I thought I read that there was a issue with the dies getting so small that in the upper Ghz range they were having crosstalk on the data and address lines internally?

Hi

With ln2 IB 3770k not best chip is benchable @6.7ghz top @7.0ghz

The same on SB series 2700k the Max is @5.7 (Max multi x57)and with bclk @ 6.0 if you find a chip without coldbug.

 

I run My 3770k @5.4ghz with 1.48v on a Phase Change - 36C with 100% load

Can run @5.5ghz if raise the vcore to 1.51-1.52 little to high to suite me 24/7

I have run without any problems close to 1/2 year no , run it 3- 16 hours a day

 

With this settings it do 56-57avg in FSMark11 its real fast , probaly what a 4.9-5.0ghz Haswell gone do.

 

Wait for Haswell , when that one runs in the PasheChange i shall test to run the 3770k FSMark11 cooled with Ln2

What about the water? In old DX10 preview shots it looked completely fake. Way too blue and just dumb looking. Does Orbx work, FlyTampa airports don't work iirc.

What about the water? In old DX10 preview shots it looked completely fake. Way too blue and just dumb looking. Does Orbx work, FlyTampa airports don't work iirc.

 

There are lots of potential outcomes for the appearance of the water, via a simple slider adjustment or through the use of a 3rd party add-on like REX if you don't like FSX's native DX10 water rendering. I for one happen to think that DX10 water looks far more realistic than DX9, though I run it a notch shy of the highest setting for the best balance of visual quality and performance.

I love DX10. Wouldn't fly without it.

Unfortunately for FSX, modern processors have moved towards multiple cores and more efficient microarchitecture rather than clock speed. There is little incentive, except to run older software like FSX, to keep developing for higher clock speeds. The direction it will continue in is greater levels of multithreading, multiple cores, more efficient power utilization and management, etc, which are features FSX will not be able to benefit from. Best keep an eye on upcoming flight simulators like XPlane which utilize mutlicores better, DX11, are not limited by native 32-bit code etc. My next box will be built for this, but will run FSX adequately. FSX unfortunately is really a dying game. Once another line has enough of what it takes FSX will be dropped like a hot potato as there is no future in it. That most developers haven't aggressively signed up for XPlane 10 I guess is in part a testimony to XPlane's failure to be obviously the superior choice. I hope it becomes this as w/o the inherent limitations FSX has to cope with there will be a much longer and brighter future for flight simming than the dead end that FSX is. I think the consensus is that FSX is still the best game in town, but I am hoping that will change within the next couple of years. I'm aiming maybe for an E or EP processor in the IB or Haswell line, w/ 10+ cores. I don't upgrade often so even if I have to pay big bucks I'll get my years of use out of it. I'm on a 4.5y/o machine now and it's actually good enough for FSX now--looking forward to the big upgrade later this year hopefully.

Unfortunately for FSX, modern processors have moved towards multiple cores and more efficient microarchitecture rather than clock speed. There is little incentive, except to run older software like FSX, to keep developing for higher clock speeds. The direction it will continue in is greater levels of multithreading, multiple cores, more efficient power utilization and management, etc, which are features FSX will not be able to benefit from. Best keep an eye on upcoming flight simulators like XPlane which utilize mutlicores better, DX11, are not limited by native 32-bit code etc. My next box will be built for this, but will run FSX adequately. FSX unfortunately is really a dying game. Once another line has enough of what it takes FSX will be dropped like a hot potato as there is no future in it. That most developers haven't aggressively signed up for XPlane 10 I guess is in part a testimony to XPlane's failure to be obviously the superior choice. I hope it becomes this as w/o the inherent limitations FSX has to cope with there will be a much longer and brighter future for flight simming than the dead end that FSX is. I think the consensus is that FSX is still the best game in town, but I am hoping that will change within the next couple of years. I'm aiming maybe for an E or EP processor in the IB or Haswell line, w/ 10+ cores. I don't upgrade often so even if I have to pay big bucks I'll get my years of use out of it. I'm on a 4.5y/o machine now and it's actually good enough for FSX now--looking forward to the big upgrade later this year hopefully.

I keep reading that FSX is dying, but I also see new sceneries and aircrafts being developed at an alarming rate for FSX. I don't see X-Plane Scenery Devs or Aircraft Dev creating sceneries that make me want to switch. If FSX is dying why are Devs like ORBX, FlyTampa, FSDT, Realair, & A2A so reluctant to embrace X-Plane X 64 BETA?

 

As someone who takes flight simulation seriously, I would like to see X-Plane X 64 succeed, but without sceneries, airports, and utilities, for me FSX will remain alive for a long time. Since I don't see this change occuring soon, I want a CPU that I can OC to 6ghz and the new Titan GPU. That should keep FSX alive for a few more years.

 

http://www.tomshardw...esla,20614.html

As someone who takes flight simulation seriously, I would like to see X-Plane X 64 succeed, but without sceneries, airports, and utilities, for me FSX will remain alive for a long time. Since I don't see this change occuring soon, I want a CPU that I can OC to 6ghz and the new Titan GPU. That should keep FSX alive for a few more years.

