Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Plane_Freak101

Intel Core i7-3980X

Recommended Posts

But it will benefit 64-bit X-Plane 10, so thanks for the tip! I'm looking for what to use in my next build that will run FSX well, but be excellent for XP-10 64 so this might be the one. Would love to take advantage of Haswell, maybe, but alas I don't hear anything about more than 4 cores for Haswell so far.

 

I just read this though, which looks very promising too:

 

IB-E will feature 6-12 cores (IB-E/EP) large amounts of cache, quad channel memory controllers supporting 8 GB of DDR3-1066/1333/1600/1866 per DIMM slot, along with PCI-E 3.0 (40 lanes) and 4 lanes supporting PCI-E 2.0. It's believed that four CPUs will be launched, bearing the following names: Core i7-4930, Core i7-4960, Core i7-4970 and Core i7-4990.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8-core SB will not benefit FSX much.

 

But how much fps do you think i will get with the intel core i7 3980x, with nvidia gtx 690 and 16 gig of ram?

 

Thanks heaps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it will benefit 64-bit X-Plane 10, so thanks for the tip! I'm looking for what to use in my next build that will run FSX well, but be excellent for XP-10 64 so this might be the one. Would love to take advantage of Haswell, maybe, but alas I don't hear anything about more than 4 cores for Haswell so far.

 

I just read this though, which looks very promising too:

 

IB-E will feature 6-12 cores (IB-E/EP) large amounts of cache, quad channel memory controllers supporting 8 GB of DDR3-1066/1333/1600/1866 per DIMM slot, along with PCI-E 3.0 (40 lanes) and 4 lanes supporting PCI-E 2.0. It's believed that four CPUs will be launched, bearing the following names: Core i7-4930, Core i7-4960, Core i7-4970 and Core i7-4990.

 

WOW looks like a pretty powerfull load! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how much fps do you think i will get with the intel core i7 3980x, with nvidia gtx 690 and 16 gig of ram?

 

ummm.. sufficient?

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Any thoughts on the intel core i7-3980X for fsx?

 

 

Throwing more cores at FSX doesn't really help, from my own testing I've found that each core you allocate to FSX results in a noticable drop in FPS, as if there are significant overheads to the main sim engine in managing the workload passed to each additional core. More cores do make a difference to overall smoothness because each additional one means more efficient rendering of textures and autogen but at the tradeoff of FPS. When it comes to the number of cores that you use with FSX you need to find the compromise between FPS and smoothness that suits your own system and preferences, for me it is 3 physical cores as it is for anyone that has found an AffinityMask of 14 (quad core no HT) or 84 (quad core with HT) works best for them.

 

I'd be interested to find out whether Intel have stuck with the same thermally inefficient method of fitting the heatspreader that they've used with the rest of the Ivy Bridge lineup or if for the enthusiast range they've gone back to the solder that they used with Sandy Bridge chips to enable better overclocking ability. I really wouldn't want to pay all that money and then have to risk de-lidding to get the best performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />I'd be interested to find out whether Intel have stuck with the same thermally inefficient method of fitting the heatspreader that they've used with the rest of the Ivy Bridge lineup<br />

 

From the articles I've read they stated this was rectified for their "extreme" line and solder would be used as was in Sandybridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the articles I've read they stated this was rectified for their "extreme" line and solder would be used as was in Sandybridge.

 

If that's true IB-E does look tempting, but I'd love to see what Haswell's architectural changes bring, and for Haswell-E we will be waiting a very long time since IB-E isn't due out til Q3 2013.

 

Also, if they do go back to fluxless solder I think this is almost proof-positive they used the less TIM in order to make folks pay for 'E' level overclockability. That is to say, it was no accident the lesser TIM appeared on plain IB which always made complete sense to me over theories that the cheaper TIM was used because it was ... cheaper, or worse still, they didn't realize the cheaper TIM wouldn't work as well (nice try!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throwing more cores at FSX doesn't really help, from my own testing I've found that each core you allocate to FSX results in a noticable drop in FPS

Correct, faster textureloading (that's what you get with more cores) costs FPS

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yqxm9v8h4m5co0b/%287%29LOD9.GIF

More cores will however enable you to get the same textureloading at a lower FFTF value and in that way give you slightly better FPS while delivering the same textureloading. The problem we have is that Intels high end platform is already one and soon two generations behind the mainstreem quad cores when it comes to IPC. So a quad core IvyBridge will still sadly be faster than a 3980X when it comes to FPS. For a fraction of the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a quad core IvyBridge will still sadly be faster than a 3980X when it comes to FPS. For a fraction of the price.

