Your response is sooooo matter of fact... but I'm a little surprised that you would claim a LGA775 Q9650 = LGA1366 i7. I upgraded from a Q9550 and I'm just going to outright state that my i7-2600k is crap tons better - that's from my personal experience and not some benchmark performed by somebody who doesn't know the first thing about FSX. So obviously LGA1366 falls somewhere in between Q9650 and i7-2600k. I'm not going to state where it lies as I never owned a 1366 platform. But I am sticking to my guns: on the grand scheme of things, overall FSX performance does seem to improve as chips perform better in benchmarks. Let us be very clear - nobody has made any claims regarding clock for clock improvements between i7-9xx chips and SB. SB beats i7-9xx chips at FSX for the same reason SB beats i7-9xx chips in benchmarks - it clocks higher!With regards to clock for clock benchmark comparisons - I have seen very few. Anandech did make a claim on the order of 10% improvement. While SB doesn't have any new instructions that FSX can take advantage of, it does have a new architecture which makes better use of the cache.You say a "bit" more overclocking headroom, but how many i7-9xx chips really make it beyond 4.2GHz without some serious watercooling? 4.5GHz is absolute max on an i7-9xx for most everybody. You're really just cracking open the door with FSX between 4.0 and 4.2GHz. I can run my chip at 4.8 to 5.0 all day long on my h50. That's a solid .5 to .75GHz improvement over what most i7-9xx owners are going to see.Why are you so defensive of your socket 1366 platform anyway? Nobody is trying to hype these new chips up beyond reason. So far all the guys who have upgraded from 1366 have been very cautious and only affirmed that performance seems somewhat improved. The guys upgrading from socket 775 (that would be me for example) are a little more ecstatic of course, and rightfully so, becuase it is a big jump in performance.

Your response is so matter of fact... regardless, you did manage to bring up a very good point as to what makes benchmarking FSX even more difficult. 25FPS on a dual core chip does not equal 25FPS on a quad core. Ask anybody here who has tried the two and I think most everybody will agree that a quad core, even if it doesn't increase FPS, seems to create much smoother framerates. So I'm sticking to my guns: on the grand scheme of things, overall FSX performance does seem to improve as chips perform better in benchmarks. Let us be very clear - nobody has made any claims regarding clock for clock improvements between i7-9xx chips and SB. SB beats i7-9xx chips at FSX for the same reason SB beats i7-9xx chips in benchmarks - it clocks higher!With regards to clock for clock benchmark comparisons - I have seen very few. Anandech did make a claim on the order of 10% improvement. While SB doesn't have any new instructions that FSX can take advantage of, it does have a new architecture which makes better use of the cache.

The core 2 FSX-SP2 benchmarks provided are for a QX9650 which is a quad core not a duel, open the link read the benchies at 3.6 GHZ Apples to Apples.In fact this poor forum has had its share of post spouting clock per clock increases, I stated as a matter of fact that on FSX it is not there simply becuase ...it is not there, and how would I know this?

You say a "bit" more overclocking headroom, but how many i7-9xx chips really make it beyond 4.2GHz without some serious watercooling? 4.5GHz is absolute max on an i7-9xx for most everybody. You're really just cracking open the door with FSX between 4.0 and 4.2GHz. I can run my chip at 4.8 to 5.0 all day long on my h50. That's a solid .5 to .75GHz improvement over what most i7-9xx owners are going to see.Why are you so defensive of your socket 1366 platform anyway? Nobody is trying to hype these new chips up beyond reason. So far all the guys who have upgraded from 1366 have been very cautious and only affirmed that performance seems somewhat improved. The guys upgrading from socket 775 (that would be me for example) are a little more ecstatic of course, and rightfully so, becuase it is a big jump in performance.

Agree, but how many 2600Ks will run at 4.8-5.0? again?My I7-920 runs all day long at 4.48, on quiet air, same argument its a small percentsage of chips...Yes for those needing to jump, jump, but there will be many more of those with perfectly good running I7s in the above 4GHz range that seem to think this is some great upgrade that will be bitterly disapointed to find that 4.5-6 is the limit and there is nothing else to gain from.

The core 2 FSX-SP2 benchmarks provided are for a QX9650 which is a quad core not a duel, open the link read the benchies at 3.6 GHZ Apples to Apples.

My mistake, edited above post. I wouldn't be so quick to consider that comparison apples to apples. Tell me, did they disable hyperthreading on the i7? Did they tailor the fsx.cfg specifically for the chip they were running? Would you mind pointing me to some of these posts spouting massive clock for clock improvements (and I don't mean pre-release speculative posts - that's obviously irrelevant to this conversation)?

Your response is sooooo matter of fact... but I'm a little surprised that you would claim a LGA775 Q9650 = LGA1366 i7.

Since you keep having to re-edit your post...I'll requote my own exact words since it looks like you may have overlooked them: "leaving the platform and memory subsystem out for the moment why is it that a core duo is as good for FSX Clock per clock to an I7"And so you know the guy who "performed" the benches for Hardocp do you? and that he doesn't know anything about FSX, but you do? thats funny :Shame On You: Have at it junior, but Wishful thinking and theories do not = reality

Damn right, I edit my posts all the time - get over it. I'm wasting my time. I don't even know what we're arguing anymore. Simple conclusion? SB is better, now go away. You obviously just like to stir the pot. Hopefully this whole series of posts is deleted tomorrow morning.

