Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter Clark

Flipping coin, 5960X or 4790K?

Recommended Posts

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


ATP MEL,CFI,CFII,MEI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...


13900 8 cores @ 5.5-5.8 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.3 GHz (hyperthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D4 - GSkill Ripjaws 2x 16 Gb 4266 mhz @ 3200 mhz / cas 13 -  Inno3D RTX4090 X3 iCHILL 24 Gb - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 1Tb - Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 55’ Sony 4K tv's as front view and right view.

13600  6 cores @ 5.1 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.0 GHz (hypterthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D - GSkill Trident 4x Gb 3200 MHz cas 15 - Asus TUF RTX 4080 16 Gb  - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Corsair D4000 Airflow case - NXT Krajen Z63 AIO liquide cooling - 1x 65” Sony 4K tv as left view.

FOV : 190 degrees

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


ATP MEL,CFI,CFII,MEI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


David Graham Google, Network+, Cisco CSE, Cisco Unity Support Specialist, A+, CCNA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


13900 8 cores @ 5.5-5.8 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.3 GHz (hyperthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D4 - GSkill Ripjaws 2x 16 Gb 4266 mhz @ 3200 mhz / cas 13 -  Inno3D RTX4090 X3 iCHILL 24 Gb - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 1Tb - Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 55’ Sony 4K tv's as front view and right view.

13600  6 cores @ 5.1 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.0 GHz (hypterthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D - GSkill Trident 4x Gb 3200 MHz cas 15 - Asus TUF RTX 4080 16 Gb  - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Corsair D4000 Airflow case - NXT Krajen Z63 AIO liquide cooling - 1x 65” Sony 4K tv as left view.

FOV : 190 degrees

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


13900 8 cores @ 5.5-5.8 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.3 GHz (hyperthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D4 - GSkill Ripjaws 2x 16 Gb 4266 mhz @ 3200 mhz / cas 13 -  Inno3D RTX4090 X3 iCHILL 24 Gb - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 1Tb - Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 55’ Sony 4K tv's as front view and right view.

13600  6 cores @ 5.1 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.0 GHz (hypterthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D - GSkill Trident 4x Gb 3200 MHz cas 15 - Asus TUF RTX 4080 16 Gb  - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Corsair D4000 Airflow case - NXT Krajen Z63 AIO liquide cooling - 1x 65” Sony 4K tv as left view.

FOV : 190 degrees

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

ATP MEL,CFI,CFII,MEI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...