Hi,

 

I'm starting to line up parts to build a new FSX/X-Plane machine. So, having read around I'm still not sure on CPU.

 

If I've gotten it right, the base specs are:

The 5960X has 8 cores, a base clock of 3GHz with 3.5GHz turbo mode, DDR4 and LGA2011-V3 socket.

The 4790K has 4 cores, base clock of 4 GHz with 4.4 turbo mode, DDR3 and LGA1150.

 

From what I read FSX doesn't really care about cores and the 4790 does better with FSX, but would the extra cores on the 5960 help when addons like PMDG are thrown into the mix? What about X-Plane? Is the difference noticible enough to sacrifice a little bit of FSX performance for longer-term better usage of the 8 core system by P3D and FSX? I'm going to throw at least one nVidia 790 or Titan into the system. That's another thread though..

 

Thoughts? In this case the $ difference between the 2 (yea, I can practically build a whole system with the difference in price between the 5960 and the 4790) isn't going to be the tiebreaker..

 

Thanks all!

Hi,

 

I'm starting to line up parts to build a new FSX/X-Plane machine. So, having read around I'm still not sure on CPU.

 

If I've gotten it right, the base specs are:

The 5960X has 8 cores, a base clock of 3GHz with 3.5GHz turbo mode, DDR4 and LGA2011-V3 socket.

The 4790K has 4 cores, base clock of 4 GHz with 4.4 turbo mode, DDR3 and LGA1150.

 

From what I read FSX doesn't really care about cores and the 4790 does better with FSX, but would the extra cores on the 5960 help when addons like PMDG are thrown into the mix? What about X-Plane? Is the difference noticible enough to sacrifice a little bit of FSX performance for longer-term better usage of the 8 core system by P3D and FSX? I'm going to throw at least one nVidia 790 or Titan into the system. That's another thread though..

 

Thoughts? In this case the $ difference between the 2 (yea, I can practically build a whole system with the difference in price between the 5960 and the 4790) isn't going to be the tiebreaker..

 

Thanks all!

The 4790K is a better for FSX and P3D. In the PMDG 777's VC at Flight Beam's KIAD, In the middle of a major thunderstorm, using Rex clouds, and almost every slider full I get around 35-38 FPS the whole time. Even during takeoff and the climb through the clouds once I get to cruise they were through the roof like as in over 60FPS. The problem with the 5960X is that its clock speed is low and FSX doesn't fully use 4 cores let alone 8. In order to run FSX at high FPS you need a cpu that is very fast per core not more cores so you actually get less FPS with the 5960X then you would with the 4790k. I had an AMD 8 core and when I moved to my 4 core Intel I gained about 20 FPS so that proves that more cores don't help in FSX.

The 5960x @ 4.5 Ghz is faster than a 4790k @ 4,7 Ghz.

It's not only about the clockspeed of your core 0.

 

The extra cores will be used for faster terrain loading...

Gerard, ar you sure?

agree if you compare to a SandyBridge (2600K)

4690k IPC 2% faster than 5960X and close to 3% to 5930 5820.

and 4.5-4.7 is 4%, ok textureload with Photoscenery is faster but not the framerate.

Have only 3 days testing the Haswell-E no tests of fsx, invited to a major vendor testing new mobos ,mems, cpu and gpu:s

I thought the 5960X was only 3.5GHz turbo mode?

I thought the 5960X was only 3.5GHz turbo mode?

The thing is that even if the 5960x could load scenery faster it wouldn't be much faster and it would certainly give you fewer FPS as it has a lower clock speed. Is the possibility of slightly faster scenery load worth $700 extra?? To me its not if I had $700 to spend I'd get a huge SSD or a better GPU since the GTX990 is just around the corner and will list for $1000

Single core performance is what matters for FSX/P3D, and if you see here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-intel-core-i7-5960x-review, the 4790 is the winner in single core performance.

 

I did not see any difference in terrain loading with 3 vs 6 cores on FX8350.

Single core performance is what matters for FSX/P3D, and if you see here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-intel-core-i7-5960x-review, the 4790 is the winner in single core performance.

 

I did not see any difference in terrain loading with 3 vs 6 cores on FX8350.

 

You can't compare AMD to Intel. 

The 5960x can be run at 4.5/4.6 GHz vs the 4790 at 4.7/4.8 Ghz,

 

At those clockspeeds the 5960x is faster.

Also has extra cores for faster terrain loading ( read: less blurries, faster autogen/object loading )

 

 

And you can't compare an AMD to an Intel processor regarding Multi core. 

Reading some reviews on the 5960X to get up to 4.5GHz I'd be looking at say an Asus X99 Deluxe with water cooling?

I'd be nervous having an $1100 component that was OC'd that high. 

The 5960x can be run at 4.5/4.6 GHz vs the 4790 at 4.7/4.8 Ghz,

 

At those clockspeeds the 5960x is faster.

Also has extra cores for faster terrain loading ( read: less blurries, faster autogen/object loading )

 

 

And you can't compare an AMD to an Intel processor regarding Multi core.

 

If you see the link above, the 4970 is about a percent better than 5960 even when over-clocked in CineBench single threaded. It is no competition at stock speeds.

 

Also see this link for over-clocked single thread comparison, Dolphin benchmark, and 4960 is ten percent better - http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/3

 

And I was not comparing AMD vs Intel for single core performance, only that too many core, Intel or not, do not have much impact on terrain loading.

FS is not only about single core speed.

A high clockspeed is indeed very important, but also is cache.

 

Regarding the terrain loading you are not correct. The more cores you have the faster the terrain loading.

If you have a 4 core processor , just disable 2 of them and see what it does to your FS, especially terrain loading.

 

Both 4790k , 5820k, 5930kk and 5960x can be OC and are able to handle FS.

It is the terrainloading ( blurries ) that makes the difference.

 

If you have a Multi monitor setup terrain loading is very important.

That is why I upgraded from 4 to 6 cores

The 5960x can be run at 4.5/4.6 GHz vs the 4790 at 4.7/4.8 Ghz,

 

At those clockspeeds the 5960x is faster.

Also has extra cores for faster terrain loading ( read: less blurries, faster autogen/object loading )

 

 

And you can't compare an AMD to an Intel processor regarding Multi core.

Your right you can't compare AMD and Intel in multi core as AMD is better at it. I lost performance in BF4 when I went Intel as BF4 will use all 8 cores. When I switched to Intel I gained about 20 fps in p3d and FSX as they need single core performance. Also scenery loading is faster on my 4 core then I was on my 8 as Intel's per core performance is better. FSX can use 8 cores but not effectively. For the price point I think the 4790k is the winner as even if you could load scenery twice as fast it wouldn't be worth the extra $700 since my 4790k does a great job of loading everything already and I've never had a blurry with it even running a .1 fiber time fraction. I don't use photo scenery as I don't like but maybe the 5960x would be better if you used a lot of it.

@GS, Single core performance is what drives FPS in FSX/P3D. Here 4790 has the 5960 beat fair and square.

 

Second, I have experimented plenty with AMD FX8350 and i4700mq regarding using multiple core for terrain loading. Net is that I use a mask 84. I did not see any difference in using more. These results may vary for person to person based upon the overall system, so it's a subjective argument.

 

So OP can choose higher FPS with 4970, which is an objective argument, vs better terrain loading on 5960, which is a subjective argument.

 

Even without considering the price difference, I would not be buying the 5960. It has more cores and lesser performance.