Intel Core i7-3980X

[Plane_Freak101 6]

Hello Simmers.

 

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

 

Thanks in advance

[SolRayz 392]

8-core SB will not benefit FSX much.

[Noel 4,484]

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.

[Plane_Freak101 6]

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

[Plane_Freak101 6]

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:

[Paul J 349]

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:

[Plane_Freak101 6]

 

 

ummm.. sufficient?

 

:lol:

 

Haha nice quote Paul

[PieEater 10]

 

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.

[ant_1984 20]

<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.

[Noel 4,484]

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!).

[SAAB340 28]

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.

[Noel 4,484]

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?

[Chief Cargo 0]

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.

[fridbergj 4]

 

 

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?

[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.