and 6 GB RAM @ 1866-7-8-7-N1, I find noticeable variations depending on the weather depicted by FSX. But as a rough idea my FPS are usually ABOUT the same as reported here for the 2600K @ 4.6GHz: the numbers for the 2600K look a LITTLE bit on the low side compared with what I'm used to seeing with the i7 975, but not by much: a difference of maybe 3-5 fps. EDIT: also, looking at later posts in this thread: yes, Ultimate Terrain X can make a difference and will certainly make a big difference when night lighting is "on".I appreciate that the different graphics card (and no doubt lots of other things) stop this from being a true "like for like" comparison - but if anything, the difference is likely to under-state the relative performance of the i7 975 so perhaps it's better than nothing. Also, it tends to confirm what one might expect given Intel's current line-up of parts. Past experience suggests that FSX is one of the few applications which does actually benefit from well-optimized RAM, so it would perhaps be unsurprising to find that the triple-channel parts in the high-end of the last generation will POTENTIALLY hold their own against the current crop of dual-channel mid-range SB parts for a while yet.Looking at the reports from various posts, my hunch at the moment is that MAIN differences made by SB for FSX - which may well be different from other applications - are (1) as between two well-tuned systems, SB has brought top-notch performance into the mid-range of prices, rather than raising the bar by much. It looks as if you're getting about the same performance for c.£900 as I bought for c.£1800k in 2009; and(2) it may be easier than before to get acceptable (if not top-notch) performance without any overclocking, or with less aggressive overclocking.Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:)(
Sorry, I wasnt very clear. The resolution made no difference to the performance. I retested to check my original figures and did so a lower resolution to see if it made any difference. With the GTX580 it doesnt. The original figures were just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do even people talk about running the sim below 25fps? If it drops below 27-28fps, I feel stuttering. 30fps is for me a must. In 747x or lds VC. I will lower the settings before doing crappy 15fps...We already know that no CPU will run fsx fully blown, at 30fps no matter what you throw at it :-)I tried my VC performance at various airports also payware ones. I have to keep my autogen at normal to have anything close to satisfying.Not even 2600k is going to change that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Word Not Allowed,With my old setup (i5 650 @ 3.2, GTS450, 8GB 1333Mhz) I used to run PMDG 744x, AS EGLL, REX, GEX, UT2 @ 100% at about 15 FPS in VC, and 18 in spot. However, I had a very well tweaked FSX.cfg and display profile. It may be telling me it's low FPS, but I only ever got one or two microstutters every minute or so. Not that bad for a stock clock dual core! I suppose it's what we are used to. Before that machine, I had a Pentium 4 3GHz, 1GB DDR. Upgrading to the 650 was like a massive jump in performance. Whereas you are used to powerful systems, the latest hardware etc. You know what it's like to fly FSX smoothly ;)Put it this way, millions of people fly economy class every year., tens of thousands business, and only thousands first. My upgrade to a 650 was like flying in business for the first time after flying in economy for many many flights. A massive step up. Your sitting in first, and always have been. You don't know what economy is like ;). Lucky bugger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Historically, generic benchmarks have given little clue about the likely impact of new technology on FSX. I suspect that the same is true of SB - which is why we need more hands-on reports like this: thanks.Just to give a point of reference for anyone interested:In the same scenario (PMDG 747 at Aerosoft EGLL), with an i7 975 @ 4.4GHz, a GTX285 and 6 GB RAM @ 1866-7-8-7-N1, I find noticeable variations depending on the weather depicted by FSX. But as a rough idea my FPS are usually ABOUT the same as reported here for the 2600K @ 4.6GHz: the numbers for the 2600K look a LITTLE bit on the low side compared with what I'm used to seeing with the i7 975, but not by much: a difference of maybe 3-5 fps. EDIT: also, looking at later posts in this thread: yes, Ultimate Terrain X can make a difference and will certainly make a big difference when night lighting is "on".I appreciate that the different graphics card (and no doubt lots of other things) stop this from being a true "like for like" comparison - but if anything, the difference is likely to under-state the relative performance of the i7 975 so perhaps it's better than nothing. Also, it tends to confirm what one might expect given Intel's current line-up of parts. Past experience suggests that FSX is one of the few applications which does actually benefit from well-optimized RAM, so it would perhaps be unsurprising to find that the triple-channel parts in the high-end of the last generation will POTENTIALLY hold their own against the current crop of dual-channel mid-range SB parts for a while yet.Looking at the reports from various posts, my hunch at the moment is that MAIN differences made by SB for FSX - which may well be different from other applications - are (1) as between two well-tuned systems, SB has brought top-notch performance into the mid-range of prices, rather than raising the bar by much. It looks as if you're getting about the same performance for c.£900 as I bought for c.£1800k in 2009; and(2) it may be easier than before to get acceptable (if not top-notch) performance without any overclocking, or with less aggressive overclocking.Tim
Good points Tim,1) however, most ppl myself included, cannot get 4.4 ghz out of a 9xx processor; that is a very good chip/oc you have....I can only get 3.8 out of mine. 2) it is hard to pinpoint benchmarks per system unless it is the same pc or user as .cfg files differ and tweaks and windows background programs-usage very so much per computer. So comparing your fps at the same airport with similar add-ons is hard to generalize with Descend Descend.3)I am just not sold on triple chanel in gaming preformance; memory is important in FSX, but clock speed is the driving factor in FSX, do if you have a quad core over 4.5, you should be fine either way.4)Agreed it is a cheap and good upgrade for those on older platforms and those on low oc's like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...