P4 3.2 EE v AMD 64 FX

[Guest Marshall]

Does anyone know whether the P4 3.2 Extreme Edition or the AMD 64 FX runs FS9 the best? I'm assuming both are faster than the P4 3.2, but I could be wrong.

[Paul Kane 0]

The P4 EE and 64 FX are about the same. In an article in Maximum PC they state the P4 EE may be slightly faster. But remember, the P4 EE may run 32bit software a bit faster, it can't run 64bit software at all. With the Anthlon 64FX, you can run the 64bit software which "should" blow the doors off any 32bit technology. Microsoft is about to start the beta program for the 64bit version of Windows XP. I am curious to see what the benchmarks will be :-) The problem that I see with the 64 FX is that you need a new Motherboard and new "Registered" ram, which is about 20-30% more expensive that standard memory.However, I do like the fact that on the 64FX they have incorporated the DDR controller into the CPU die. That translates into virtually no memory latency, which is why the 64 FX is faster than the standard P4. It also eliminates the northbridge chip, which is another reason why you need a new motherboard for the chip.As for which CPU will run FS faster, I'd go with the P4 EE for now as it offers the most bang for the buck :-)

[michal 44]

>As for which CPU will run FS faster, I'd go with the P4 EE for>now as it offers the most bang for the buck :-) Actually if you look at the figures provided by tomshardware using FS2004 as a benchamrak, neither 64 FX nor P4 EE provide any sensible "bang for buck". Both chips are horribly overpriced when it comes to offering any meaningfull gain in FS9.Would anyone consider paying $800 extra for 2 fps gain a sensible upgrade ? Maybe someone would but count me out.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Paul Kane 0]

Hi Michael,I totally agree with you. I wouldn't spend the money either, especially if I already had a powerful P4. In fact, I'm quite happy with my Anthlon 2400+ :-)The original poster didn't specify which processor he has, so I repsonded under the assumption that it is perhaps a lower speed CPU. In which case, he would get alot of bang for the "buck" if he went with the P4 EE, because if he went with the 64-FX, he would need to spend $800 for the CPU, more for the MB and more still for the ram!

[Guest Marshall]

You're right. I didn't provide anything regarding what I have. Sorry about that.I have:Athlon 1.4512 MB RAMGeforce Ti4600Win98SEI'd like to be able to have the sliders set so I could get some dense or greater scenery at major airports. I try to keep away from these and any large metro areas due to frame rate concerns. My target frame rate is set at 15 fps. It goes into the single digits on a number of occasions. I'd love to get better frame rates and avoid stuttering. I've heard that some of the computers with HT have problems with FS9 for some reason so that was one concern. The price of the AMD is certainly another concern. I could do it, but is it worth it? I doubt it unless everything starts going to 64 bit next year. But I don't know if that's going to happen or not.

[Guest FPSFREAK]

>The P4 EE and 64 FX are about the same. In an article in>Maximum PC they state the P4 EE may be slightly faster. But>remember, the P4 EE may run 32bit software a bit faster, it>can't run 64bit software at all. With the Anthlon 64FX, you>can run the 64bit software which "should" blow the doors off>any 32bit technology. Microsoft is about to start the beta>program for the 64bit version of Windows XP. I am curious to>see what the benchmarks will be :-) The problem that I see>with the 64 FX is that you need a new Motherboard and new>"Registered" ram, which is about 20-30% more expensive that>standard memory.Actually MS is still in the Alpha phase of testing Longhorn and has stated that it has pushed back the new OS to at least 2006. Benchmarks on the new CPU's with 64 bit architecture will really show little to no improvement in scores if the application isn't written in 64 bit code. MaximumPC, while a decent magazine, doesn't run "REAL" world benchmarks and tends to favor the "Hottest" hardware at the moment. The 64FX excels at almost every real world app thrown at it.>However, I do like the fact that on the 64FX they have>incorporated the DDR controller into the CPU die. That>translates into virtually no memory latency, which is why the>64 FX is faster than the standard P4. It also eliminates the>northbridge chip, which is another reason why you need a new>motherboard for the chip.>>As for which CPU will run FS faster, I'd go with the P4 EE for>now as it offers the most bang for the buck :-)I wouldn't call the price for either any form of "Bang for the buck". Want BFTB?... Pick yourself up a 2.4 - 2.8P4C, a Gig of PC3500 and an ASUS or ABIT MB and run the thing at 3.2 - 3.6Ghz 100% stable with the stock Intel HSF. Will run neck and neck with either the FX or EE for a hell of a lot less money.We all need to remeber that true 64Bit Computing is at least 2 years off and a lot is going to change in hardware over that time......Besides...PRESCOTTS right around the corner..:)Bobby