 

Can we make any guesses about overclockability of some of the new 8 or 12 core IB-EP processors coming out? I'm assuming it will be less, but there should be some eh?

 

Dang, I'm guessing Haswell-E or -EP will not be out til well into 2014, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, FSX still needs more clock speed than it does core count. At 5Ghz I can still max the primary core quite easily. And when it comes to IPC, the newer chips really aren't that much quicker either. I went head to head with a 3570K running at 5.5Ghz on Phase change (he was idling at -20°C and at load was peaking out around -10°C) and I was at 5.3Ghz that night and truth be told, yes he was faster but we are talking on the order of 0.001-0.003 seconds off on identicle bench runs most of the time and sometimes I could actually pull a win....and he was running faster memory as well. It was so utterly close we were both stunned. The real kick to the nuts came when I went head to head with a guy running a 2500K at just 5.1Ghz and he was keeping up with me...and he had slower memory than I do. I have HT turned off on my 2600K and pretty much always have ran it that way.

 

The moral of the story is, well I don't know but I do know but I am willing to argue that a good SSD would be and is more benefit than just throwing "more cores" at the problem that is FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But how much fps do you think i will get with the intel core i7 3980x, with nvidia gtx 690 and 16 gig of ram?

 

Thanks heaps

 

The ultimate over powered over kill I know is that exact set up. How much money do you think it will cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To get FSX to work well you need the entire sub-system to work well. It's not just one part or the other. Clock speed alone isn't going to make FSX "smooth" and "stutter free", it may show higher fps from a Ctrl+Z but I think folks pay way too much attention to that number and forget about fluidity of the overall experience. Use Ctrl+Z as a relative guide, not an absolute.

 

I'm running a X3960 @ 4.6 Ghz (I've gone to 5Ghz but I prefer quieter sound levels). I have FSX affinity set for 4 Cores and the other Cores are used by other 3rd party products I might be running. The X3980 may not overclock as well as the X3960 or X3970 given the additional heat generated from 8 cores vs 6 cores but that's just speculation. However, I'd still go for the 8 cores over 6 cores for many reasons beyond FSX.

 

You want a PCIe 3.0 video card, a quality PCIe 3.0 motherboard, Intel Chipset, Quad Channel RAM, SATA 6 capable SSDs and make sure they're using the correct SATA 6G connectors and ports on the motherboard. When overclocking you'll want examine the Cache performance, RAM performance, Floating point, etc. etc. ... you also want to disable specific features in the EFI (most newer motherboards have moved to EFI rather than BIOS) rather than just turn up the voltage (unless you plan to go to extreme overclocking >5Ghz).

 

It's the complete package that makes the performance work or not. FSX can and will bring any current system and 2013 CPU lines to it's knees ... it'll be 2018+ before we can probably get FSX working at an fluid stutter free 30 fps (min) no matter what is tossed at it. However, XPlane 64bit leverages/scales hardware better so the X3980 will be a good choice there.

 

Haswell-DT isn't going to do much for FSX and it's 4 core (don't set Affinity to 4 core if you only have 4 cores, do this if you have a 6 core ore more system), I'd rather go with the X3980 8 core or wait for Broadwell-D (14nm) which might be out by end of 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, FSX still needs more clock speed than it does core count.

 

I think this is generally well understood by now, but as mentioned my next build will not be based only on how it performs for FSX. I believe either XPlane 10 64-bit, or something else that uses multicores, more ram, DirectX 11+, etc WILL COME. So my next build will need to run FSX much better than my old Core2 Quad runs it (which is still very serviceable), but will be built to run the more modern engine I just described really really well.

 

However, XPlane 64bit leverages/scales hardware better so the X3980 will be a good choice there.

