How much faster are Quad core CPUs (than dual core) for FSX

[aussie_whiskey 0]

I am currently considering upgrading the CPU on my PC with a socket 775 motherboard from a 3.0Ghz Dual core CPU to a QUAD core CPU in an attempt to get higher frames per second using Flight Simulator X.I have checked www.cpubenchmark.net for the benchmark tests for the existing CPU (E6850 3.0 Ghz 4Mb L2 cache) and also a possible quad core cup (Q8300 2.5Ghz 4Mb L2 cache) and note the following 'passmark' values -E6850 1926Q8300 3550Does this mean that the Q8300 generally is at least 50% faster than the E6850? Would I get a noticeable higher frame rate with the Q8300?Is FSX CPU intensive and it is better to spend more on the CPU than have a very fast video card (I have a Gigabyte HD6770)?One thing which I could not understand was that the figure for a E7500 2.93Ghz 3Mb L2 cache (the CPU in my other PC) was 2012 which is slightly better than the E6850 yet it is slightly slower and has a smaller L2 cache - this doesn't make sense.Can anyone give me 'the good oil'?

[Ben Cap 89]

I am currently considering upgrading the CPU on my PC with a socket 775 motherboard from a 3.0Ghz Dual core CPU to a QUAD core CPU in an attempt to get higher frames per second using Flight Simulator X.I have checked www.cpubenchmark.net for the benchmark tests for the existing CPU (E6850 3.0 Ghz 4Mb L2 cache) and also a possible quad core cup (Q8300 2.5Ghz 4Mb L2 cache) and note the following 'passmark' values -E6850 1926Q8300 3550Does this mean that the Q8300 generally is at least 50% faster than the E6850?Would I get a noticeable higher frame rate with the Q8300?Is FSX CPU intensive and it is better to spend more on the CPU than have a very fast video card (I have a Gigabyte HD6770)?One thing which I could not understand was that the figure for a E7500 2.93Ghz 3Mb L2 cache (the CPU in my other PC) was 2012 which is slightly better than the E6850 yet it is slightly slower and has a smaller L2 cache - this doesn't make sense.Can anyone give me 'the good oil'?

Save up some money and get an Asus p8p67 mobo and a 2500k.That will make you happy :)

[aussie_whiskey 0]

Thanks for your reply but you didn't answer my questions.Yeh I could save up for the best m/b and fastest cpu etc but I don't want to wait 12 months.Your PC obviously cost 'an arm and a leg' but I don't want to spend that much money.It's the law of diminishing returns - a PC costing twice as much doesn't go twice as fast!

[ZachLW 37]

To answer your question, absolutely not. You will see barely any FPS increase if any at all. FSX is dependent more on clock speed and instructions per clock. What you will see are less "blurries" with a quad core.

Is FSX CPU intensive and it is better to spend more on the CPU than have a very fast video card (I have a Gigabyte HD6770)?

Yes. But that doesn't mean the GPU isn't important. For good graphical IQ, 1080p res, autogen, and clouds, the GPU becomes very important.

One thing which I could not understand was that the figure for a E7500 2.93Ghz 3Mb L2 cache (the CPU in my other PC) was 2012 which is slightly better than the E6850 yet it is slightly slower and has a smaller L2 cache - this doesn't make sense.

What figure? The E7500 was a die shrink, it will be more efficient.

[dazz 69]

It's the law of diminishing returns - a PC costing twice as much doesn't go twice as fast!

This doesn't apply in this case.First off, a new P67 system doesn't cost twice as much as a C2Q. And guess what? it does go twice as fastA C2Q goes for some $200, a 2500K for $220Of course you would need to upgrade your mobo and RAM, all in all it would cost you $350 - $400 or soAnd answering to your original question, no. Unfortunately FSX doesn't scale with core count like those benchmarks do.In FSX a Q8300 @ 2.5Ghz won't be any faster than a E6850 @ 3.0GHzYou could get a Q8300 and overclock it, but diminishing returns happens in FSX when it comes to # of cores, the third core will give you a slight boost (10-20%) while the forth and beyond, yield imperceptible improvements

[aussie_whiskey 0]

Thanks for the advice.I was hoping an outlay of around $120 (for Q8300) would result in a noticable fps increase.I had read that FSX doesn't make use of the number of threads a CPU has so it appears that GHZ is what I need to aim at.Maybe that is why I see some of your PC 'specs' which indicate OVERCLOCKING (4.8Ghz?).This makes me wonder why I should bother upgrading to a m/b cpu package using i5 or i7 CPUs as even the fastest ones aren't much more than 3.0Ghz.Unfortunately my E6850 isn't easy to overclock as the multiplyer cannot be increased (with my m/b from what it defaults to ie 9) and increasing the fsb results in the ram and PCIe also running faster. I did try increasing the fsb (and nothing else) by about 10% and the PC would then not boot up and the bios defaulted back to the original settings.I have read an article 'Core 2 Overclocking Guide' and it appears to be complicated. Also unless I can overclock the cpu by at least 20% I don't think I would see an improved fps.I DID notice an improvement to the ground scenery especially when flying over cities in the dark when I upgraded my video card to HD6770 (1GB).Thanks again

[Guest jahman]

...This makes me wonder why I should bother upgrading to a m/b cpu package using i5 or i7 CPUs as even the fastest ones aren't much more than 3.0Ghz....

Because they OC to 4.5 (and some even 5 GHz) on air, a minimum increase of 50% (and up to a whopping 67%) over a 3 GHz clock.Cheers,- jahman.

[dazz 69]

Also GHz don't tell the whole story. Newer CPU's are faster clock for clock, meaning that a 2nd Gen I5 at 3GHz is much faster than a Core 2 at the same speed.Looking only at the processor speed and core count is the typical noob mistake that most of us have made at some point. Been there myself, and it wasn't too long ago LOLExample, an I5 2500K is like a 50% faster than a Core 2 both at the same frequency.

[aussie_whiskey 0]

Looks like I will have to start saving to build a system using an i5 or i7 processor.In the meantime I am getting quite reasonable fps with my Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz (minimum 30 and up to 90) although the fps does change a lot (maybe I should start using FPS_LIMITER to keep it stable).

[SAAB340 28]

Does this mean that the Q8300 generally is at least 50% faster than the E6850?Would I get a noticeable higher frame rate with the Q8300?

If you swap out the E6850 for a Q8300 without any kind of overclocking on either you can expect this:Around 15% lower FPS if you use DX9 (due to the lower clockspeed)Around 25% higher FPS if you use DX10(DX9 gives a lot better FPS on a dual core if you happen to use DX10 at the moment)

[aussie_whiskey 0]

Thanks for that advice saabAs I am still running Windows XP I don't think I can upgrade to DX10.

[SAAB340 28]

If DX10 is an upgrade or not for FSX is a different story... Just to clarify, it is not recommended to use DX10 on a dual core. If you want to use DX10 you need at least 3 cores.

[Superpilotv2 2]

With the massive help of Dario (aka dazz) I made the change from the Q8300 to the i5-2500k and it´s maybe the best I could do. My investment was about 400€ and incorporated an P8P67 Pro board, 4GB of mushkin Enhanched RAM and the i5-2500k. I did it and never looked back.Although I have to say that the Q8300 iosn´t the worst C2Q CPU out ther, I was able to clock it up to 3.00GHz and it worked flawlessly with FSX and gave me decent performance. But with the i5 it´s an whole new level.