Phenom X6 1090T FSX performance

[Ramirin]

Hi all.Seeing that almost everybody uses Intel, I decided to open this topic for people who want to know how an AMD system performs with FSX. The specs are:-AMD Phenom X6 1090T OC 3.72Ghz-Asus Crosshair IV Formula -8 GB DDR3 1600 GSkill-XFX HD 6970 2GB-HDD WD 1TB SATA II-Resolution: 2560 x 1440 on Dell U2711Running in the sim: ENBseries plugin, GEX USA, MyTraffic X, REX 2.0, ORBX USA Scenery, MegasceneyEarth, FS2Crew, FS Altitude, TrackIR 4 Pro.FSX set to Ultra High, Traffic 90%, moving cars and boats 20%, antialiasing and aniso ON. DX9, bloom off.I have tons of payware planes so feel free to request specific scenarios and I'll do my best to post pics with frame rate.A couple examples:ORBX PNW & LancairDefault Baron over Megasceneryearth:

[CanadaOne]

Wow, what a coincidence. I was just at Newegg two-minutes ago looking at AMD CPUs and thought I would check here for any threads mentioning them. My budget is low and I'm looking to save every penny I can. AMD has a nice quad-core CPU for a few bucks less than an I3-550. I'm sure someone will point out the merits of the Intel CPUs that are in the same price range, but some of those AMD CPUs have a really nice price. Hell, their top-shelf "Black Edition" Phenom X6 six-core CPU is $199. I'm sure there are details to befuddle the novice (me) that might point someone more towards Intel, but that's a mighty good looking CPU for $199. I've run AMD CPUs before and never had a hint of trouble.I swear it's as much trouble deciding as it is paying for the stuff.

[whitav8]

Please try to run FSXMark11.See the pinned topic at the top of this thread

[Guest simmer9304]

Wow, what a coincidence. I was just at Newegg two-minutes ago looking at AMD CPUs and thought I would check here for any threads mentioning them. My budget is low and I'm looking to save every penny I can. AMD has a nice quad-core CPU for a few bucks less than an I3-550. I'm sure someone will point out the merits of the Intel CPUs that are in the same price range, but some of those AMD CPUs have a really nice price. Hell, their top-shelf "Black Edition" Phenom X6 six-core CPU is $199. I'm sure there are details to befuddle the novice (me) that might point someone more towards Intel, but that's a mighty good looking CPU for $199. I've run AMD CPUs before and never had a hint of trouble.I swear it's as much trouble deciding as it is paying for the stuff.

AMD's Phenom II architecture is from the same generation as Intel's Core 2 architecture. Although the Phenom II X6 line was released in 2010 it's based on the same architecture as the Phenom II's from 2008. Althought they are AMD's flagship line of processors the X6's have a lower IPC (instruction-per-clock) than Intel's i7 lineup (from Lynnfield through Sandy Bridge) and they do not overclock as well. All in all the Phenom II X4 lineup is about equivalent to Intel's Core 2 Quads and the Phenom II X6 is only marginally better since it's two extra cores don't see much use outside of encoding

[Ramirin]

The 1090t is highly overclockable. Mine went from 3.2 Ghz to 3.7 on stock cooler and 4 Ghz with the H50 by just upping the multiplier. I leave at at 3.7 ghz since at 2560x1440 FSX does not seem to benefit from the extra Mhz. (I tested this) same as when I was running 5760x1080 on 3 monitors.I will try to run FsMark11 and report back.

[CanadaOne]

AMD's Phenom II architecture is from the same generation as Intel's Core 2 architecture. Although the Phenom II X6 line was released in 2010 it's based on the same architecture as the Phenom II's from 2008. Althought they are AMD's flagship line of processors the X6's have a lower IPC (instruction-per-clock) than Intel's i7 lineup (from Lynnfield through Sandy Bridge) and they do not overclock as well. All in all the Phenom II X4 lineup is about equivalent to Intel's Core 2 Quads and the Phenom II X6 is only marginally better since it's two extra cores don't see much use outside of encoding

I'll agree with you because you sound a lot smarter than me. Still, those are good looking CPUs at a very fair price.

[Clutch Cargo]

The 1090T is a good value no doubt (even better than their 1100T). I would look at the Phenom II X4 980 "Black Edition" which is the fastest default running quad cpu (runs at 3.7GHz.). From threads I have read it "turbocores" up to 4.1GHz. and I've read others OC to 4.5 on air. Thinks it retails around $185USD so I would check that out.I'm more curious on how your AMD GPU is holding up. How are the visuals as far as shimmering of trees, background scenery and the like. Any tweaks you applied?thx,Clutch

[Ramirin]

I'm more curious on how your AMD GPU is holding up. How are the visuals as far as shimmering of trees, background scenery and the like. Any tweaks you applied?thx,Clutch

I do not believe that nvidia cards are better for FSX. I've used both and never saw any difference performance wise. Now, I do think that AMD cards image quality is a bit better than Nvidia's.Take a look at the attached screenshot I took from FS9. (CLS plane and REX environment). Pretty close to FSX, don't you think?

