Hello all;

 

FSX is always better on faster CPU's, is a dual processor motherboard (like this one) would work better?, I know it's for workstations but my question is: how come no one tried it before (as far as I know) to improve FSX performance?

 

Thanks for your input

I'm interested in this too. 2xHex core could be interesting for FSX

Gotta respect ingenuity here. Not a technical person but it good question since loves fast cpu

It's all about how FSX uses the hardware. It wasn't designed to utilize 12 cores well so doubtful you'd see much, but a report from someone who's tried is generally more believable than conjecture based on inference.

It's all about how FSX uses the hardware. It wasn't designed to utilize 12 cores well so doubtful you'd see much

 

It depends on what other stuff (REX, Opus, EFB software, PlanG, TrackIR, etc.) that you are running. You could probably dedicate one core to each application and thus make the whole experience much smoother.

 

We could always ask Mr. Allensworth to load up FSX on the Avsim server and report on the performance!(that is assuming the server has dual CPUs)

Well I have a quad core 5ghz and FSX uses 75% of it that tells me it's using 3cores.

 

Running at the same time AS2012, MCE, FSBuild, trackir, Foxit PDF charts, VA Acars, Sqawkbox, Firefox, utopia, Thrustmaster and other software, the more CPU the better.

 

And those Planes that have external flight models like the upcoming Q400 I'm hopeful it can run as a separate thread on another core.. Hopeful

I remember long time ago launching it on HP DL380G5 - the result was worse than my PC, which was pretty impressive that time.

I blame it on the GPU (the servers rarely uses high-tech GPU cards) and stopped the testing.

Now, we have way more decent servers, and Your mileage may vary.

For me, an enterprise server is a no-go:

- too less USB ports (I have over 20 USB devices)

- not too much room for extension cards

- noise considerations

- price

 

But I assume, there are home-usage dual-CPU motherboards, which cancels most of the enterprise class cons.

... and most servers don't have a video card.

It wasn't designed to utilize 12 cores

 

Not very well it seems...

 

Skulltrail platform (2 socket 4 core cpus) was ok but nothing to write home about. Upgrading the video card helped some.

 

Heck of an expense... 2x for $$$ cpu... ECC memory maybe & slower... oc-ability - Skulltrail was very limited in this respect.

 

Most I would do is 6 core extreme edition.

 

Server stuff best left to apps that specifically designed to use multi-thread like Photoshop... 3ds Max etc...

 

... and most servers don't have a video card.

 

Which is a good thing :-P

...Which is a good thing :-P

 

....unless it's your first time.....

 

:lol:

Yep, 4 cores @ 5GHz >>>>>>> 12 cores @ 2.9Ghz

The software can barely utilize two cores of one processor.

I found a forum that may answer your question

http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/computer-hardware-setup/20585-running-fsx-2-cpus.html

Dual socket is pretty much useless for FSX. Given that FSX mainly uses multi core for loading texture, terrain and autogen anything over 3 physical cores won't give you better FPS.

Sure enough, combined with a fast SSD you should be able to load a flight quite quickly on a dual socket system but you can't overclock any of the dual socket CPU so I suspect an overclocked i7 3970X will still be on par with any dual socket system when it comes to load times as it scales a lot better with clockspeed than more cores. And at the same time the higher clocked i7 3970X would give you higher FPS a lot cheaper.

Oh, and an overclocked i5 Ivy Bridge would give you higher FPS for a fraction of the price of the 3970X system as well.

As far as I know only XP-10 will use all the core available on your platform, I'm eyeballing XP-10 very seriously right now...another year < and I'll probably be flying on it since it's a 64-bit sim. now.