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?!

You didn't go for the quad core SB-E thou. You went for the 3930K, just as I did myself. SB-E in general only makes sense if you chose the 6 core option. Getting a quad core SB-E as suggested by the OP only makes sense if you run an application that doesn't use more than 4 cores and that can make use of quad channel and/or 64GB of RAM, or if you need the PCIe lanes. Othervise the regular Haswell, Ivy, or Sandy will give you better performance for less money.

I opted for the 3930K because I wanted the 6 hyperthreaded cores and all the PCIe lanes.

 

What load volts do you have in CPU-Z on your 4.43 OC? I need 1.27V to be stable @4.3GHz 2133RAM?

 It would be wise not to further mention Global AI traffic as it's pirated material.

What load volts do you have in CPU-Z on your 4.43 OC? I need 1.27V to be stable @4.3GHz 2133RAM?

 

1.27v is what I'm seeing at 4.43 OC.  Yes I see where you are going w/ 4-core SB-E.  I'm jazzed IB-E will give me add'l years as I am one to not upgrade often so that's great.   I am so happy w/ the HaF X case it is a total joy from a functional standpoint.   I live in a hot climate in summer and when I need it I can turn on my thru-the-wall AC unit which sends 40F air at a low flow rate around and thru (the intake fans are absolutely perfectly positioned when the simple blue poster board cowling was added) the box for a full 10C cooling at full load over the stock Noctua D-14 (thank you Martin for the case & cooler they are superb).   Air flows under the case and up thru the PSU as the case sits on casters and over the patio bricks to keep out the dust bunnies, thru the back panel and straight into the 240 or 200mm powered intake fan directly at the Titan and surrounds, and around and thru the lower front main 240mm intake fan.  This is not needed for FSX even now but will be if I push the CPU up.  Truly, I don't see a need though the performance/watt increase is even harder to justify than the bucks I spent on this build.  So the A/C which has been my default cooling solution for the last 3 builds including this one is primarily now for room cooling when it's warm out.

 

 

 

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

 

Nope, no video editing or cad work.  Always my strategy was to build for a new simulator engine that is either evolving already to take better advantage of memory & multithreading or one that is yet to come, while still running FSX good enough.  Of course one can get the same performance or even better FSX performance w/ other CPUs--but even that's a maybe to me.  This thing is as I say, perfectly smooth.  Hard to imagine this was possible, but I know others get this now so I guess it's to be expected.  I would do the same thing again!  The idea of basing the decision primarily on FSX just wasn't something I wanted to do.  Plus as I say I don't upgrade often--got almost 6 years out of the last build so it's easy to justify the cost.  I spent right at $3K on this system, but this was about 1.4K less than having someone else assemble it, like Origin or other, and bonus, it was quite fun to put together.   

Nope, no video editing or cad work.  Always my strategy was to build for a new simulator engine that is either evolving already to take better advantage of memory & multithreading or one that is yet to come, while still running FSX good enough.  Of course one can get the same performance or even better FSX performance w/ other CPUs--but even that's a maybe to me.  This thing is as I say, perfectly smooth.  Hard to imagine this was possible, but I know others get this now so I guess it's to be expected.  I would do the same thing again!  The idea of basing the decision primarily on FSX just wasn't something I wanted to do.  Plus as I say I don't upgrade often--got almost 6 years out of the last build so it's easy to justify the cost.  I spent right at $3K on this system, but this was about 1.4K less than having someone else assemble it, like Origin or other, and bonus, it was quite fun to put together.   

 

Cool Noel, thanks for sharing!

Look at the AMD FX 8350 processor and a motherboard with the 990FX chipset. Get the lowest latency memory you can find.

 

Intel cost vs. performance is not worth the money, and overclocking is not the answer either. The money you save can go into a better graphics card.

 

e.g.:

 

AMD FX 8350 @ 4.0 GHz stock = £154.60

MoBo (Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX Rev 2, AMD 990FX) = £140.39

Total = £294.99

 

Intel  i7 4770K @ 3.9 GHz stock = £269.00

MoBo (Asus Z87-Plus, Intel Z87) = £135.44

Total = £404.44

 

For 37% more cost, I'd expect 37% more performance, which you will not get, even by overclocking the Intel.

 

Put the £109.45 you save into a better graphics card.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

overclocking is not the answer

 

It sure as heck is the answer, sir.  ;-)

 

But a Haswell is not good value for FSX IMHO.

 

A good value overclockable CPU for FSX might be what I am looking at:

 

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2373004&CatId=1969

 

 

It sure as heck is the answer, sir. ;-)

How on earth do you figure that? Apart from making it run hotter, more prone to failure, and increasing the risk of data corruption, there is no discernible benefit.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

If overclocked correctly there are only benefits.  The details I leave for you to discover, sir.

 

 

How on earth do you figure that? Apart from making it run hotter, more prone to failure, and increasing the risk of data corruption, there is no discernible benefit.

 

Goodness me!  How on earth have you figured otherwise?  If you're not seeing linear frame rate increase w/ overclock then something is amiss.  I have certainly tested this and that's what it is, linear & proportional.  Perhaps you had the two discussions crossed, cost for intel over AMD versus overclocking?  If you are arguing one doesn't get proportional performance increase per cost w/ Intel over AMD then you may well be correct, but there is no question re overclocking. Perhaps you are seeing back-throttling during over clocks, thereby negating any predicted perf boost?

