Which Processor would be best?

[bownsy 0]

Hello, im looking into upgrading my hardware, and while id like to think I know a lot about computers the choice of processors never fails to baffle me. Right now I have 2 processors in mind.

 

- AMD FX-4350 4.20 GHz Quad-Core AM3+ CPU 4MB L3 Cache & Turbo Core Technology

 

- Intel® Core™ i7-3820 Quad Core 3.60 GHz 10MB Intel Smart Cache LGA2011

 

The AMD looks better with the with the 4.2 GHz, but I know that a higher clock speed doesn't always mean better performance. The AMD is cheaper, but I don't want to sacrifice performance for it if the intel would be better. So which processor would be best for running Fsx?

 

Other specs:

 

16 GB of Ram

Nvidia 660 GTX 2GB video card

 

Thank you.

[SAAB340 28]

Any particular reason why you consider the quad core SandyBridge-E?

 

I'd say get the Intel i7 4770K. It's the processor that run FSX the fastest today. That being at both stock speed and overclocked. A SandyBridge-E system only makes sense in very specific cases and a 3820 never makes sense in FSX.

[jambo50 15]

I would tend to agree with SAAB340, 4770k Haswell would be the better choice. Also Intel over AMD everytime for FSX!

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

I5 4670k or i5 3570k be plenty sufficient the i7 cost $100 more with 8% performance gain not worth it. Any processor beyond I5 with letter K is demishing returns. Only run single monitor 660 or 760 be fine.

[bownsy 0]

you must have read my mind, I was just about to ask about the I5s. If an I5 is a sufficient alternative to an I7 then it's a nice balance between cost and performance. Im probably going to end up going for an i5-4670k 3.4Hz.. But one more question, with that I5, what sort of performance would you be looking at if you ran say The PMDG 737NGX + REX + Global AI traffic (with a reasonable amount of AI), could you give any thoughts on that?

 

Thank you for your help.

[jambo50 15]

you must have read my mind, I was just about to ask about the I5s. If an I5 is a sufficient alternative to an I7 then it's a nice balance between cost and performance. Im probably going to end up going for an i5-4670k 3.4Hz.. But one more question, with that I5, what sort of performance would you be looking at if you ran say The PMDG 737NGX + REX + Global AI traffic (with a reasonable amount of AI), could you give any thoughts on that?

 

Thank you for your help.

i5 would be more than sufficient. It's basically the same processor with no hyperthreading and a slighly smaller L3 cache.

Performance wise; you will be fine. If you're open to the idea of overclocking then you will be more than ok  B)

[crj700US 0]

you must have read my mind, I was just about to ask about the I5s. If an I5 is a sufficient alternative to an I7 then it's a nice balance between cost and performance. Im probably going to end up going for an i5-4670k 3.4Hz.. But one more question, with that I5, what sort of performance would you be looking at if you ran say The PMDG 737NGX + REX + Global AI traffic (with a reasonable amount of AI), could you give any thoughts on that?

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Bownsy I run a a similar setup to what you're describing, i5 3570K o'clocked to 4.5ghz with a 660ti with the add-ons you spoke about. At FlyTampa KMDW in the NGX with real weather, REX, and UT2, I can get about 22-25 FPS with overcast skies. At FB KIAD it's around the same. I'm a pretty happy camper. You can't go wrong with the i5s.

 

Regards,

Mike

[alainneedle1 97]

You get what you pay for...i7 4770K WITH the hardware that will not bottleneck this proc.

 

http://www.simforums.com/forums/haswell-48ghz-on-air-building-a-haswell-system_topic46180.html

[bownsy 0]

well, thank you all very much for the help.

[PigsInSpace 21]

Also bare in mind that right now Haswell I5's are not OC as high as the I7, however the air has not cleared completely.

 

If OC is your aim you might want to Google for best batch numbers and sources i.e; Maylay vs Costa Rica or Microcenter vs NewEgg etc.

 

My "Costa Rica" I5 was a snail even delided, on the other hand the I7 "Maylay" I have now is showing sign to be a very good chip with lots of headroom and I haven't even pulled its lid yet.

 

So there is a lot more than just a $100 difference.

[Emerson67 248]

I'm happy with the i7-3820. It has good overclockability and good price. I run it easily at conservative 4662MHz, prime-stable, without much heat, using a Corsair H80i.

