I've always understood that FSX multi-threading was pretty poor even after SP2/Acceleration.  I just want to double check though.  Given the same processor architecture and speed, would FSX benefit from 2 extra cores vs. a 4 core processor?  By benefit I mean specifically FPS and then smoothness/stutters.  You might guess where this is going next though (and yes I know the architecture and speeds will actually be different then).  

 

4 core Haswell (with or without HT and yes I know we don't know benchmarks) vs. a 6 core LGA2011 Ivy Bridge -E later in the year (again of course we don't know benchmarks yet).  Any speculation on which would perform better?  

 

I've got people telling me over on the EVGA forums different things.  Some say wait for Ivy E with the extra cores for cpu bound games, which might be fine for x-plane, WoW, and other things, but I don't know that FSX would benefit.  Then I have people telling me just go for Haswell and that a 3.4Ghz version of it would be like overclocking my i7-860 to 4ghz  and if I clocked it to 4Ghz it would be equivalent to my i7-860 at 5Ghz (which of course is impossible to actually achieve).

If your computer is only for fsx, fsx Will Not use the extra cores. Fsx can only use 2 at a time. If you are playing other multi threaded games, then it might be worth the extra two cores.

Fsx has been designed by Microsoft to use multi-core to improve visual quality, not to improve FPS. Using more cores improves on how fast the terrain around you load the higher resolution mesh and textures. More cores also improve on how fast a flight loads.

 

This is exactly how Microsoft coded FSX and it works as intended. The problem for MS was that they assumed that CPUs would still improve considerable in single threaded performance as well as going multi core. The improvements in single threaded performance would take care of the FPS improvements in the FSX engine. Well, this never happened.

 

FSXs engine needs 3 cores to achieve maximum FPS all the time. Even a dual-core is able to achieve the same FPS, but it also risks 30% lower FPS depending on how the OS schedules the FSXs threads at that time.

So, basically anything over 4 physical cores just for FSX is pointless correct?  Or will it continue using extra cores to help with the texture loading and such?

It's not point blank pointless. It will continue to help with terrain and texture loading. But many people will already have fast enough of that so they don't really notice any difference whilst flying. In these cases the benefit of more cores is only really seen in the quicker time it takes to load a flight.

 

Haswell is a newer architecture compared to Ivy-Bridge. Its IPC (single core performance clock for clock) should be better than ivy bridge that already is around 10% faster than sandy bridge clock for clock.

 

In general it's more likely that a 4 core chip will be able to clock higher as it only needs 4 cores that are all good enough compared to getting a 6 core chip where all cores are able to hit the high clockspeed.

 

Higher overclock combined with higher IPC results in higher FPS in FSX. We'll soon find out how easy it'll be for us 'normal' users to reach high overclocks on haswell.

4 cores also naturally requires less from your cooling system compared to 6 cores.

 

So if you fly complex aircrafts the better IPC x Clockspeed will most likely give you better experience with a quad core haswell compared to a 6 core Ivy Bridge-E.

 

But if you like me like to swoosh past photo scenery, low level,at mach 0.9 in less demanding aircrafts you could be better of with the Ivy-bridge-E.

So, basically anything over 4 physical cores just for FSX is pointless correct?  Or will it continue using extra cores to help with the texture loading and such?

We're in a similar boat.  I'm planning more for XPlane 64bit and so add'l cores is more attractive, but perhaps I have too much concern for what those 2-4 extra cores will bring XP.  As SAAB340 says you can expect to have lower total overclock potential the more cores you have.   My criteria for my next upgrade is to optimize to run XP64bit and its future releases best possible while still allowing FSX/P3D to run well (even tho not the absolute best).  If Haswell turns out to be a good overclocker then dang I will have to wait another year or more for Haswell E which I may not have the patience for.  My current 5 y/o  Core 2 Quad system runs FSX well enough which is why I continue to be willing to wait...

Got six core amd fx6300 does load texture faster and get fewer blurries. FPS need brute CPU force actually. Wish MS just give someone the source code so it can be more efficency under the hood . FSX is miss little piggy oink oink.