Did somebody already compare a hexacore with a quadcore cpu in FSX?I have read that 6 cores should be better in loading scenery and autogen. Frames are not influenced logically with same GHz. I'm thinking about upgrading my pc with either Sandy Bridge CPU (don't really know if it's worth it for almost 800 Hz more from 4,2 GHz up to maybe 4,8 GHz with SB) or a hexacore, but with hexacore I will not be able to achieve 4,8 GHz.

The 2 extra cores will only help smooth things out a little compared to a quad i7-9xx but a well overclocked (4.6+) sandy bridge 2500k or 2600k will beat the 980x and possibly the 990x but at a fraction of the cost. Amd's 6 cores aren't even worth comparing to any of Intels i7-9xx's or SBs.

Agree on the AMDs. They are 45nm and old technology and you can't really go wrong with a SB CPU. If you can wait, go for the 22nm Ivy Bridge.

Ivy Bridge, the 22nm die shrink of the very successful Sandy Bridge, will be a game changer because:

1. For the first time in CPU chip manufacturing history the logic gates will be 3-D instead of the usual flat 2-D, and this means they CPUs will be faster and consume less power. Intel calls this new manufacturing technology Tri-Gate.
2. Ivy Bridge will also implement PCIe 3.x, and thus increase PCIe bandwitdth 2x over today's PCIe 2.x.

Intel is releasing its Socket 2011 Extreme Sandy Bridge CPUs 4Q2011, so I would expect Ivy Beidge to become available by 2Q2011 (and this is just a guess). So me I will wait for Flight, Ivy Bridge and a PCIe 3.x video card for my next FS upgrade. Cheers, - jahman.

Did somebody already compare a hexacore with a quadcore cpu in FSX?I have read that 6 cores should be better in loading scenery and autogen. Frames are not influenced logically with same GHz. I'm thinking about upgrading my pc with either Sandy Bridge CPU (don't really know if it's worth it for almost 800 Hz more from 4,2 GHz up to maybe 4,8 GHz with SB) or a hexacore, but with hexacore I will not be able to achieve 4,8 GHz.

A i7 hexcore CPU (980X / 990X) will not run FSX better than a 2600K and it will certainly will not be better at loading scenery and autogen. Unless you are going to use programs that will make use of a hexcore chip (video encoding, etc.) save your money and get a 2600K or a 2500K. Regarding Ivy Bridge, from what I have read performance wise IB will be inline with SB unless you go to SB-E. SB-E will probably be at the same price point that the 980X and 990X are now. No one is going to know for sure about any of this until IB and SB-E actually hits the selves and people start testing.

I think the IB is going to be much better than the SB cpus.

I think the IB is going to be much better than the SB cpus.

How should this go? SB is allready awesome and lightyears ahead of AMD.

We cant really predict what IB is going to be like. Remember, FSX uses shear CPU speed. More cores does very little. For all we know (doubtful but you never know...) IB's might be terrible OCers. They could run super hot super easily or they could require high voltage levels when OCing. We just cannot tell till someone actually has tested it.

"Yes, we can!" :Big Grin: See my previous post and link about Tri-Gate. IB is not just a die-shrink. Then there's also PCIe 3, and Phil Taylor says PCIe 2 is a bottleneck for autogen. So the SB --> IB increase in performance will likely be larger than Nehalem --> SB. Cheers, - jahman.

SB-E will probably be at the same price point that the 980X and 990X are now.

Indeed. See http://vr-zone.com/a...ses/13298.html# <- unofficial and unconfirmed of course, but better than nothing

We cant really predict what IB is going to be like. Remember, FSX uses shear CPU speed. More cores does very little. For all we know (doubtful but you never know...) IB's might be terrible OCers. They could run super hot super easily or they could require high voltage levels when OCing. We just cannot tell till someone actually has tested it.

The transition from 32nm to 22nm as well as the coming of 3D transistors is HUGE! The combination of smaller 22nm fabrication, lower voltage requirement of 3D transistors, and inate ability of 3D transistors to operate at higher frequencies should result in huge gains. Technically speaking, the more headroom you have for voltage and temperature, the higher your OC. Obviously you shouldn't count your eggs before they hatch, but I'm with Jahman on this subject - the upgrade to IB (even from SB) ought to be significant! I'm excited for Sandy Bridge-E chips to be released only because it ought to keep IB prices low. ...not to mention PCI-E 3.0 and well timed release of nVidia Kepler 28nm GPUs! You guys who have been waiting to upgrade have no excuses when January-ish rolls around!

Let's hope that Tri-Gate is something more than just a gimmick from Intel Well, it looks like SB-E will have PCIe 3.0 in the end, and it will allow BCLK overclock (remember freebird? he was right on this one). They are spliting the clock generator so that the BCLK isn't linked to the DMI and therefore the PCIe lanes in the PCH. Question remains what's the point of a BCLK overclock when you have everything in the ring bus overclocked by simply raising the CPU multi? (CPU, L3 cache, IMC) I've said many times what I think PCIe 3.0 will bring to the table in the short term (yes, even for FSX) so I won't go there hehe

Maybe we can push the boundaries with not only multiplier OCing but adding BCLK OCing too.... *praying for a 5GHz+ stable OC*

its the tri-gate technology and the 22nm technology that is going to help IB become the new SB. The smaller the transistors the more you can fit in => more speed. That is why AMD cpu's are fairly slow compared to Intel. They are all 45nm and still based on the Opteron.

...They are spliting the clock generator so that the BCLK isn't linked to the DMI and therefore the PCIe lanes in the PCH. Question remains what's the point of a BCLK overclock when you have everything in the ring bus overclocked by simply raising the CPU multi? (CPU, L3 cache, IMC)...

I think you answered your own question! Marketing strategy: Now that BLCK OC is devalued, it's no longer disallowed.

its the tri-gate technology and the 22nm technology that is going to help IB become the new SB. The smaller the transistors the more you can fit in => more speed. That is why AMD cpu's are fairly slow compared to Intel. They are all 45nm and still based on the Opteron.

What you just described are the benfits of the die-shrink alone. Tri-Gate reduces power consumption and increases speed by itself even without the die-shrink because 3-D gates are more "efficient" at switching than 2-D gates are. That's why combining the die-shrink and Tri-Gate in the same tick cycle will be such a game changer. Cheers, - jahman.

right on the ball jahman.