[Guest Marshall]

>>>As for which CPU will run FS faster, I'd go with the P4 EE>for>>now as it offers the most bang for the buck :-) >>Actually if you look at the figures provided by tomshardware>using FS2004 as a benchamrak, neither 64 FX nor P4 EE provide>any sensible "bang for buck". Both chips are horribly>overpriced when it comes to offering any meaningfull gain in>FS9.Would anyone consider paying $800 extra for 2 fps gain a>sensible upgrade ? Maybe someone would but count me out.Wow! I had no idea that you would only get 2 fps. I read one article comparing video cards that used FS9, but never saw the one that compared the FX, EE with FS9. I've got to do some more reading and figure out what the heck I should do.

[Paul Kane 0]

Hi Bobby,>Actually MS is still in the Alpha phase of testing Longhorn>and has stated that it has pushed back the new OS to at least>2006.Windows XP-64 is different than Longhorn. Windows XP-64 2002 has been out for about a year now. The newest version, Windows XP-64 2003 is in beta now. So we "should" be able to see some benefits of 64bit computing in the next 2-4 months, not 3 years from now. I think that's gonna be kind of interesting. I'm curious what the benchmarks will be with a 64bit CPU and OS.http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/23/HNxpbeta_1.htmlhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.asp>Benchmarks on the new CPU's with 64 bit architecture>will really show little to no improvement in scores if the>application isn't written in 64 bit code.I disagree Bobby. The fact that the Anthlon 64 has the DDR controller built onto the CPU's die, means that there is virtually no memory latency resulting in much faster scores. AMD has eliminated the external bus to the DDR controller running at 400MHz, or whatever bus speed your board supports. The onboard DDR controller in the Anthlon 64 runs at the CPUs clock frequency, zoom zoom :-)>MaximumPC, while a decent magazine, doesn't run "REAL" world >benchmarks and tends to favor the "Hottest" hardware at the moment. >The 64FX excels at almost every real world app thrown at it.Yes, Maximum PC is a decent magazine and I trust their benchmarks. They are a true "gamers" magazine, from a hardware standpoint. They do run real world benchmarks. The same suite of benchmarks that everyone else runs.>I wouldn't call the price for either any form of "Bang for the>buck". Want BFTB?... Pick yourself up a 2.4 - 2.8P4C, a Gig of>PC3500 and an ASUS or ABIT MB and run the thing at 3.2 ->3.6Ghz 100% stable with the stock Intel HSF. Will run neck and>neck with either the FX or EE for a hell of a lot less money.I'll say it again, I agree that the price of the FX and EE are out of my league, nor would I spend my money in that fashion. But the original author asked what would run FS faster, the FX or the EE. He didn't ask what would run FS faster, the FX for the EE, and would you spend your own money on it. I don't presume to know how much disposable income he has. Maybe he wants the extreme cutting edge in technology? And taken in the context of ONLY the FX and EE, the EE technology is cheaper because you don't need the new MB and ram to go with it, hence "more bang for the buck".