[Adam T Lutley 12]

The pipeline architecture of the Intel chips is superior to AMD ,with regards to FSX, yielding better performance clock for clock. Curious about the choice of a Sandy Bridge E. Its not a bad choice but but requires an X79 MOBO which is more expensive than the Z77. FSX won't even utilize 2 cores fully, let alone 6. Whichever you decide, be sure to get a CPU with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Regards

[Noel 4,501]

Any particular reason why you consider the quad core SandyBridge-E?

 

I'd say get the Intel i7 4770K. It's the processor that run FSX the fastest today. That being at both stock speed and overclocked. A SandyBridge-E system only makes sense in very specific cases and a 3820 never makes sense in FSX.

It's made sense for me, but I built this for XPlane 64 on the hopes that platform would continue to evolve, or P3D 64bit if it ever comes to fruition, or another smarter simulator engine to come. So I have lots of unusable overkill in certain departments for FSX: 6 cores, 32gb of fast ram, 6Gb of video ram and I wanted something that would provide a nice improvement in FSX over my dated Q9650 which performed admirably. This rig has made such an improvement for FSX it's, for me, jaw-dropping. I could not stomach the idea of designing a machine primarily for such a dated simulator engine that FSX is. While these parts, I am aware, may add only some add'l power for XPlane & P3D V2 I'm still ultra pleased w/ this decision. Despite having 32Gb of ram running nearly at 2400Mhz, the thing overclocks w/o a hitch at quite low voltage (4.43) and temps are really nice. I will always argue the extra 400Mhz of clock speed to get to 4.8Ghz or what have you are mostly superfluous--it is what it is-10 % improvement. 110% of 20 fps is 22 fps. I can say w/o equivocation the sim is now perfectly smooth and that's exactly what it is, perfectly smooth, and frames are almost always perfectly adequate. IQ is superb. Flying into ORBX PWN to KSEA still stresses w/ the NGX, but this is the case w/ anyone's rig currently. But even in that scenario frames are good enough. I don't use the NGX as much as others either, so avoiding the most difficult spots aren't problematic for me. And bonus, it appears I can upgrade to IB-E if and when my SB-E dies, though I can't see it dying w/ how I'm running it now. Maybe at some point I'll aim for the mega clock. Can you tell I am really pleased?!

[PigsInSpace 21]

It's made sense for me, but I built this for XPlane 64 on the hopes that platform would continue to evolve, or P3D 64bit if it ever comes to fruition, or another smarter simulator engine to come. So I have lots of unusable overkill in certain departments for FSX: 6 cores, 32gb of fast ram, 6Gb of video ram and I wanted something that would provide a nice improvement in FSX over my dated Q9650 which performed admirably. This rig has made such an improvement for FSX it's, for me, jaw-dropping. I could not stomach the idea of designing a machine primarily for such a dated simulator engine that FSX is. While these parts, I am aware, may add only some add'l power for XPlane & P3D V2 I'm still ultra pleased w/ this decision. Despite having 32Gb of ram running nearly at 2400Mhz, the thing overclocks w/o a hitch at quite low voltage (4.43) and temps are really nice. I will always argue the extra 400Mhz of clock speed to get to 4.8Ghz or what have you are mostly superfluous--it is what it is-10 % improvement. 110% of 20 fps is 22 fps. I can say w/o equivocation the sim is now perfectly smooth and that's exactly what it is, perfectly smooth, and frames are almost always perfectly adequate. IQ is superb. Flying into ORBX PWN to KSEA still stresses w/ the NGX, but this is the case w/ anyone's rig currently. But even in that scenario frames are good enough. I don't use the NGX as much as others either, so avoiding the most difficult spots aren't problematic for me. And bonus, it appears I can upgrade to IB-E if and when my SB-E dies, though I can't see it dying w/ how I'm running it now. Maybe at some point I'll aim for the mega clock. Can you tell I am really pleased?!

 

Killer Rig!

 

You do pro video editing or cad work?

 

though I agree for FSX you would have been better off $spending on Haswell or just a Quad as FSX doesn't do much beyond three cores and since your only using one 1920x1080 Display a OC 770 or 780 would give you slightly better performance than the Titan (see DX9 benches) and you could have put all you $aved ($1k total) towards a new higher res display or what ever else, on the other hand if you got the money to burn I'm really jealous!

 

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-780/6/

[UAE77L 153]

My beloved 3570K runs rock stable at 4.8Ghz...