Anybody using 3970X or 3930? How good?

 

Thanks

Abe

overkill 

I agree that it is way overkill

They are an option if you don't mind paying extra for faster load time and faster ground texture loading. As long as you combine them with SSD

They are an option if you don't mind paying extra for faster load time and faster ground texture loading. As long as you combine them with SSD

Thanks guys,

 

So SAAB340, does faster ground texture translate into higher FRAME RATE, more EYE CANDY, better enjoyment? But apparently not that much for the BUCK?

 

Thanks,

Abe

Fsx can only run on one or two CPU cores. Having six cores is useless, unless you play other games. Fsx would look the same on an i7 3770k, for half as much.

Thanks Snow,

 

Now I understand what everything is all about.

Thanks guys,

 

So SAAB340, does faster ground texture translate into higher FRAME RATE, more EYE CANDY, better enjoyment? But apparently not that much for the BUCK?

 

Thanks,

Abe

Higher frame rate? No.

Better eye candy? Yes, when you fly over high-res photo scenery. Otherwise no.

Best bang for the buck? 3570K

 

FSX has only one thread that produces FPS. This one will use a full core by itself.

 

It also has a few other threads that all together can use 50% of another core. Or for that sake share core with the main thread and thereby give you less FPS.

 

It can finally also use up to 31 additional threads for loading terrain elevation and ground textures as you fly along. These threads normally stay at 50% load but peak to 100% load a while every minute as the lighting of the textures is refreshed. These threads are also utilised when loading a flight to speed up the load time.

 

As you can see, having a quad core, (i5 K desktop) CPU makes total sense as the main thread (think FPS) can have its own core, the other threads can have their own core and you can have an additional 2 cores for (ground)texture and terrain loading.

 

Adding more cores just give you faster load times and texture & terrain loading. Not faster FPS.

Worth the money? That's up to you.

Fsx can only run on one or two CPU cores. Having six cores is useless, unless you play other games. Fsx would look the same on an i7 3770k, for half as much.

 

He is wright, also I did lot of research about same topic you will find on my forum, my personal conclution and why I am buying is I7 3770k, ASUS P8Z77-v pro, 16MB RAM 2400 MHz, corsair H100i water cooling, GTX 680 classified 4GB GPU, corsair 850W, 2 SSD OCZ one for OS 128GB and other for FSX 256 GB, and monitor ASUS 27" 5ms HD I will OC to 4,7 hope.

Thanks again, great help and great info. Quite a bit to absorb and implement.

I`m running the 3960x at a high OC level. Only way to get good FPS in FSX is to overclock the Sandy Bridge-E to about 4.5GHz

They are an option if you don't mind paying extra for faster load time and faster ground texture loading. As long as you combine them with SSD

I've found that the blurry textures may be caused by texture mip levels, so changing this setting in your Common.FXH shader file should have faster texture loads:

dword State_MinFilter			    : STATE_MINFILTER			    = D3DTEXF_ANISOTROPIC;
dword State_MagFilter			    : STATE_MAGFILTER			    = D3DTEXF_ANISOTROPIC;
dword State_MipFilter			    : STATE_MIPFILTER			    = D3DTEXF_LINEAR;
dword State_MipMapLodBias		    : STATE_MIPMAPLODBIAS		    = -1;

With that said, you probably would be able to spend less money on a CPU if FSX only uses 1-2 cores most of the time (no need for an extreme edition. Regular version will suffice). More money for other stuff like add-ons or what not.

Just ordered a 3970X o/c to 4.8 (hoping to push it 5.1) with a Titan + 2 SSDs. I have high hopes! Will let you know how I get on.

Thanks Bennyboy, appreciate the extra future information.

Abe

I have zero pop-in over photorealistic MSE2 with just 4 cores and HT off. Just takes high scenery LOD and reasonable FFTF. I run 9.5 and .20 , respectively.