Very confused about CPU: Intel or AMD for P3D?

[rhumbaflappy 113]

42 minutes ago, NewWorldOrder said:

 I think that would give at least some safety for the future, knowing that a new CPU will work on the current MB by just making it compatible via a BIOS update. 

What do you guys think?

 

I think I'd take 'motherboard compatibility' with a grain of salt. A BIOS upgrade cannot change the basic hardware. You might end up with a V-8 in a model-T.

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

It's nice to save money, but for FSX/P3D my personal opinion is to stick with INTEL. As Rob said above, additional cores above 4 (physical) has a point of diminishing returns, although this also provides additional processor threads for OTHER software you may be running in concert with P3D.

The age old rule for processors and GPUs still holds true.. get as much as you can!

Best wishes!

[sloppysmusic 242]

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

As Rob said above, additional cores above 4 (physical) has a point of diminishing returns, although this also provides additional processor threads for OTHER software you may be running in concert with P3D.

He's right you know. Built a new workstation myself couple years ago and had to build around video/photo editing NOT pure core speed so went for the 'super-slow' i7-6900k 8 core jobby. Whilst I don't get blazing fast fps I DO get very smooth flights around 30 and up with most planes and OrbX running but most importantly during cruise I can do actual WORK on my 2nd monitor without the sim experiencing even a hiccup on the main screen. It literally IS like having multiple computers in one box! With enough RAM (64GB here) you can also setup virtual machines for different sim builds although I stopped that after deciding running 4 concurrent FSX sessions had no practical purpose I could see outside a server client situation....

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

21 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

He's right you know. Built a new workstation myself couple years ago and had to build around video/photo editing NOT pure core speed so went for the 'super-slow' i7-6900k 8 core jobby. Whilst I don't get blazing fast fps I DO get very smooth flights around 30 and up with most planes and OrbX running but most importantly during cruise I can do actual WORK on my 2nd monitor without the sim experiencing even a hiccup on the main screen. It literally IS like having multiple computers in one box! With enough RAM (64GB here) you can also setup virtual machines for different sim builds although I stopped that after deciding running 4 concurrent FSX sessions had no practical purpose I could see outside a server client situation....

 

Perfect example... including why maxing out FPS is not a good idea.

For those who fly on VATSIM.... they know that often times some aircraft are much slower or much faster than the same type of other aircraft.  Sometimes this is due to the weather engine, but when that's the same then it's the difference in frame rate between two computers.  People don't know or forget that the CLOCK in the flight sim is tied directly to the FPS, so ones elapsed sim time is based on FPS.  The best all around FPS is 30 as it's as close as we get to having 60 seconds of elapsed sim time matching elapsed actual time.  All sorts of reasons why not to max out one's frames!

 

 

[martin-w 3,235]

13 hours ago, rhumbaflappy said:

I think I'd take 'motherboard compatibility' with a grain of salt. A BIOS upgrade cannot change the basic hardware. You might end up with a V-8 in a model-T.

 

Not true. Changing the hardware frequently isn't required. Just a BIOS update. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by martin-w