Upgrade to i7 960 or i5 2500k

[f.leite 0]

EDIT: Fernando: this is the template I used, with stability testing procedures as well, all from NickN himself: i7 9xx OC BIOS

Thanks William! I just need a new cooler as i´m runnig the original intel one!

[MrGreen 0]

Thanks William! I just need a new cooler as i´m runnig the original intel one!

I greatly recommend the NH-D14 by Noctua. It is imo one of the top CPU-air-coolers out there. It is rather big however and also is (like all air-coolers) dependant on the air-flow you have in your case. So if you lack the space or air flow in your case, the H50/70 by corsair would be another good one.

[MrGreen 0]

Sandy Bridge E is quad channel, but I wouldn't expect that or those 12GB of RAM to make no differenceand Scott. IB is just a die shrink of SB. Usually die shrinks just overclock a bit higher. This time Intel announced this tri-gate thing that is supposed to improve the manufacturing process beyond the expected reduced die size, and allegedly boost performance by another 20% or so. If it turns out being just a marketing gimmick in the end, expect a 10% more overclock from IB when compared to SB, but that's about it. The real performance leap is in the architecture change (Nehalem - Sandy Bridge in your case, about a 30 - 40%)The next real architecture is Haswell, and you are looking at another 2 or 3 years before it's available. I prefer to make the move when a new architecture is out. If you need an IB or just feel the itch to upgrade, P67 / Z68 boards apparently will support them anyway

I don't know very much about the SB-E/ivy bridge other than what has been stated by intel (probably less even, because you stated some info I was currently unaware of) but even if the Ivy bridge isn't that much of an upgrade, I think it still is smart to wait before more facts are know, and prices are lower :) SB-E is stated to be up to 66% faster, which; with 50% extra cores, isnt that impressive. But, as I said, my i7 950 isn't exactly making FSX a slideshow so..

[AlexanderBarger 5]

Sandy Bridge E is quad channel, but I wouldn't expect that or those 12GB of RAM to make no difference

According to this picture:http://benchmarks-reviews.com/news/Intel/Sandy_Bridge_E_series/Intel_Sandy_Bridge_E_series_Desktop_Processor_Roadmap.jpgI thought there will be one with tripple Channel since it is also focussed to replace the actual high end i7 980.My bad if I was wrong.But still I am waiting for SB-E, does not make much sence to buy now a SB when the nex Generation is right arounf the corner.(I also know that more than 6GB RAM does not help much to improve FSX, but I run other Applications as well and well - I love my 8GB of RAM I have now :( )

[dazz 69]

I don't know very much about the SB-E/ivy bridge other than what has been stated by intel (probably less even, because you stated some info I was currently unaware of) but even if the Ivy bridge isn't that much of an upgrade, I think it still is smart to wait before more facts are know, and prices are lower :) SB-E is stated to be up to 66% faster, which; with 50% extra cores, isnt that impressive. But, as I said, my i7 950 isn't exactly making FSX a slideshow so..

66% faster than what please? you mean faster than current LGA1155 Sandy Bridge or than Nehalem? do you have a link please? If FSX made good use of more than 4 cores, SB-E would be better with it's 6 cores of course, but I would expect 6 cores for the mainstream platform by the time they are needed (MS Flight?)

According to this picture:http://benchmarks-re...sor_Roadmap.jpgI thought there will be one with tripple Channel since it is also focussed to replace the actual high end i7 980.My bad if I was wrong.But still I am waiting for SB-E, does not make much sence to buy now a SB when the nex Generation is right arounf the corner.(I also know that more than 6GB RAM does not help much to improve FSX, but I run other Applications as well and well - I love my 8GB of RAM I have now :( )

If those other apps you run can take advantage of a 6-core CPU then it's a good idea to wait. For FSX it's a waste of time and money when you can have the same performance now for less money and in a platform that should still allow to upgrade to hexa cores when IB is released (although this is mostly speculation on my part since it's not confirmed)

[MrGreen 0]

Sorry. I should have been clearer. 66% faster than 2600 is what I read. I checked the article I read it in: Sweclockers (In Swedish unfortunately) But I can't find a better source, so it might have just been a rumour. Anyway the "66% faster than 2600" statement is a bit vague, as I said in my earlier reply, because they are probably referring to it having 50% more cores (6 vs 4). I'll see if I can find more info.EDIT: It seems like sweclockers were the first with the "story" and no sources were stated.Part of the article referring to the performance of SB-E vs SB 2600 translated:

In time for the Computex 2011 fair, several motherboard providers will show off the first creations for SB-E with the promise of substantially higher performance than today's Sandy Bridge, according to NDA-labeled slides; as much as 66 higher than Core i7 2600.The luxurymodel SB-E "Extreme Edition" has six cores of 3,3 Ghz, 15MB cache memory and quad-channel DDR3. This can be compared to i7 2600 3,4Ghz with four cores, 8 MB cache and dual channel DDR3-memory. Much of the performance increase can be attributed to the extra cores, but thanks to more cache memory and a doubled memory bandwidth, there's even more to get from SB-E. Intel will also add PCI Express 3.0 which can be useful for the next generation of graphics cards.

