When pigs fly.

+1 on this Jim.

 

The Thermal Design Point (TDP) of Intel processors is unlikely to support above 4GHz in stock form, ever. It would generate too much heat to make it practical. I have friends at Intel who told me they could clock the Netburst architecture to 4-5 GHz, with H2O cooling. That was three generations of architecture ago, before Core, Nehalem, and Sandy Bridge. Since then, the pipelines have gotten more complex which limits flat-out clock speed. As the speed goes up, the "long path" (weak link in the silicon chain) clock sync becomes more and more a problem. 

 

But the other posts are the most telling: 32-bit VAS is ultimately the limiting factor. Who knows: since Lockheed Martin are "captains of their own ship" maybe they can make the transition. Commercial database performance was really uncorked when the vendors moved to 64-bit, and I imagine P3D with its own database of terrain, weather, aircraft would see similar gains if it was all loaded into memory.

I'm confused.  People always recommend that FSX pilots OC their processor to at least 4GHz and we get improved performance with that.  Why wouldn't 5-7GHz increase performance even more?  Especially given the fact that FSX is CPU hungry.

 

 

Exactly it will be better..Why are these folks not going back to a slower processor then? eh?

 

 

I'd pay lots of money for a 7Ghz machine today or any time in the future to run FSX.

 

The only malady that cannot be cured is the OOMs. That is a firewall..dead end.

hypothetically talking FSX would IMHO run superb at this speed, when I first got FSX i had an AMD 2500 and the sim ran like a dog, every CPU upgrade has given positive results with sandybridge @4.7 being the best

This has been very informative, guys. Makes me wonder if waiting for more power vs upgrading today is prudent.

FSX is running just fine right now, with very demanding add-ons but maybe the question should be when will developers stop escalating that demand for more power? (See NYC X and others)

 

Ok, but on with the CPU question..

 

There are already 5GHZ non overclocked CPU's (See AMD FX-9590) but it is still a weak processor for FSX, and Intel does keep getting a bit faster, but forget about simple CPU speed for a moment as that is only half the CPU story.

 

Just take Intel's CPU, we have been seeing a steady rise in execution strength, clock per clock over the last several years (well since forever), so that today's 3.5 non turbo speed is much more powerful than a 4.4 GHZ processor of just a few years ago and it does keep getting progressively better, but I think it will go back to the question about add--ons being developed in a better, refined way within the reasonable limitations of FSX being more of a single threaded 32bit application.

 

Great stuff out there running great on FSX with present hardware, Coronado, FTXG FlyTampa, FlightBeam etc etc

LOD_RADIUS to 6 or more will bring even the most powerful 7GHz machines of the future to their knees, that is if OOM doesn't kill FSX first.

 

I'm running 5GHz Sandy Bridge on Corsair water cooling and most of the time it's smooth with LOD_RADIUS at 5.3. The only times the FPS drops is when I encounter tons of AI traffic. (e.g. JFK, LHR, FRA etc.) AI traffic seems to affect the FPS more, perhaps due to the fact that most AI traffic models I have were originally made for FS9.

The big question is whether physics is even going to allow it to get that high. There have been very minimal base clock speed improvements lately, it's definitely slowing down vs. the usual doubling in 18 months Moore's Law thing. The gains are coming from multiple cores and more efficient architecture more than raw clock speed. You can only push electrons through transistor gates so fast.

 

I do believe there's particular scenarios that will probably never run at 60FPS or whatever in FSX - the engine is just always going to bog the CPU down no matter how fast it is.

 

 

remember fsx came out in 2006, and its was always coded wrong.

 

It wasn't "coded wrong", that's just how technology was at the time.

 

Now if you are talking about FSX pre-SP1, than yes, I agree.

When pigs fly.

And are Cat III capable.

by then we will all be using the latest xplane then, fsx will be prehistoric!

Ya when those chips come about, nobody will be using FSX. I imagine the hardware it would take would make it difficult to even still FSX. Hell, I can't even install my Apache Longbow game from back in the day now. Lol.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

by then we will all be using the latest xplane then, fsx will be prehistoric!

Not unless they fix their ATC/AI system :LOL:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ll_4-tWOc0

Not unless they fix their ATC/AI system :lol:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ll_4-tWOc0

hopefully by then that will all be ironed out, or alternatively the great guys at ORBX will give us spectacular terrain,  mesh etc that it will look like real life scenery and we will be still using FSX. 

by then we will all be using the latest xplane then, fsx will be prehistoric!

 

We all need to accept XP as the future. If 3rd party support was there like it is with FSX, then I would of jumped shipped already.

Think more efficenices per clock is the future and we may see 5 cpu speed more common, but cpu for desktop will still fall between 3.3 and 3.8. Xplane is the future for flight and fsx is legacy software.