More CPU cache on the i7 series which is reported to be beneficial for fsx

 

Thanks for the response, I have tried to do some research on this and from what I can see the additional 2MB L3 cache (6MB vs 8MB) will make minimal difference when running with HT disabled, 6MB has been described as "generous" for a quad core CPU. It looks as if the extra 2MB L3 cache has been included to ensure that there is sufficient cache for the additional 4 virtual cores which would tend to confirm that having 6MB for 4 cores alone is plenty. Unfortunately I cannot find a suitable comparison of an i5 vs an i7 with HT disabled both at the same speeds which, would help prove this one way or the other.

 

wrf2e - sorry to sort of hijack your thread but I hope this has given you something to think about. My advice regarding the CPU would be to look at getting the i5 3570k rather than the i7 3770k. The i7 CPU has hyperthtreading which is only usefull for applications which support it, otherwise performance can suffer unless you disable it. I bought an i7 processor on the theory that more expensive / more threads / bigger number = better, but now I have disabled the single feature that differentiates the i7 from the i5 in order to maximise FSX performance I beleive I have wasted my money.

 

Regarding cooling, unless your computer is going to be sat in an uncomfortably warm room there is no reason for you to spend a lot of money on an enthusiasts heatsink, I have a mid range air cooler that enables me to overclock my CPU to 4.8Ghz with absolutely no issues. I personally prefer air coolers because they have very little that can go wrong on them.

It looks as if the extra 2MB L3 cache has been included to ensure that there is sufficient cache for the additional 4 virtual cores

 

This is exactly true.

 

One can go back and check the performance improvements from pretty much identical CPU's like Ahtlon II vs Phenom II and see how much of a difference does having no L3 cache at all

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416-9.html

_{One can go back and check the performance improvements from pretty much identical CPU's like Ahtlon II vs Phenom II and see how much of a difference does having no L3 cache at all}

 

_{The linked article suggests having L3 cache gives an average 5-6% performance increase over a CPU with no L3, which only proves that having L3 cache is a good thing. But from what I understand once you have added an optimum amount of L3 cache there are little to no gains to be had by adding more, because the cores / threads can only utilise so much. I cant find any evidence to suggest that going from 6MB to 8MB of L3 cache will make any difference if you don't fully utilise hyperthreading. If you use an AffinityMask setting to restrict the cores / threads that FSX uses you are effectively increasing the amount of L3 cache available to the remaining cores / threads anyhow, so running out is unlikely to be an issue.}

And if P3d v2 two arrives this year you might be kicking yourself for not getting the i7.... just another consideration.

And if P3d v2 two arrives this year you might be kicking yourself for not getting the i7.... just another consideration.

 

reminds me of all those saying pretty much the same thing about Flight. This is FSX.. f it, P3D is FSX too

Well my point is only to do a bit of future proofing for a modest price difference. According to LM P3D v2 is underway and they want to release it by the end of 2013. Who knows how it turns out, but it might be worth it, and certainly it won't be like Flight. Also if the OP ever wanted to tinker with XPlane, if that becomes more viable a bit down the road he'd be better positioned to do that. All I'm saying is if you're going to go to the trouble of a whole new build in 2013, you might want to leave your options open and not hitch your wagon only to FSX.

Well my point is only to do a bit of future proofing for a modest price difference. According to LM P3D v2 is underway and they want to release it by the end of 2013. Who knows how it turns out, but it might be worth it, and certainly it won't be like Flight. Also if the OP ever wanted to tinker with XPlane, if that becomes more viable a bit down the road he'd be better positioned to do that. All I'm saying is if you're going to go to the trouble of a whole new build in 2013, you might want to leave your options open and not hitch your wagon only to FSX.

 

My advise, especially on a $1000 budget, would be to get what he needs now. It's not like a 2500K or 3570K is any slouch. Put those $$$ you save towards a better PSU, a decent cooler that will allow for a 4.5GGz or something like that, and faster RAM. One can get all that with what you save if you pick a 2500K/3570K instead of a 2770K/3770K. Present proofing.

 

If a 4.5GHz 2500K is not enough to run XPlane or P3D, it's XPlane's & P3D's problem.

wrf2e - sorry to sort of hijack your thread but I hope this has given you something to think about. My advice regarding the CPU would be to look at getting the i5 3570k rather than the i7 3770k. The i7 CPU has hyperthtreading which is only usefull for applications which support it, otherwise performance can suffer unless you disable it. I bought an i7 processor on the theory that more expensive / more threads / bigger number = better, but now I have disabled the single feature that differentiates the i7 from the i5 in order to maximise FSX performance I beleive I have wasted my money.

 

Don't be sorry. Like you I just assumed the i7 would be better and didn't even think to look at the i5. I agree that if I can save money and get comparable performance, why not take that money and use it somewhere else like better ram, cooling, psu, ssd, etc.

Okay. If I want to get a small SSD as opposed to the HDD what would be the minimum size to start with? My FSX folder is coming in at 24GB. Would 250GB be enough to start with and then add a HDD down the road if I decide to expand? I still have my "everyday" pc for day-to-day use. This new build will start out pretty much dedicated to Flight Sim.

Alright, I have made some adjustments lets see what you all think. I took the advise about looking into the i5 and used the difference to upgrade to SSD, upgrade the motherboard and cooling. The price did go up to $1200 which makes me itch a little.

 

CPU-i5 3570k-CHANGED

Motherboard-Asus P8Z77-V (SATA 6GBs, USB 3.0 with UEFI Bios)-CHANGED

SSD-ADATA SP9000 256GB SATA III-CHANGED

CPUCooling-Corsair H80-CHANGE

Case Cooling-(2x) Cooler Master 120mm-NO CHANGE

GPU-Gigabyte GTX 560ti-NO CHANGE

PSU-NO CHANGE

Memory-NO CHANGE

Windows-NO CHANGE

I just got the i7 3770k over the i5 purely for fsx rig but also for any future flightsim ie p3d, xplane. Didn't want to be in position in 6 months that p3d 2.0 is released and uses hyper threading! Depends on your budget but spend what you can now to save spending more in future

The price did go up to $1200 which makes me itch a little.

 

 

Ha ... wait till you HAVE to have that $600 Graphics card.

Well it sounds like XPlane is now making using of high end graphic cards. If/when P3D2 comes out I sure hope it'll make use of them. While I run P3D or FSX at the moment my 680 4GB is poolside getting a tan while my 3700k is raining sweat pushing boulders up mountaintops...