H
harleyman
Guest
Pam is a terror of the skies....
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
dual vs quad core
- Thread starter gavinc
- Start date
Brett_Henderson
Charter Member
Doesn't it really boil down to; is a quad worth the price difference over a dual ? Does anyone believe that speed/cache being equal, that a dual is better than a quad ?
Logically assuming it's a question of whether or not the quad is worth the extra money... My research shows that there's as little as $50, and as much as $100, between similar dual/quad comparisons (similar meaning similar stock-clocks and cache).
If you're going to keep this computer for more than 24 months.. that might be the best "extra" money you spend on it.
Logically assuming it's a question of whether or not the quad is worth the extra money... My research shows that there's as little as $50, and as much as $100, between similar dual/quad comparisons (similar meaning similar stock-clocks and cache).
If you're going to keep this computer for more than 24 months.. that might be the best "extra" money you spend on it.
warchild
Charter Member
yeahhh, when i built this machine, i figured it had to last for at least five years, cuz i'll never have that kind of money again. With that, i tried to plan it out so that in five years time it would still be running the newest software without the typical "too slow" problem you get when technology changess. thats why i went with a quad.
heres that second clip i promised by the way.. you can see the difference. Fraps is horrible on frame rates, but even then, the quad barely notices it..
http://www.youtube.com/user/urushira#p/a/u/0/YtakRKvmGP8
heres that second clip i promised by the way.. you can see the difference. Fraps is horrible on frame rates, but even then, the quad barely notices it..
http://www.youtube.com/user/urushira#p/a/u/0/YtakRKvmGP8
Bjoern
worst developer ever
H
harleyman
Guest
Preliminary Impressions On New AMD Quad Build
(See my note above containing some introductory remarks about this build.)
I took the motherboard (MB) [a Gigabyte MA785GMT-UD2H] out of the box and set it on the enclosed foam pad. I installed the AMD quad core 955 Black Edition processor (BE for overclocking) into the AM3 socket and two 2 gig sticks of Patriot DDR3 1600 ram into the board. Put the thermal paste on the processor and then installed the processor fan. (Cost of these 3 parts at Newegg was: MB - $85; proc - $166; RAM - $102. I also bought 640Gig hard drive (HD) for $75.)
Used a case I bought last year on sale for less than $100 and the power supply was acquired last year on sale for under $100. I also had on hand an ATI 4850 video card that now sells for about $100. So you may be seeing a trend here - I only buy on sale and never try to buy the 'bleeding edge' of technology. This is all last year bleeding edge stuff.
I popped the board, HD and video card into the case, and unlike some builds, it went together pretty smoothly. (This case has 2 big fans and 1 smaller fan for the HD and it is really quiet and 'roomie', I like it very much.)
I had also acquired Win7 (Home Premium Ed.) from Newegg (OEM version for builders - save a couple bucks). Loaded Win7 (fastest load so far in my trials and tribulations with various versions of Windows). Updated the MB Bios (F5 version), and chipset, LAN, audio and video drivers to Win7 versions. All went well!
Now I did a simple (10%) overclock (3.2 to 3.5+ MHz) on the processor in the Bios setup by slightly increasing the frequency. It also slightly increased the memory speed, so get reasonably good memory when you shop.
You can tell the components are working well together and fast just by the many times you have to re-boot and this build was humming along!
Finally it is time to install FSX and and Acceleration (I was running out of steam last evening so no add-ons installed yet). The FSX and Acceleration installs went well except for the Acceleration SDK which I could not get to install last evening. The machine is quick and smooth.
So, I loaded the default Baron at KJYO with all sliders to the right (and full realism) except the traffic sliders (which I left at ~25%) and the water effect slider (which I left at the midpoint). Out of KJYO and into KIAD I was getting between 40 and 60 FPS. That is very good compared to what I see on some of my dual core Intel chips, but I have never done a build with only FSX installed on the computer.
As I get more data on this build I will share it here.
