I get into these "debates" with both Intel and AMD ###### all the time being a professional Tech with 9 years field experience and 2 certifications, and collegiate training. The architecture of the Vishera processors is entirely different and is "superior" when it comes to multi-threading, I can cite sources all day and do technical comparisons to shoot down any Intel ###### that thinks they know what they are talking about when it comes to this. Where AMD loses this fight completely is in the single threaded instruction processing, and surprisingly many programs still use single threading. However the reason behind AMD's Bulldozer/Vishera design is that like their old 64 Bit CPU's they are prepping for the future of computers. To say that AMD has "weaker cores" is completely unfounded and any hardware specialist would dismiss that comment as ###### rhetoric. All this being said Intel makes some of the most powerful CPU's in the world, they know this and they charge for it because there are people who will buy it up because they want it, same goes for the ridiculous pricing on the FX9590, which IMO is way over priced and should bee offered at $299 where it would certainly dominate the market minus the MASSIVE TDP overhead issue. I have built hundreds of systems and repaired thousands more over my 9 years, AMD and Intel both have their good chips and bad ones, now it is true that if you are on a budget of say 700-1000 for the entire system that AMD offers a much better price to power point, but that does not mean that by going with an i7X chip that all your games will run at over 60 FPS. Your CPU in FSX does matter and FSX with affinity masking set will run multicore, as far as I have seen the best FSX CPU's for the money right now are......

 

(Listed in NO SPECIFIC ORDER)

 

Intel:

i7 4820K  - 3.7 Ghz - US Retail $329.99

 

AMD:

FX8350 - 4.0 Ghz - US Retail $199.99

 

 

That being said, many are trying the new FX9370 which is priced at $299.99 US Dollars and have gotten some impressive OC results, albeit high OC temperatures of 66C on a Noctua DF14 cooler. Another Intel favorite is the I7 3770K and 4770K, some use the Xtreme CPU's from Intel at their 999-1200 USD price point, however that is by far no where near mainstream. going with either the i7 4820K or the FX8350 will help you dominate FSX, and both CPU's will do it well.

 

 

as far as I have seen the best FSX CPU's for the money right now are......
 
(Listed in NO SPECIFIC ORDER)
 
Intel:
i7 4820K  - 3.7 Ghz - US Retail $329.99

 

i5 4670K for some $240 is by far the best value CPU IMHO, for FSX in particular

 

 

To say that AMD has "weaker cores" is completely unfounded and any hardware specialist would dismiss that comment as ###### rhetoric

 

 

mind to elaborate?

i5 4670K for some $240 is by far the best value CPU IMHO, for FSX in particular

 

 

 

 

mind to elaborate?

 

Here is how the cores on a Vishera FX processor look:

 

Here is how it is all tied in by instruction:

 

None of this is "weak", when it comes to multi-threading these things are beasts and rightfully so as the design is more advanced, Intel will be following suit soon with their own rendition just like they did with 64bit architecture back in 2005.

 

Intel's strategy since the 1980's has been to let their competitors develop new architecture and then a few years later after looking at the mistakes their competitors make, they release their product which is naturally better and profit from it with much less risk (this does not mean that Intel does not have an R&D team). This is a very sound business tactic that has worked for them and they are most likely going to continue with it, this does not mean they are inferior, this is just how they do business.

Here is how the cores on a Vishera FX processor look:

 

Here is how it is all tied in by instruction:

 

None of this is "weak", when it comes to multi-threading these things are beasts and rightfully so as the design is more advanced, Intel will be following suit soon with their own rendition just like they did with 64bit architecture back in 2005.

 

Intel's strategy since the 1980's has been to let their competitors develop new architecture and then a few years later after looking at the mistakes their competitors make, they release their product which is naturally better and profit from it with much less risk (this does not mean that Intel does not have an R&D team). This is a very sound business tactic that has worked for them and they are most likely going to continue with it, this does not mean they are inferior, this is just how they do business.

So pretty much AMD takes the dive into the unknown while Intel sits behind it waiting to see what happens?

Another way to look at this is

 

I have a 2.0L car and I can rev it to 5,000 RPM and am doing 60MPH

I have a 2.5L car and I can rev it to 4,000 RPM and am doing 80MPH

Another way to look at this is

Just a friendly reminder that AVSIM has changed its signature policy and kindly asking everyone to please put their system specs and flight sim information in their respective "My Profile". More details can be found at the following link - http://forum.avsim.net/topic/436632-new-signature-rules or under the Forums tab above. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

Best regards,