 

I think we can all appreciate wanting a 6Ghz CPU & Titan GPU, but unfortunately it's XPlane that is poised to take very good advantage of not only a CPU w/ 10 cores but a TItan GPU as well. I've been hoping LM re-writes P3D to go there which could add much new life to the FSX platform as P3D. I'm guessing though that developers who write for it would all need to move to 64bit too (I assume). Either way, I'm planning for 64-bit multicore development which truly is the most future-proof approach not just for the end user to buy for, but for the developer to develop for. Whether or not XP gets there I agree is unknown still. I'm covering my bases w/ lots of ram, multi core to 10 cores or more maybe, and if FSX runs not quite as good as it might w/ an oclocked 4 core then so be it, at least I'm prepared better for the future, where more ram, more GPU, more cores matters.

In the foreseeable future we will never see a 6Ghz cpu. As mentioned the current design mantra is lower power consumption while at least maintaining current performance levels. My last two upgrades has each seen about a 3x jump in performance, though each also saw the doubling in the number of cores (1->2->4). I doubt I'll ever see that kind of improvment in the next few years unless I get a 8 core CPU, which I doubt I'll ever get since those will be the $1K models (my sweet spot is around $300 to $400). There is currently a 10 core Xeon http://ark.intel.com...0-GTs-Intel-QPI which I guessing is the most powerful, computation wise, CPU on the market though it only runs at 2.4Ghz base clock. My thought is that Xplane is very compelling and the instant it ditches the "plausable world" junk and implement a landclass system, FSX will be abandoned quicker than a sinking Titanic equiped with hundreds of lifeboats.

CPU speeds stabilize since 2005 do not see breakthru unless new materials or technology can push it to those limits. CPU gonna become more energy efficient and have more cores. 8 core is V8 and 6 core V6, overclocks may hit 5 ghz to 5.5 ghz not 6 ghz. Computer more like cat engines built for efficency.

AMD's newest CPU's have been stock clocked at 4.0GHz +, is 6GHz coming soon, yes definitely (remember that in the entire history of the human race 20 years is nothing short of a micro-second). In all seriousness, 6Ghz CPU's at stock clock not likely in the next 10 years, however overclock stability on a CPU at 6Ghz now this is where you might see it. Its not always about how many cores, or what the clock frequency is, as the CACHE & BUS are just as a big of a factor in performance as the others. This also comes down to instruction coding and microprocessor architecture, the epic battle between AMD and Intel has been yielding some very promising results in microprocessor architecture and instruction coding.

 

 

 

 

For all the Intel f@nb0ys out there, you had better hope AMD does well, because if AMD fails and goes bankrupt you will see your precious Intel CPU's go up exponentially in price and probably see some decrease in performance vs what the new increases are now. Its the "war" between Intel and AMD that is making things happen, AMD pushes Intel to develop certain ways and Intel does the same vice-versa, this is where we as the consumers win. Just imagine what the PC would would be like if LINUX (which yes is freeware, I know this) was bought out by Apple, and Microsoft went bankrupt, and all that was left was MAC, it would be a terrible dark place for PC Gamers, Game prices would go up exponentially (they are already 60-80% more expensive on MAC) and there would be less developers, not to mention the only console worth buying would be a Sony Playstation, this is where those super-conglomerates could really charge what they want, how they want, and you have to suffer for it. If you think another company could just step in for AMD if they failed, think about it, the manufacturing and R&D costs just at startup, then compatibility checking, and you still have not turned a profit because your line of CPU's has yet to hit the market, and if your first batch of marketed CPU fails to impress, you are DONE. Luckily the US Government will likely bailout AMD if they get into too much fiscal trouble so the likelihood of AMD failing completely is pretty small, I just wanted to give you a simulated glimpse of what the future could look like without some of the companies that we take for granted and bash all the time.

This also comes down to instruction coding and microprocessor architecture, the epic battle between AMD and Intel has been yielding some very promising results in microprocessor architecture and instruction coding.

 

For all the Intel f@nb0ys out there, you had better hope AMD does well, because if AMD fails and goes bankrupt you will see your precious Intel CPU's go up exponentially in price and probably see some decrease in performance vs what the new increases are now.

 

Intel is not going to jack up prices beyond what people will pay. Further, increasing clock speed which has theoretical limits secondary to the materials/physics involved is passé, stupid, inelegant, ultimately absolutely limited, hence this is why multicore, power efficiency etc have become what truly matters for now and the future. Just look at the Titan Supercomputer which uses a half a million AMD parallel processors. We just need flight simulation developers to commit, and I'm glad XP has, if only P3D would...or a newcomer yet to appear.

There are plenty of people that shell out 1500 USD for Intel's newest CPU which is why they usually mark the price that high for their top of the line CPU every time, it subsequently drops to about 1000-1200 USD over the following 6-8 months. Intel could raise prices from their average of 500 USD to 800 USD and people would still crank out the cash for it, sure a 500 dollar CPU being sold for 2000 dollars would not sell, but if Intel had no competition a 40% markup probably would not hurt them at all, and that just plain sucks.

 

As for frequency yes there is a theoretical limit, I think that limit is somewhere around 8Ghz which would require the use of synthetic diamonds instead of silicon, and tech like that is easily 20+ years ahead. Right now its about Architecture, bandwidth, and mulitcore efficiency.

The clock speed or the amount of cores you have isn't what makes an excellent CPU. It's the architecture of it.

In the next few years to come......Yes! but certainly not a CPU with a base clock of 6Ghz. So the better the architecture, the better the perfomance.

Intel gotten nailed by FTC for dept of justice for anti trust violations by rigging prices does not surprise me. Amd support thier products even if Intel chips run better on fsx and xplane. Intel operates mexican drug cartel. Intel would jack prices the minute AMD is liquated its not hostess twinkies. Only get intel because of pragmatic reasons not because I want to.