I'm contemplating building a system that runs FSX reasonably well in exchange for running XPlane 10.10 very well, since the latter can exploit multicore/multiproc better than FSX can, or so their site says:

 

X-Plane will take advantage of as many cores or distinct processors as you can afford. Having 16 cores split among 4 CPUs is not required by any means, but Version 10 would be able to use every one. No more than 4 GB of RAM is necessary, but the more VRAM you have, the better–X-Plane 10 can easily use 1.5 GB of VRAM at the maximum settings.

 

 

Anyone out there w/ a Xeon that runs at higher turbo speeds like the one mentioned in the title can attest how it runs FSX?  I don't really care about making FSX run as well as possible as is typically the intention here, but just considerably better than it does on my dated system ([email protected], 4Gb ram, nV GTX280).

 

Thanks in advance.  Also, not sure if when using two-proc mainboards one can make the software just try to use one, so there is not an undesired penalty for running FSX on a dual CPU system.

It's 3.1GHz, 3.8 max turbo Noel

Expect it to run FSX as a fully stock 2600K FPS wise... I doubt it would be considerably better than your current overclocked system. The beauty of the sandy and ivy systems are that they offer a significant overclock compared to stock speeds. Something that makes a non overclockable xeon very unimpressive in FSX I'm afraid.

I would get an i7 3770k, so that you can over clock it. That is what makes a huge difference.

The 2687w will only turbo up to:

3.8GHz with only 1 core active.

3.6 with 2 and 3 cores active.

3.5 with 4 and 5 cores active.

3.4 with 6 or more cores active.

Fsx is threaded enough to keep 4 cores busy no problem. So only count on max 3.5GHz while running FSX.

It's 3.1GHz, 3.8 max turbo Noel

Ahh, I guess I misunderstand what 'max turbo' means.  Can you explain plz?

The 2687w will only turbo up to:

3.8GHz with only 1 core active.

3.6 with 2 and 3 cores active.

3.5 with 4 and 5 cores active.

3.4 with 6 or more cores active.

Fsx is threaded enough to keep 4 cores busy no problem. So only count on max 3.5GHz while running FSX.

Now that's clear thank you very much.  Doesn't look like the best solution for me as I'm already running Q9650 @3.72, so I'm imagining a little improvement for attributable to micro-architecture, but in the end not much improvement.

 

Can you comment on this:  best option for XPlane 64 & FSX combined?  Maybe this guy:   

Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 150W Six-Core

 

Or, wait for Haswell-E?  I'm ok waiting another year, then will get to see how P3D and XPlane continue to shake out.