(See my note above containing some introductory remarks about this build.)
I took the motherboard (MB) [a Gigabyte MA785GMT-UD2H] out of the box and set it on the enclosed foam pad. I installed the AMD quad core 955 Black Edition processor (BE for overclocking) into the AM3 socket and two 2 gig sticks of Patriot DDR3 1600 ram into the board. Put the thermal paste on the processor and then installed the processor fan. (Cost of these 3 parts at Newegg was: MB - $85; proc - $166; RAM - $102. I also bought 640Gig hard drive (HD) for $75.)
Used a case I bought last year on sale for less than $100 and the power supply was acquired last year on sale for under $100. I also had on hand an ATI 4850 video card that now sells for about $100. So you may be seeing a trend here - I only buy on sale and never try to buy the 'bleeding edge' of technology. This is all last year bleeding edge stuff.
I popped the board, HD and video card into the case, and unlike some builds, it went together pretty smoothly. (This case has 2 big fans and 1 smaller fan for the HD and it is really quiet and 'roomie', I like it very much.)
I had also acquired Win7 (Home Premium Ed.) from Newegg (OEM version for builders - save a couple bucks). Loaded Win7 (fastest load so far in my trials and tribulations with various versions of Windows). Updated the MB Bios (F5 version), and chipset, LAN, audio and video drivers to Win7 versions. All went well!
Now I did a simple (10%) overclock (3.2 to 3.5+ MHz) on the processor in the Bios setup by slightly increasing the frequency. It also slightly increased the memory speed, so get reasonably good memory when you shop.
You can tell the components are working well together and fast just by the many times you have to re-boot and this build was humming along!
Finally it is time to install FSX and and Acceleration (I was running out of steam last evening so no add-ons installed yet). The FSX and Acceleration installs went well except for the Acceleration SDK which I could not get to install last evening. The machine is quick and smooth.
So, I loaded the default Baron at KJYO with all sliders to the right (and full realism) except the traffic sliders (which I left at ~25%) and the water effect slider (which I left at the midpoint). Out of KJYO and into KIAD I was getting between 40 and 60 FPS. That is very good compared to what I see on some of my dual core Intel chips, but I have never done a build with only FSX installed on the computer.
As I get more data on this build I will share it here.
H
harleyman
Guest
I think that you will get good performance from that AMD build..
But the true test comes once your FSX install has all its extras ...Include some weather, add in some raffic, and you will begin to see your AMD start to buckel down and have to work for its living..
Couple that running only 2 gigs and things will change..Hopefully not so much ...
But the true test comes once your FSX install has all its extras ...Include some weather, add in some raffic, and you will begin to see your AMD start to buckel down and have to work for its living..
Couple that running only 2 gigs and things will change..Hopefully not so much ...
Looking Forward to Weekend Testing
Although I tried to economize with this build and get a good performing machine, I didn't economize to that extent - I put in 2 x 2 gigs. So, in that respect, it should be OK.
In fact, I liked the DDR3 memory speed so much I ordered some for an ASRock X48 (TurboTwinz) board I have that currently has DDR2 installed, but will also accept DDR3. That is an Intel E8500 (mild overclock) with 4870's in crossfire and Vista. I do not have FSX loaded on it, but now that I've committed to this comparison, I will end up (eventually) with a head-to-head test of comparable dual core and quad core builds.
I'll be loading, loading, loading add ons this weekend and report results (hope I can find all my passwords, etc.)
Although I tried to economize with this build and get a good performing machine, I didn't economize to that extent - I put in 2 x 2 gigs. So, in that respect, it should be OK.
In fact, I liked the DDR3 memory speed so much I ordered some for an ASRock X48 (TurboTwinz) board I have that currently has DDR2 installed, but will also accept DDR3. That is an Intel E8500 (mild overclock) with 4870's in crossfire and Vista. I do not have FSX loaded on it, but now that I've committed to this comparison, I will end up (eventually) with a head-to-head test of comparable dual core and quad core builds.