[Guest ski_1]

The Pentium6 at 10 gigahertz is just around the corner... This should be the CPU of choice for FS2006/FS10.Ok, maybe not tomorrow, but for anyone interested in CPU's, where we have been and where we are going check out this link:[http://rnet2.dyns.net/artikkelit/prosessorit.xls]

[Guest FPSFREAK]

>Windows XP-64 is different than Longhorn. Windows XP-64 2002>has been out for about a year now. The newest version, Windows>XP-64 2003 is in beta now. So we "should" be able to see some>benefits of 64bit computing in the next 2-4 months, not 3>years from now. I think that's gonna be kind of interesting.>I'm curious what the benchmarks will be with a 64bit CPU and>OS.>>http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/23/HNxpbeta_1.html>>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.aspI may stand partially corrected on this Paul. Even the OS in question is in Beta and a 1st Qtr 2004 release is still iffy.>I disagree Bobby. The fact that the Anthlon 64 has the DDR>controller built onto the CPU's die, means that there is>virtually no memory latency resulting in much faster scores.>AMD has eliminated the external bus to the DDR controller>running at 400MHz, or whatever bus speed your board supports.>The onboard DDR controller in the Anthlon 64 runs at the CPUs>clock frequency, zoom zoom :-)Disagree all you want Paul but the fact is the performance increase does not come from the AMD being a 64Bit CPU. It comes from the fact of exactly what you stated. The On Die Mem Controller. Now answer me this, Why can the Intel Extreme hang neck and neck with the FX without an OD Mem Cntrlr?. Makes you realize just how effecient the P4 is.>Yes, Maximum PC is a decent magazine and I trust their>benchmarks. They are a true "gamers" magazine, from a hardware>standpoint. They do run real world benchmarks. The same suite>of benchmarks that everyone else runs.To a point you are correct. My question is, why are their BM's notoriously better than others with the same hardware being tested? I'm not disputing their results, just why the difference?. I've been reading MAXPC since it was called boot so I do know the Mag.>I'll say it again, I agree that the price of the FX and EE are>out of my league, nor would I spend my money in that fashion.>But the original author asked what would run FS faster, the FX>or the EE. He didn't ask what would run FS faster, the FX for>the EE, and would you spend your own money on it. I don't>presume to know how much disposable income he has. Maybe he>wants the extreme cutting edge in technology? And taken in the>context of ONLY the FX and EE, the EE technology is cheaper>because you don't need the new MB and ram to go with it, hence>"more bang for the buck".And we don't know if he's someone who just hears all the marketing hype and thinks that he has to have it. His questions were answered by a few here. I was pointing out that to acheive the same basic level of performance he wouldn't have to go down that road. I may have taken your BFTB comment out of perspective but I still stand by my statement that both are rediculously overpriced. The FX more so.Regardless of all this, it's all good for us in the end. My point was not to make 64Bit computing a "Godly" thing at the moment. Until we have a true 64Bit OS for the common man and apps that can genuinely take advantage of it it's all a mute point. Fact is the AMD scores with its Mem Controller. Not it's 64Bit Ability. The performance of the P4C and the P4EE prove this.Take careBobby

[Paul Kane 0]

Good Morning Bobby,Fun conversation :-)Hey, I partially agree with you on the release of winXP-64 2003, but only because of Microsofts past history on delaying releases. However, their 2002 version has been out for awhile now and I believe that they only optimized 2003 for the AMD 64, so they may make the release date. Its just an update to and already piece of exsisting software.As for the EE beating out the 64-FX, you are right again. The performance of the 64 does not come from the fact that it is a 64bit processor, only from the on die DDR controller. At the moment, the 64-FX is just a hopped up 32bit CPU with a fast DDR controller. But remember, the 64-FX is only running at 2.2GHz and runs much cooler. The EE has to run at 3.2GHz with a massive 2MB Level3 cache just to keep up. But again, I agree, at the moment the EE is a faster chip. Heres an interesting tidbit, the EE is a Xeon labled as a P4 (I just read that at Toms). At Toms Hardware, in a comparison, the EE won 25 benchmarks, and the 64 only 15.But the EE will only maintain it's edge until Microsoft releases the above mentioned software. Then the 64 "should :-)" take the lead and offer better BM scores. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I am really looking forward to the scores. I certainly have no plans to upgrade no matter what the scores are, but in a couple of years, when the price comes down, we'll have to see.I totally agree that the original poster would be better served by a "regular" Pent 4, and maybe some more ram. After all, going from his Anthlon 1.4 to a P4 2.5 and up will offer more than enough FPS to make the sim enjoyable, and for a very reasonable price.Take care Bobby. Have a good weekend :-)