Hey guys, I am about to Upgrade my Computer to an ASUS X79 2011, that would also include a CPU change and a quad Chanel

4x4GB RAM (16GB total).

 

needless to say this Computer is for FSX w/SP2 and extras of course

Today I am running on X58 X5670 6 Core at 4.2Gh (over-clocked via bumping the Bus Speed to 175Mh, 175Mh x 24CPU Multi' = 4.2Gh).

Over-clocking the Xeon 5670 is simple as all the LGA 1366.

 

My FSX utilizes all my CPUs and on average all 6 Core are at 100% CPU for 75%-80% of the time when FSX is running (FSX.exe Process).

that means My FSX is doing a good job using my CPUs.

 

now here is my thing, I have two options in front of me as for the CPU.

 

1. Xeon E5-2650 8 Core CPU (Sandy-Bridge) which could run up to 2.8Gh / 3Gh (Assuming no or little Over-clocking would be available).

2. i7-3930k 6 Core CPU over-clocked to let's say 4.2Gh (not planing to try much higher then that).

 

to my understanding over-clocking a Sandy-bridge CPU with no open clock multiplier is nearly impossible, unlike the older version of Nehalem which you could just bump the Bus speed.

hence I believe I'll be very limited succeeding over-clocking the Xeon 2650 much higher then the 2.8Gh it can run up to.

 

My question is simple.

where FSX would benefit more (as for performance , etc) the Extra 2 Core running at a lower Mh or only having 6 Cores

but at a higher Mh?

 

Basically a 8 Core CPU at 3GH or a 6 Core CPU but at 4.2Gh?

 

bear in mind that Price is not relevant for this consideration, only pure performance.

 

I pretty much could get both of those CPUs at the same price.

I went from a i5-2500K at 4 cores, and now I do have the i7-3930K with 6 cores, and I saw very little performance increase.

 

Not that that really answers your question..but yeah.

I believe you will be much better off with the 6 core running at 4.2ghz then the 8 core running at 3ghz.

I believe you will be much better off with the 6 core running at 4.2ghz then the 8 core running at 3ghz.

 

I second that with a minor caveat: If both of them were at 4.2, I suspect you would see an increase in simulation smoothness and fluidity in situations prone to causing microstutters, but not likely any signifigant fps increase. There are also situations where you want to command external processes (like weather program, reality xp, trackIR) to additional cores, and that would help, so there is some benefit to FSX that can be achieved by having more cores--but certainly not if they are that disparate in clock speed.

@Summer1, your example maybe not a direct answer to my question , but it is sure important information as it is virtually the same action.

 

@KingGhidorah, what about faster texture loading with additional 2 cores? I noticed when I turn off a core or two FSX takes longer to load the ground textures, i.e. it takes longer until they come out

of their blur state to a clear state. while having all 6 cores enabled it goes much quicker.

so I am assuming the same would be true if I add additional cores. thought?

what about faster texture loading with additional 2 cores? I noticed when I turn off a core or two FSX takes longer to load the ground textures, i.e. it takes longer until they come out
of their blur state to a clear state. while having all 6 cores enabled it goes much quicker.
so I am assuming the same would be true if I add additional cores. thought?

What about Autogen processing?

does autogen also uses additional cores or they all hogging on 1st core only?

same question as for AI.

 

do AI and AutoGen use more then one core to process?

What about Autogen processing?

does autogen also uses additional cores or they all hogging on 1st core only?

same question as for AI.

 

do AI and AutoGen use more then one core to process?

 

Nope

Extra cores are for texture processing solely.

 

According to FSInsider for SP1:

• Moved DEM loading to threads.
  
• Moved terrain texture synthesis to threads.
  
• Moved Autogen batch rebuilds to threads.
  

What do #1 and #3 mean?

I got your point and it makes sense, I was just trying to gather all the details for Pros and Cons.

so assuming Autogen and AI an textures could use more cores, it might have been a good fight question

what I would prefer, that is why I wanted all the Info before I do the math

 

as for LOD, I get OOM anything larger then 4.5, so I am not taking any advantage there really.

 

Based on the Info you all provided it seems there is no really question here and a higher Clock on less Cores is preferred, apart from what "ChaoticBeauty" is mentioning which could be that they actually do benefit from Extra cores.

 

even though I am a bit puzzled by this by the fact that when I lower my CPU core speed to as low as 3GHz (from 4GHz of today), I really see no difference in FPS at all.

strange..

 

According to FSInsider for SP1:

anything about SP2 maybe?

I know they enhanced Multi-Core functionality on SP2 vs SP1.

anything about SP2 maybe?

I know they enhanced Multi-Core functionality on SP2 vs SP1.

 

I think the only improvements in SP2 is multiplayer compatibility with Acceleration for all versions, as well as DX10 mode. In fact, I've heard people saying that you're better off without SP2 if you don't want DX10, but I haven't tried.

Oh well. I wish they had done more multi-threading work in SP2, like AI. I'm sure the difference would be much bigger now.

I believe 6 cores @ 4.2 is better than 8 @ 3. But the question that you want be answered is whether the overall simulation is smooth for you. Higher FPS does not mean smoothness, not for FSX anyway. If you search through this forum, you will see people swear that having a 6 core process give them that smoothness.

 

Good luck.

I don't have smoothness issues with my FSX really, only FPS issues.

but faster Texture/Autogen loading is more then welcome

 

what is a strange to me the fact that when I lower my CPU core speed (today I am running on X5670 6 Core) to as low as 3GHz (from 4GHz of today), I really see no difference in FPS at all

strange..

 

That is why I wasn't totally sure GHz would help

me much, hence I was aiming for faster Autogen/textures, which lead to the question "would extra 2 cores would help"

Just to clarify - here is what Phil says about SP2..