Hello,I just finished my first tests with I72600K, see results hereI come from 775, a Q9450 oc to 3.7GHZ. Whats a gap! my FSX is now wonderful and smooth, with lot fps and lots of settings to maximum!

Damn right, I edit my posts all the time - get over it. I'm wasting my time. I don't even know what we're arguing anymore. Simple conclusion? SB is better, now go away. You obviously just like to stir the pot. Hopefully this whole series of posts is deleted tomorrow morning.

It's easy man, I have 8 users on my ignore list. Sometimes I still read their posts but the fact it's censored by the board reminds me never to reply to anything they say. As you can see his entire argument was built on a false premise that you could "ignore" the memory subsystem.

You obviously just like to stir the pot

We have a couple of tripple channel a really excited user around that keep claming that it's such an important factor. I'm not saying it's not, but so far I have found no evidence, neither in FSX or ANYTHING else, and I'm not the only one. At this point I don't expect to get that evidence from these guys we all know about hereOh, and if the memory subsystem is so important, GREAT!!! cause SB has an improved IMC with a lot more BW than his poor I7 9xx, regardless of the number of channels which should tell you something about how important those are when 2 channels' SB have something like 30% more bandwidth than those super-enthusiast crippled channel (sorry, typo) I7 9xx chips :rolleyes:I'm very happy that Intel decided to release their mainstream platform before the enthusiast one this time. This time we'll have a lot of people moving from X58 to P67, and then from p67 to socket 2011 (whatever the chipset is)We should have plenty first hand opinions on how FSX performs depending on how enthusiast the platform is

As you can see his entire argument was built on a false premise that you could "ignore" the memory subsystem.

I believe the exact words were "leave ... out for the moment" But lets include it now, SB side by side vs. an I7-9XX both at 3.8, then 4.0, 4.2 4.4 on FSX-SP2, explain what is the REAL FPS increase is? (if you have benched the SB) It is nil, almost imeasurable as was to be expected with FSX - if you read thru the white papers, you are a programer arn't you?It is purely the O/C headroom and cost that make it a great platform, there is nothing else. Which is why the hyped benchmarks that dont apply are meaningless - as a matter of fact.:Hug:

SB chips OC higher, picked up my 4.8ghz bundle yesterday, still in boxes as I work through this recall thing.Stop the crap most chips will do 4.8 ghz and FSX gears on clock speed alone. This maybe the last chips that can do 4.8-5, sb 2011 may top out the same. Ivy bridge is 22nm, so there maybe some voltage issues pushing those. 6 cores are useless for the most part in FSX, so this is a decent upgrade for peolpe moving from max oc's at 3.8 on their i7's or older duo and quads. Enough said. We have an old instuction set for FSX, so we do not know that future chips will be that much better, so if a boy can get near 5.0 on a quad now with air why not. SB 2011 improvments may not take much effect in FSX unless we have higher clock speeds, same with IB at 22nm, this thing is written at the time when clock speed was getting higher and higher, so this maybe as good as it gets, but who knows... There maybe no improvemet clock for clock on sb 2011 as opposed to sb now or older i7's IN FSX! At this level, it maybe all about clockspeed. You wait for sb 2011, when the gains maybe so small in FSX, it maybe be better to keep your i7. My i7 only does 3.8, and I need 4.8 for what I do so its fine for me as I was lucky enough for have a buyer for my old system.And I agree there is most likely no difference clock for clock between and older 1155, x58 or 1156, and quite possibly between SB 2011 in FSX. If SB 2011 get to 5.5 etc etc, then we will see improvements over current SB chips or very very veryhigh clocked x58's.Just don't mention the recall, lol, what a mess :(

I believe the exact words were "leave ... out for the moment" But lets include it now, SB side by side vs. an I7-9XX both at 3.8, then 4.0, 4.2 4.4 on FSX-SP2, explain what is the REAL FPS increase is? (if you have benched the SB) It is nil, almost imeasurable as was to be expected with FSX - if you read thru the white papers, you are a programer arn't you?It is purely the O/C headroom and cost that make it a great platform, there is nothing else. Which is why the hyped benchmarks that dont apply are meaningless - as a matter of fact.:Hug:

Its all about oc hedroom and speed for FSX my friend for this game...enough said. Likely the next 'enthusiats'; level chips may have no noticebale improvements like you are saying in FSX above unless they oc higher then current SB chips, which I hope they will, but they may do the same oc.

DazzThat not very nice thing to say,I thought you are well educated. All the best.Mo

I'm sorry but I'm fed up with this guys. The never prove a point. No benchmark results, nothing, just trolling threads all over the place saying no one but them know what FSX is all about. We'll see those clock for clock benchmarks when I get my 2500K because obviously we'll never see a single one from them

Just noticed I posted this in the wrong thread, sorry about thatPMDG 747 in the VC, UK2000 EGLL, REX2, GEX, UTX, MyTraffic X 100% airlinersI5 750 @ 4GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7214, 300000, 15, 35, 24.047I7 2600K @ 3.4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7114, 300000, 15, 35, 23.713I7 2600K @ 4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 8275, 300000, 18, 40, 27.583I7 2600K @ 5GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 9956, 300000, 22, 47, 33.187

And...?You guys are complete lunatics!Tell me about stutters, hickups, waits, pauses, etc. etc...You will have it @ 4.8 - 5.8 - 5, 7 or 8, it doesnt matter, this sim is the worst POS ever made!