 

Haswell-DT isn't going to do much for FSX and it's 4 core (don't set Affinity to 4 core if you only have 4 cores, do this if you have a 6 core ore more system), I'd rather go with the X3980 8 core or wait for Broadwell-D (14nm) which might be out by end of 2013.

 

I'm not building any more systems based solely on FSX. I'm looking at either IB-E, or IB-EP, or Haswell-E or -EP now. 12 cores sounds good. My question is just how much overclocking one can get (TIM discussion aside) out of 6, 8, 12 cores, etc. As long as there is significant overclocakability, then for sure more cores is where I'm going. I am going 'on the come' for either XP-10 64bit, or something yet to rear its head but fully capable of leveraging all that modern hardware. I have assumed that there is an inverse relationship between number of cores and max possible clock speed, but I don't know exactly what the inverse relationship is in this regard. For example, if you can o'c 4 cores to 4.5Ghz on water, can you expect only 4.2Ghz w/ 6 cores?, etc...

 

The days of keeping up with hardware changes to make FSX run better ended for me 4.5 years ago. Bang for buck isn't there, my old workhorse STILL gives me beau coup pleasure in FSX, etc. I'll be tickled though w/ the next build if I can get it to run FSX 50% better than the old rig does, which sounds very likely by all accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

For example, if you can o'c 4 cores to 4.5Ghz on water, can you expect only 4.2Ghz w/ 6 cores?, etc...

 

Yes and No, you can expect to run the same Ghz across 4 or 6 or 8 as die's continue to shrink. If you want future proof and provided the developer(s) of a game/sim are coding for threading, then more cores would be my preference over pure clock speed.

 

The good news is that Visual Stuido 2012 has MUCH better debugging support for multithreaded games and is now fully part of VS 2012. It's also a lot easier to manage/implement the threading code with the new Async and Await -- this allows you to spawn threads and wait for them to complete before continuing (such as rendering a frame) -- a threading traffic cop which is very critical when it comes to "real time" processing and many threads need to complete before a frame is produced. It just makes threading that much easier to implement and debug.

 

I have a 64 CPU (4 X 16 CPU cores at only 2.3Ghz) AMD box that I use exclusively for rendering Cinema 4D animation/content ... it completes renders about 3X faster than a 12 CPU (2 X 6) Intel Xeon 3.46Ghz (from Cinebench tests) for 1/2 the cost -- but that's just rendering which is not real time just a simple process of divide and conquer.

 

It sounds like LR will move XPlane more in the direction of threading so the future may indeed NOT be Ghz but how many CPUs (who knows, maybe AMD will be viable again with their cheap 16 core CPUs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The ultimate over powered over kill I know is that exact set up. How much money do you think it will cost?

 

I think the cost will be somewhere near 2200 Australian Dollars ($)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


However, XPlane 64bit leverages/scales hardware better so the X3980 will be a good choice there.

 

Hi Rob,

 

I'm aiming now for i7 3980X or the Ivy Bridge version depending on what they did w/ the TIM issue for these IB-E chips.  I'm also loathe to use water cooling after reading of one guy's fluid leak from a brand name (H110) cooler.  The fact that it's essentially possible to have a leak (I assume after reading that) this makes me want to consider the Noctua air cooler.  This being the case, can you recommend a case that will work for this CPU and that air cooler?  Or if I get brave, the H110?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I wouldn't condemn water cooling just because of one person having a leak ... if you think the H110 has a manufacturing problem, then do some research on it and see if you get a lot of people having leaks with it.  Also keep in mind "who the installer was" ... do you personally know them, how careful are they with installs, their knowledge base and experience level, etc. etc.

 

But if you like a quiet PC, water cooling is the way to go ... key is in install, especially the water block to CPU.

 

I've done many water cooling systems over the years and not a single one has leaked on me.

 

I'm using a Cooler Master HAF 932 and it has bee working well, just need to blow out the dust every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that sounds pretty safe if you do quality work and your due diligence in part selection.