Thats the best I can provide, hopefully not too much was lost in translation. (no pun intended)

[dazz 69]

Sorry. I should have been clearer. 66% faster than 2600K is what I read. I checked the article I read it in: Sweclockers (In Swedish unfortunately) But I can't find a better source, so it might have just been a rumour. Anyway the "66% faster than 2600K" statement is a bit vague, as I said in my earlier reply, because they are probably referring to it having 50% more cores (6 vs 4). I'll see if I can find more info.

It's ok William, google translator did a good job, enough to understand what the article says.I don't know, I expect a performance boost only from the extra cores in heavily threaded apps (up to a 50%)You can always do this (Everytime I suggest someone to try this it's ignored even though it's a 30min test). Remove one of your memory sticks of your mobo (to run it it dual channel) and compare FSX's performance againt your everyday tripple channel config. If you can see a performance hit, then you should expect SB-E to provide more than a 50% performance boost thanks to the 4th channel. If it doesn't make a difference as I suspect, then a 50% max is more realistic

[Cras 6]

Sandy Bridge E is quad channel, but I wouldn't expect that or those 12GB of RAM to make no differenceand Scott. IB is just a die shrink of SB. Usually die shrinks just overclock a bit higher. This time Intel announced this tri-gate thing that is supposed to improve the manufacturing process beyond the expected reduced die size, and allegedly boost performance by another 20% or so. If it turns out being just a marketing gimmick in the end, expect a 10% more overclock from IB when compared to SB, but that's about it. The real performance leap is in the architecture change (Nehalem - Sandy Bridge in your case, about a 30 - 40%)The next real architecture is Haswell, and you are looking at another 2 or 3 years before it's available. I prefer to make the move when a new architecture is out. If you need an IB or just feel the itch to upgrade, P67 / Z68 boards apparently will support them anyway

Then I mis-spoke. I was of the understanding that Ivy Bridge was going to have the new 3d transistors, which is supposed to bring a big break through in cooling, making even greater OC'ing possible on just air.

[Tabs 2,790]

Ryan,Do you know where I can find a good overclocking guide?Thanks in advance!

http://www.techreaction.net/2010/09/07/3-step-overclocking-guide-bloomfield-and-gulftown/

[MrGreen 0]

[ I was of the understanding that Ivy Bridge was going to have the new 3d transistors, which is supposed to bring a big break through in cooling, making even greater OC'ing possible on just air.]

They will. At least according to this link.Here's also video, that can be found on the link provided above, that is pretty interesting, but of course should be taken with a grain of salt as its a marketing video from Intel.

[rocketfs 2]

Hi all. I can't get my i7 920 stable @ 4.2ghz due to heat but it runs great at 4ghz. My cooling setup is a H50 in a push pull config.My aim originally was to get over the 4.2ghz mark so my thoughts where to go the cheaper option buy purchasing a i7 960 and o/c that rather spend more on the i5 2500k and a new mobi. What would be a better option?Pete Walsh.

I understand you set yourself the goal of 4.2 GHz but...Suppose you spend hundreds of dollars and you get it to 4.2. That is a 5% increase and at best (if 100% scaling) a 5% increase in FSX. So you go from 30 to 31,5 FPS.....Althoug I must agree on the fact that a 2500k will overclock more then 4,2GHz.Bert Van Bulck

[dazz 69]

Then I mis-spoke. I was of the understanding that Ivy Bridge was going to have the new 3d transistors, which is supposed to bring a big break through in cooling, making even greater OC'ing possible on just air.

That's Tri-Gate, yes. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense to wait for IB, but personally I prefer to have the fastest CPU available now (after all nothing helps FSX more than that) and when IB is out, simply upgrade my CPU. I guess by then my 2600K will still be worth some 100 - 150€

[Cras 6]

My original plan was to rebuild and expand my computer's capacity over the summer. I was, and I guess still am, by the propect of the Sandy Bridge, and its OC'ing ability. My thermal control system is a Koolance EXOS2, and it is finally after three years starting to show signifcant signs of wear and performance loss. So the goal was to build around the Sandy Bridge and the new chipset, increase my RAM from 12 GB to 16 GB, increase my HDDs total from 5 drives to 7 or 8, and then upgrade my thermal cooling system into a loop that incoroprates both the CPU and the GPU. The problem came with the RAM. At the time I was seriously looking into the build, I was having a hard time finding the sticks required to just equal that RAM total in a dual channel format, let alone exceed it, so that was the main reason I put the build on hold, and then after hearing of the new 3d transistor config, which is going to be a standard characteristic of all future Intel chips, I figured a further delay until its release would be beneficial. I do like having a big CPU, and the ability to get the higher speeds with more controlable heat is very appealing to me at the moment, so I did come very close to going with the Sandy Bridge, but I really want this next rebuild to have a decent lifespan. My last AMD build had a life span of little under a year and that is something that still bothers me to this day, to build a machine that couldn't last a single calender year. I would like my next machine to last at least three until requiring a build. Should I decide to swap it out earlier because of significant jumps in technology is another thing, but I at least want the machine to be able to function for that period of time before the software overtakes the hardware. My machine is not an FSX only machine, it is primarily a video off-line editing machine first, hence the lean toward more cores and threads and the RAM size. FSX is the secondary mode of the machine, on its own set of HDDs and Win7 partition.

[VBHB 298]

Had to turn off HT to keep full load temps under 75.. I'll keep my i7 for awhile. I defiantly need a bigger case tho my airflow is woeful. The 580 is a hugeee card.