Anyone got a better processor idea?

[paulyg123 135]

With dual monitors, doesn't the dual card of the 590 help out. 1 card for each monitor? I am not saying to buy the 990x either for FSX exclusively. But if you have it available to you for other applications, it'll surely run FSX GREAT.

[Guest nzch2010]

I am running mine @ 4.8, using Real Temp to monitor heat I am getting around 38c @ idle and 54 under load. The 2600K on the latest Z68 board, I am more than happy.

[dazz 69]

With dual monitors, doesn't the dual card of the 590 help out. 1 card for each monitor? I am not saying to buy the 990x either for FSX exclusively. But if you have it available to you for other applications, it'll surely run FSX GREAT.

As far as I know you can run 2 monitors off a single nVidia GPU too, with the second for charts, panels and gauges for example. For a multi monitor resolution or 3 monitors running different views, you need a dual GPU setup (or Dual - Tripple Head2Go)And yes, if money is not an issue and your #1 priority is an app that benefits from the extra cores of a 980X / 990X, then it's a better option than a 2600K. Better enough to shell 1000$ is a subjective thing. And no wonder a 990X like yours at 4.5GHz (BTW what Vcore for that please Paul?) will still run FSX very very well

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

With your kit, I wouldn't look over the fence - but, if you did ...you'd notice that the grass was greener. :biggrin:Ken Carlin

I am THIS close to wanting to build a new system with a 2600K and 580 card. Currently I have a 980X and 480. I am very curious to see how the two would compare in FSX. But I am trying to not let temptation get the best of me right now......trying.......to.......resist. JackColwill

[Wg Cdr Mac Taylor 0]

I've pretty much got the message now. 2500/600k for FSX but 990X for FSX if you have other things.Is the difference between the 990X & 2500/600k so great that it would be worth me getting a secondary machine just for everything else and then having one machine solely for FSX with the 2500/600K?What's the difference between them like?

[kjng 0]

there is no confusion, 2600k is the best you can get right now.cheers,markus

[Jack_C 1]

With your kit, I wouldn't look over the fence - but, if you did ...you'd notice that the grass was greener. :biggrin:Ken Carlin

Hey Ken. You really think there would THAT much of a performance increase? I got my 980X clocked at 4.4 and get very good performance. I just cant see the SB processor beating it and if it did by very marginal difference.JackColwill

[dazz 69]

Hey Ken. You really think there would THAT much of a performance increase? I got my 980X clocked at 4.4 and get very good performance. I just cant see the SB processor beating it and if it did by very marginal difference.JackColwill

a I5 2500K at 4.8GHz should be like a 20 - 30% faster (in FSX) because its a 10% more OC and a 15% more IPC. Disable 2 cores and test it! that way you will know if you'll miss them :(

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

Yeah Jack, I can't answer that. Between the two, Dazz gives us the performance difference on paper, but I don't how much more headroom you gain with regards to turning up the "settings" dial. Is there something with your current level of performance that leaves you a bit disappointed with FSX? If so, what is it. Maybe a highly clocked Sandy can handle it. ....Oh what the heck --- build that Sandy machine! The 980x and Sandy would look nice next to each other, huh? :smile:Ken Carlin

Hey Ken. You really think there would THAT much of a performance increase? I got my 980X clocked at 4.4 and get very good performance. I just cant see the SB processor beating it and if it did by very marginal difference.JackColwill

[modano 20]

an i7 2600k or i5 2500k is more than enogh to run fsx very smootly.i consider buying a i72600ka z68 motherboardand a good ssd disk.i already have a gtx 580.then i should be able to run fsx on a great way. :(

[BIGSKY 316]

We will see what the longevity will be at these "Amazing" OC's

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

Believe or not my cpu is within Intel spec and as such should last at least 3 years.My processor (at 5.0) runs a 100% cpu load @ 90 to 95 watts at no more than 72c (air cooled). According to Intel, the chip is designed/guaranteed to run 95w TDP @ 72.6c 24/7 for 3 years.You might be amazed at what I can get out of FSX with this Sandy running a 100% cpu load at 95w. Oh, the immersion factor is quite real. Sometime I smell jet fuel when I wake in the morning.-Ken Carlin

We will see what the longevity will be at these "Amazing" OC's

[dazz 69]

Believe or not my cpu is within Intel spec and as such should last at least 3 years.My processor (at 5.0) runs a 100% cpu load @ 90 to 95 watts at no more than 72c (air cooled). According to Intel, the chip is designed/guaranteed to run 95w TDP @ 72.6c 24/7 for 3 years.You might be amazed at what I can get out of FSX with this Sandy running a 100% cpu load at 95w. Oh, the immersion factor is quite real. Sometime I smell jet fuel when I wake in the morning.-Ken Carlin

how do you monitor your W Ken?

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

how do you monitor your W Ken?

As you well know Dazz, I am the worlds most interesting man* -my bird bath has been known to attract bald eagles- ...Mass times acceleration (under typical PMDG MD11 loads) times GHz divided by the frame rate to the given resolution (1680x1050) gives the rate of watts. However, sometimes it's just more convenient for me to use a standard mobo monitoring utility like HWINFO32 and RealTemp (whats currently on my desktop), but they're all good---I've tried them all.*when the puter is on :(-Ken Carlin

[Jack_C 1]

Yeah Jack, I can't answer that. Between the two, Dazz gives us the performance difference on paper, but I don't how much more headroom you gain with regards to turning up the "settings" dial. Is there something with your current level of performance that leaves you a bit disappointed with FSX? If so, what is it. Maybe a highly clocked Sandy can handle it. ....Oh what the heck --- build that Sandy machine! The 980x and Sandy would look nice next to each other, huh? :smile:Ken Carlin

LMAO. Thats the way I see it too! Too funny. I dont have any problem with my setup now though. Pretty happy with it. I have always had the urge to have the best performance or the latest technology though. A huge downfall.......especially from a marital POV!JackColwill