[dazz]

Coming from AMD myself, and it's true that it can run FSX ok, switching to Intel is the best decision I ever made. You can save 100$, but skimming in the CPU that is the single most important part in a FSX setup is something that I soon regreted doing.A complete budget rig costs 1000$, what's 100 more? not much IMO for the huge performance boost. And with SB you have the chance to upgrade to IB in the future with the same board while Bulldozer will need a new one if you have an AM3 socket mobo. That's something that you usually get with AMD but this time it's the other way around.As for ATI GPU's, I had a 5770 and when I got a GTX260 the performance in clouds improved so much that I'm never looking back. I keep reading about performance issues with clouds even with the latest 69xx AMD cards

[CanadaOne]

Does the FSX crowd have an anti-AMD bias in general?I mean, we can pick nits and devilize the details from here to eternity, but isn't a fast CPU a fast CPU and a bargain a bargain?Granted, I'm not a tech-guy and there is a lot I don't know, but is it possible AMD gets slighted just because it's AMD?

[dazz]

Does the FSX crowd have an anti-AMD bias in general?I mean, we can pick nits and devilize the details from here to eternity, but isn't a fast CPU a fast CPU and a bargain a bargain?Granted, I'm not a tech-guy and there is a lot I don't know, but is it possible AMD gets slighted just because it's AMD?

I can only speak for myself, and if I had something against AMD I would have never got me one to begin with. I'm only saying that SB is much much faster than Phenom II and for FSX that is so CPU bound I would never go with AMD just to save 100 - 150$.AMD is good value for general gaming, where the GPU is usually the bottleneck, or for heavily threaded apps where the 1090T is good for the money with 6 cores, but I'm not sure I would claim they are fast CPU's with an IPC and overclockabilty similar to "ancient" Intel C2Q.I really hope Bulldozer starts closing the gap because we would all benefit from that

[CanadaOne]

I can only speak for myself, and if I had something against AMD I would have never got me one to begin with. I'm only saying that SB is much much faster than Phenom II and for FSX that is so CPU bound I would never go with AMD just to save 100 - 150$.AMD is good value for general gaming, where the GPU is usually the bottleneck, or for heavily threaded apps where the 1090T is good for the money with 6 cores, but I'm not sure I would claim they are fast CPU's with an IPC and overclockabilty similar to "ancient" Intel C2Q.I really hope Bulldozer starts closing the gap because we would all benefit from that

Thanks for the response. One thing I find really odd, is that the higher-level - yet years old - Intel socket 775 CPUs are going for as much or more than the new Intel and AMD CPUs. For the moment, I'd be happy to get the best CPU that would fit on my present 775 MB - I could double my CPU power and keep my MB and RAM - but the better 775 CPUs costs as much as an i7 SB. Are these guys on crack?

[dazz]

Thanks for the response. One thing I find really odd, is that the higher-level - yet years old - Intel socket 775 CPUs are going for as much or more than the new Intel and AMD CPUs. For the moment, I'd be happy to get the best CPU that would fit on my present 775 MB - I could double my CPU power and keep my MB and RAM - but the better 775 CPUs costs as much as an i7 SB. Are these guys on crack?

Yeah, that's exactly what Intel does. New socket every time and if you want to upgrade, you either pay ridiculous prices for old CPU's or upgrade the whole platform (so they sell new chipsets and all) That's Intel's strategy and they can abuse it precisely because of the lack of competition from AMDI know it sucks, but from a business standpoint it makes sense. They do it because they can

[Guest jahman]

...As for ATI GPU's, I had a 5770 and when I got a GTX260 the performance in clouds improved so much that I'm never looking back. I keep reading about performance issues with clouds even with the latest 69xx AMD cards

That is until Flight is released and the dependency on Shader Model 2 (or 3, thanks to Bojote's mod) is severed. With the new shader model 4.x, we'll see how nVidia fares against ATI/AMD.Cheers,- jahman.

[dazz]

That is until Flight is released and the dependency on Shader Model 2 (or 3, thanks to Bojote's mod) is severed. With the new shader model 4.x, we'll see how nVidia fares against ATI/AMD.Cheers,- jahman.

Yep, actually if they get it right, AMD CPU's will run Flight just fine too, as every other modern game