 

I'd like to pick up the H110 after doing as much research on leaks as I can.  I haven't found any testimonies of leaks in my first web search.  Can you recommend a great case for that cooler model?  So far from looking at Corsair's site I think the 650D is the best fit for me, but I'd love other recommendations if you have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't think any of the canned water kits like the Corsair H series cools any better or is any quieter than a good (and I emphasize good) air cooler like the NH-D14...so why take the risk of a leak?

 

Now a good custom water system is different--can be much quieter, efficient etc. I use a custom water loop with large-bore tubing, quiet low-flow fans and radiators designed for them, and high quality water blocks for the CPU/GPU. The result is a whisper-quiet system with much better temps (~20-30C lower) than any air cooler I've tried.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Honestly, I don't think any of the canned water kits like the Corsair H series cools any better or is any quieter than a good (and I emphasize good) air cooler like the NH-D14...so why take the risk of a leak?

 

It's a good point you make, however the risk I am considering is contrasted against the benefits of not crowding the CPU & memory mainly.   The big heavy part just seems pretty crude.  Hard to get the real prevalence of leaks in properly installed H110s.  What really puzzles me, again because I can't get a handle on the real risks, is the fact Corsair and all other late model closed loop products, haven't come up w/ a system that is near 100% leak proof unless physically altered.  Maybe they have, I don't know.  I'd like to see 1 leak per 100,000 kits, or something along those lines.  That's possible I'm sure, though might cost more.   After using the best possible hoses, pumps & leaks, you pressure test it to a very high level, etc.  Maybe the cost for this aviation-grade component would be too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't think any of the canned water kits like the Corsair H series cools any better or is any quieter than a good (and I emphasize good) air cooler like the NH-D14...so why take the risk of a leak?

 

Now a good custom water system is different--can be much quieter, efficient etc. I use a custom water loop with large-bore tubing, quiet low-flow fans and radiators designed for them, and high quality water blocks for the CPU/GPU. The result is a whisper-quiet system with much better temps (~20-30C lower) than any air cooler I've tried.

 

Regards

 

Bob is correct.

 

The NH-D14 is actually quieter than the best all-in-one cooling set up.

 

If you look at the reviews, the NZXT Kraken, beats the D14 by a mere 2 degrees, overclocked, and under full load.... however, if you look at the noise levels, it's much louder than the NH-D14.

 

In other words, that reduction in temp, compared to the D14, has been achieved with higher RPM, nosier fans.

 

With the same fans on both coolers, the NH-D14 is superior.

 

The following review of the D14, compared to the all-in-one coolers, illustrates my point.

 

Temps here...

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/corsair_h110_review,13.html

 

Kraken X60 70 degrees

Corsair H110 72 degrees

NH-D14 72 degrees

 

Noise levels here...

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/corsair_h110_review,11.html

 

Kraken 47 DBA

NH-D14 40 DBA

Corsair H110 39 DBA

 

The H110 is the best bet, in terms of noise levels and cooling, equal to The D14. However, no worries about leaks at all with the D14.

 

 

 

The big heavy part just seems pretty crude.

 

I'm not trying to persuade you to opt for the D14, as there are advantages and disadvantages. The NH-D14 is NOT the best solution for everybody. But no, I don't think "big heavy and crude" is a fair assessment. The NH-D14 is very well designed.

 

The centrally mounted 140 fan, provides great airflow over the motherboard, as it overhangs the heat sink fins. And as I said in the other thread, the Noctua mounting system is very good, so no issues with the weight.

 

Whether the D14 fits in your case is the issue, but that applies to the Corsair H110 as well, in terms of fitting the radiator. RAM clearance is your main issue I would say. But then again, there's nothing wrong with low profile RAM, devoid of gimmicky huge heat sinks.

 

At the end of the day, it's personal choice, aesthetics, performance, noise levels cooling. But no, I wouldn't say the D14 is a crude solution. It's engineered well, cool and quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What really puzzles me, again because I can't get a handle on the real risks, is the fact Corsair and all other late model closed loop products, haven't come up w/ a system that is near 100% leak proof unless physically altered.

 

I agree with you, something like an epoxy seal over the whole damn thing.

 

Failure rate is something that the manufacturers are keeping to themselves. Guess we will never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...