Hi all!

 

Of course everyone knows the reason FSX is such a difficult program to run, and what separates it from the rest of the games around today, is the way it is written as a program.

Of course, FSX was written when graphics cards where nowhere near as powerful and CPUs had only 2 cores in mainstream computers.

 

But, as we all know, things have moved on, and we have processors like AMD's FX-8350 and new 9000 series offerring faster speeds and better multitasking performance.

 

My question is;

 

In a new system (which I'm planning on building in the spring), should one go for AMD or intel?

 

I have heard lots of rumours surrounding the "strength" of AMD cores, and why the i5 and i7 pull ahead even at lower clocks, but is this true for fsx? for example; let's say I overclock a new Haswell i5 to 4.4Ghz, which is comfortable and stable on air, and move fsx to cores 2, 3 and 4. Will this still outperform the AMD FX-8350 at 5GHz (AMD chips run cooler and can be overclocked much more easily) if I move fsx to cores 4-8?

 

Of course this relies on FSX being able to use four cores ( can it? )

 

Any input would be greatly appreciated, as i can't find much on the subject. If anyone would like me to post the other specs for comparison, I can happily do so.

 

All the best,

 

Alex.

 

 

 

 

I'm also interested to hear others' opinion on this.  I've also heard the same thing about i5 and i7 being faster than AMD of the same clock speed.

For FSX, the most important measure of how fast a CPU can run the simulation is the CPU's single thread performance, given that we're all using multi-core CPUs.

 

Look here: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

The i7 4770 is right near the top and about 50% faster than the AMD 8350, and the prices are close. I'd definitely go with the i7 4770K for a new FSX build. No question...

 

Scott

I remember quite some FS versions ago, it was drummed into me that FS was optimized for Intel and Nvidia. I have always stuck with that philosophy whenever I have had to do an upgrade.

I think only once I used an AMD processor, and I think it was FS98, and it ran like a hairy dog. So reverted back to Intel.

 

I am not sure if that holds true today, with FSX I mean, as I do not have that depth of knowledge, and I would have to go back to AMD to see for my own satisfaction.

Be interested if anyone else has tried AMD and gone back to Intel, for reasons I described above.

close?

 

the i7 is around £110 more over here in the UK.

 

I can get an 8350 for £152... Of course price isn't the limit, I'm not sacrificing performance for money, but it is a concern.

 

Yes I had heard about single thread performance. Does anyone know what people refer to when they say the "strength" of AMD cores?

 

Alex.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, guys.  I will probably try Intel next.  I'm very satisfied with my current AMD and I get great performance with the NGX as long as I keep my sliders under control.

The only reason I want to upgrade in the next year or two is because I want to have more ai and be able to turn on road traffic.  My road traffic is disabled right now and ai (UT2) usually 50% all around but I knock it down to 10% or 20% for big hubs like LAX.

Groovin_DC-10 hmm... may I ask what your CPU / GPU are? Just wondering

 

A.

Groovin_DC-10 hmm... may I ask what your CPU / GPU are? Just wondering

 

A.

 

My system is low end compared to what other members here are running.

AMD 955BE OC'd to 4ghz, 8g DDR3, GTX560, 60g SSD for win7, and 250g SSD for FSX.  GEX, AS2012 and REX are running off an external USB 3 drive.

 

Everything is very smooth with the NGX.  LOD radius set to Med, Water low 2x, scenery comp dense, autogen normal (sparse at night with UTX night lighting enabled).

 

Only place I avoid at the moment when flying complex aircraft is New York.

For FSX, it really isn't relevant anymore.

 

For gaming, it looks like the folks at Newegg have been touting Intel for the last few years.  I think for better PCIe support.

This is an automatic message.

 

This topic has been moved from "MS FSX Forum" to "MOBO, RAM, CPU's & Other Hardware". This move has been done for a number of possible reasons.

• The most likely reason is that the post was off topic.
• The topic could also have contained images or a video that were not appropriate to the original forum it was posted in.
• The images might not have been "illustrative" or "explanatory" in nature.
• The topic could have been moved because we deemed it to be more appropriately placed elsewhere.

Please ensure that your posts are "on topic" and contain illustrative images or videos as appropriate. Do not post videos or images just for entertainment purposes anywhere but in the screen shot or video forums. See our image posting rules here.

 

Members who continue to post off topic posts can be denied entry to specific forums in order to reduce and remove the practice. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Hmm.. I think I agree with Scott.. The single core performance of the intel processors does seem to be pretty consistently better than AMD..

I think I'll go with the 4670K... I should be able to get a stable 4.2 - 4.4 overclock on the NH-D14. (Hopefully I get a good chip!)

 

Does anyone know if there is much performance increase if fsx has it's own SSD rather than sharing with windows?

 

Thanks,

 

Alex.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Does anyone know if there is much performance increase if fsx has it's own SSD rather than sharing with windows?

 

 

I can't compare since my SSD's are different brands and speed, but probably better if you get a seperate SSD for FSX, not necessarily for speed (I don't know about that one in a shared SSD), but if you have a lot of add ons for FSX, it's going to add up quick.

 

How big is the SSD you plan to get?

 

Good call on gong Intel.  I didn't mention on my first post, but I remember reading an article that tested the cpu speed of the 955 AMD I have compared to the 2600K, and the 2600K was a little more than two times faster at the same clock speed as AMD :lol: .

I'm planning on using a 128GB SanDisk SSD for boot and fsx, (current fsx install is 46GB), and a 500GB Western Digital Caviar Blue, for fraps, other non speed essential programs and mass storage, probably partitioned to give fraps a short stroke write advantage.

 

I've decided to also save for longer and get the gigabyte GTX760 Rev2, I think it may just advance over the 660 because of the higher bandwidth on the memory.

 

I currently run a 2600 myself, with a 6750 reference GPU, and I get around 20 in the ngx, 27-29 in the Q400. Most smaller aircraft with less complex VC's give me 30 smooth.

 

(I use Rex though and that is a frame killer!)

 

Alex.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

My FSX and P3D installations are too big for an SSD, so a month ago I moved them both from a Western Digital standard "Green" drive to a 1TB Western Digital Velociraptor. It makes a very real difference in load times although in game performance seems the same.

 

Scott

I know there are quite a few people using the same SSD for both OS and FSX.  Let's see what they say.

 

Man, that 760 should give you excellent AA performance too!

 

With the fps you listed, are all your graphic sliders on max?  Just wondering because if I upgrade to i7, I plan to get the 2600.  Does it handle road traffic well if you're conservative with the other settings?  Just trying to get an idea of fps I may be able to get if I upgrade.

With the lower settings I listed earlier for my rig, I'm getting 25-30 average with the NGX (locked at 30 in NI).  What I hope to achieve in a PC upgrade is a steady 30fps in the NGX with my current graphics setting, but have road traffic enabled and higher ai.

 

REX was a big fps killer for me too.  Now I set clouds to the lowest resolution with compression and lowed my aa to 8x MS.  Got my performance back, but it doesn't look as pretty.