How on earth do you figure that? Apart from making it run hotter, more prone to failure, and increasing the risk of data corruption, there is no discernible benefit.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

Right, Running the Haswell at 4.4Ghz which is about equal to a I7-975 running @ 5.5 if it could which is equal to a AMD X2 running at 6.5Ghz if it could with a CPU limited game such as FSX as no discernible benefit.

 

Right, adding a turbocharger or supercharger to an internal combustion engined automobile and additional performance products such as headers and increased intake, Injectors, larger intake and exhaust ports and valves, racing clutch or or high-stall converter, proper gearing, slicks or some other stickier tires will not result in any discernible increase in performance.

 

Right, Not smoking, exercising regularly and eating a balance diet has no discernible benefit.

 

Right, Ok then.

 

:lol:

Intel cost vs. performance is not worth the money, and overclocking is not the answer either. The money you save can go into a better graphics card.

 

For 37% more cost, I'd expect 37% more performance, which you will not get, even by overclocking the Intel.

You are aware that he was asking about a CPU for FSX right? FSX will eat any CPU you throw at it. Even if AMD would offer you more performance per £€$, the lesser performance (that also happens to have costed less) still isn't enough when you load a complex aircraft and some add-on scenery with high settings.

To spend the difference on a more expensive GPU won't yield nearly as much improvement as spending it on an Intel CPU in FSX.

If we were talking other games it's more likely valid, but were talking FSX now, where single threaded CPU performance is the most important performance factor.

Look at the AMD FX 8350 processor and a motherboard with the 990FX chipset. Get the lowest latency memory you can find.

 

Intel cost vs. performance is not worth the money, and overclocking is not the answer either. The money you save can go into a better graphics card.

 

e.g.:

 

AMD FX 8350 @ 4.0 GHz stock = £154.60

MoBo (Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX Rev 2, AMD 990FX) = £140.39

Total = £294.99

 

Intel  i7 4770K @ 3.9 GHz stock = £269.00

MoBo (Asus Z87-Plus, Intel Z87) = £135.44

Total = £404.44

 

For 37% more cost, I'd expect 37% more performance, which you will not get, even by overclocking the Intel.

 

Put the £109.45 you save into a better graphics card.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

No AMD for FSX.

 

And if you are going for the cheap:

For less money than that AMD speced system one can purchase a New Haswell I5-4670K - $200 at MicroCenter and an AsRock X3 board for $112 and have about 30% more processing power, yes As a former AMD user that much power, its not even worth discussing.

 

Then you can spend a $100 for a decent cooler and get another 10% more by overclocking it with a simple click to chose 4, 4.2,4.4 or even 4.6 if you win the chip lottery. Or stock it will boost up to 3.8Ghz and blow the doors off the AMD even if the AMD is OCed.

 

AMD has not had a strong FSX processor in a long time.

1.27v is what I'm seeing at 4.43 OC.  Yes I see where you are going w/ 4-core SB-E.  I'm jazzed IB-E will give me add'l years as I am one to not upgrade often so that's great.   I am so happy w/ the HaF X case it is a total joy from a functional standpoint.   I live in a hot climate in summer and when I need it I can turn on my thru-the-wall AC unit which sends 40F air at a low flow rate around and thru (the intake fans are absolutely perfectly positioned when the simple blue poster board cowling was added) the box for a full 10C cooling at full load over the stock Noctua D-14 (thank you Martin for the case & cooler they are superb).   Air flows under the case and up thru the PSU as the case sits on casters and over the patio bricks to keep out the dust bunnies, thru the back panel and straight into the 240 or 200mm powered intake fan directly at the Titan and surrounds, and around and thru the lower front main 240mm intake fan.  This is not needed for FSX even now but will be if I push the CPU up.  Truly, I don't see a need though the performance/watt increase is even harder to justify than the bucks I spent on this build.  So the A/C which has been my default cooling solution for the last 3 builds including this one is primarily now for room cooling when it's warm out.

100_1154.JPG

 

 

Thanks very much for the mention Noel. I'm really glad you are satisfied with the HAF and D-14. :smile:

Look at the AMD FX 8350 processor and a motherboard with the 990FX chipset. Get the lowest latency memory you can find.

 

Intel cost vs. performance is not worth the money, and overclocking is not the answer either. The money you save can go into a better graphics card.

 

 

 

Put the £109.45 you save into a better graphics card.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

 

Oh Robin really. This is similar to the stuff you have claimed on the Just Flight forum for years. You and I have had plenty of debates about this, but yes, you are still years behind with your thinking, stuck firmly in the past.  

 

1. Intel CPU's, Haswell, my Ivy Bridge, have a faster architecture than AMD. This is fact. Of course Intel cost vs performance is worth the money... because Intel win hands down in that respect. Where have you been?

 

2. Of course overclocking is the answer. Most of us who are serious about this stuff overclock our CPU's. I have been overclocking for years, as you know from our previous discussions. As Noel rightly said, overclocking results are linear, as both he and I have confirmed with our tests. Overclocking provides a significant benefit in FSX, we aren't stupid, if it didn't we wouldn't do it.

 

3. As for spending money saved on a new graphics card, if you haven't learnt by now that FSX is very CPU bound, and that Intel CPU architectures are faster, then you must have been living on Mars, as I always expected.