Right now I'm running FSX on a Phenom II 955 overclocked to 3.7 ghz, 8 GB of ram, and a 560 TI; fsx still chugs along in heavy dense FSX regions (FTX scenery enabled, such as Brisbane airport ~ 10 FPS). Would I benefit more from a CPU upgrade or GPU? Are the new AMD chips any good? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103961

No. More cores for FSX basically no improvement. You need speed, Ghz... Intels provide that. And they are the best for FSX.

Hm, well thats disappointing. The new chips don't seem so much of an upgrade from my Phenom II anyway (performance wise) according to 3dmarks. Perhaps I will invest in a new PSU and overclock it to 4+ ghz.

Hm, well thats disappointing. The new chips don't seem so much of an upgrade from my Phenom II anyway (performance wise) according to 3dmarks. Perhaps I will invest in a new PSU and overclock it to 4+ ghz.

Don't bother with AMD... virtually everyone who had AMD went Intel.

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by Kosta

No. More cores for FSX basically no improvement. You need speed, Ghz... Intels provide that. And they are the best for FSX.

Not completely true, more core will improve in some area....terrain = 64 tiles = 64 core......up to 256 maybe??

Don't bother with AMD... virtually everyone who had AMD went Intel.

Intel is expensive?

Intel is expensive?

No it's not :)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072

Not completely true, more core will improve in some area....terrain = 64 tiles = 64 core......up to 256 maybe??

Alain, no need to pick on details, you know what I ment. Going 4 core to 8 core is useless.

Alain, no need to pick on details, you know what I ment. Going 4 core to 8 core is useless.

Yep...yep, I just replied to say "yep"

Right now I'm running FSX on a Phenom II 955 overclocked to 3.7 ghz, 8 GB of ram, and a 560 TI; fsx still chugs along in heavy dense FSX regions (FTX scenery enabled, such as Brisbane airport ~ 10 FPS).Would I benefit more from a CPU upgrade or GPU?Are the new AMD chips any good? http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103961

No. More cores for FSX basically no improvement. You need speed, Ghz... Intels provide that. And they are the best for FSX.

Alain, no need to pick on details, you know what I ment. Going 4 core to 8 core is useless.

My brother and I both built machines this years for Chrstmas. :D (Specs in Sig).He decided to go with AMD/ATI and I went with Intel/Nvidia for FSX.He in fact installed FSX ith Bojote tweaks etc.He purchased the AMD FX Bulldozer 8150 and 16GB of DDR3@1866 GSkill Ripjaws and TWO ATI 6870's in Xfire.His FSX performance is WAY better than my old i7 920 or his old Phenom II 955 for that matter.I looked in Task manager and I could clearly see that FSX in fact DOES USE the 8 cores; but the matter of FPS benefit is likely minimal. I am just try to prove to you all who hate on AMD so much that their chips aren't all too bad. The 8150 overclocked to 4.5GHZ comes right behind my [email protected] [no ht].Note: He tested with the NGX during these "FPS tests".

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by benorg

My brother and I both built machines this years for Chrstmas. :D (Specs in Sig).He decided to go with AMD/ATI and I went with Intel/Nvidia for FSX.He in fact installed FSX ith Bojote tweaks etc.He purchased the AMD FX Bulldozer 8150 and 16GB of DDR3@1866 GSkill Ripjaws and TWO ATI 6870's in Xfire.His FSX performance is WAY better than my old i7 920 or his old Phenom II 955 for that matter.I looked in Task manager and I could clearly see that FSX in fact DOES USE the 8 cores; but the matter of FPS benefit is likely minimal. I am just try to prove to you all who hate on AMD so much that their chips aren't all too bad. The 8150 overclocked to 4.5GHZ comes right behind my [email protected] [no ht].Note: He tested with the NGX during these "FPS tests".

That only tells me there was something very wrong with your i7 920 system.

The 8150 overclocked to 4.5GHZ comes right behind my [email protected]

Not even close (in FSX)

That only tells me there was something very wrong with your i7 920 system.Not even close (in FSX)

My i7 920 was @4GHZ. His [email protected] is MUCH faster than my old CPU.My brother HAS FSX installed with the NGX. I am pretty sure I can read an FPS counter.

My i7 920 was @4GHZ. His [email protected] is MUCH faster than my old CPU.My brother HAS FSX installed with the NGX. I am pretty sure I can read an FPS counter.

An I7 920 at 4GHz is faster than a FX8150 at 4.5GHz core for core.And you can't compare two different systems with two different installs and probably different settings too

An I7 920 at 4GHz is faster than a FX8150 at 4.5GHz core for core.And you can't compare two different systems with two different installs and probably different settings too

We used the same fsx display settings. I am SURE I know what I am talking about. We tested side by side.You seem to blindly hate AMD so much that you can't even give the chip ANY credit.

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by benorg

We used the same fsx display settings. I am SURE I know what I am talking about. We tested side by side.You seem to blindly hate AMD so much that you can't even give the chip ANY credit.

No, I don't hate AMD. I used to have an AM3 system not too long agoBulldozer has a terrible IPC so it sucks for FSX. It's decent if you can use all 8 cores thoughSame display settings is not enough, you need to compare using the same install.Look, I don't care if you think I'm an Intel ###### or something, you may want to search the forums and find other's experiences with AMD + FSX

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by dazz