I'll be loading, loading, loading add ons this weekend and report results (hope I can find all my passwords, etc.)
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
Looking forward to reading your findings. This is interesting.
I have my system (specs listed below) locked at 30 FPS. It tends to stay there 905 of the time. I run a full complement of add-ons.
The only major sucker of frames not working is MyTraffic 5.? (latest one). It is not working right. Even though it installed, I see little traffic. I haven't taken the time to worry about it, yet.
I switched my 3.0GHz dual-core for a 3.0GHz quad a while ago (neither overclocked), and the above has been my experience, too. Clouds are also more stable, with less "popping".
Tom
H
harleyman
Guest
Clouds are a FSX problem and can be fixed with the Swarm Cloud fix..
I missed that you had a 2X2 set...I thought you just had 2 gigs..sorry
Yes..I like to build too with DDR3 Mem....It has some advantages even for dual chanel mem
I missed that you had a 2X2 set...I thought you just had 2 gigs..sorry
Yes..I like to build too with DDR3 Mem....It has some advantages even for dual chanel mem
Bjoern
worst developer ever
:d
Preliminary Results Are IN
A quick re-cap - The parts chosen for this build are listed in one of my notes above and were chosen because of the relatively modest pricing. The modest pricing primarily applies to the mother board and the processor. I am not going to debate AMD vs. Intel (I have both and this is my first AMD build in about 8 years), but an AMD processor was chosen for its low price in the quad core arena and its overclockability. On to the rest of the story and some stats ---
I have gotten the 3.2 ghz 955 Black Edition (BE) processor to overclock to 3.6 ghz without breaking a sweat just be increasing the frequency in the bios setup. I used a ATI 4850 graphics card and used the tuning program within the Catalyst driver to speed it up a bit (it does it automatically).
My FSX setup consists of UTX, GEX, one piece of add on scenery (Plum Island, but I plan on getting more) and a number of additional aircraft (both payware and freeware [thanks to many of the guys on this site]).
In GEX most objects are turned on, but some of the most resource intensive were not. In FSX most sliders are all or most of the way right except water effects and vehicles. Anisotropic is selected and anti-aliasing is left unselected. Other than that, I have not attempted to optimize the graphics in any way.
So with this set up I checked various aircraft at the same location (but different times). The aircraft I get the slowest frame rates with are Aerosoft F-16 and Isis T-6 at dawn going into KIAD (FPS between 20 and 35). I have used limited (at 35) and unlimited FPS. With FPS limited the pictures seems to be slightly 'crisper' than unlimited and also seems to run a touch smoother, but either way is the best I've seen in FSX.
I am truly shocked with the graphics I am getting out of this ATI 4850! Seems the old saying is proven once again - FSX needs processor horsepower, not graphics horsepower. It also seems my general computer with this cpu, m/b, graphics card and Win7 perform well together - smooth and all systems (like the sleep function which both turns off and on when I move the mouse) function well.
I will be doing more tests during the week and next weekend - trying an ATI 4890 in the rig and, possibly, putting solid state memory as my boot / FSX drive. I will also be working on the Core2 E8500 when my DDR3 memory arrives. It's got Vista 64 so it could be handicapped (lol).
If anyone has an idea about how I can improve the performance (which, in my experience is good already) please let me know. If anybody wants me to test a 'tweak', I'll do that also. (I was looking at the frame limiter program as a potential test.)
A quick re-cap - The parts chosen for this build are listed in one of my notes above and were chosen because of the relatively modest pricing. The modest pricing primarily applies to the mother board and the processor. I am not going to debate AMD vs. Intel (I have both and this is my first AMD build in about 8 years), but an AMD processor was chosen for its low price in the quad core arena and its overclockability. On to the rest of the story and some stats ---
I have gotten the 3.2 ghz 955 Black Edition (BE) processor to overclock to 3.6 ghz without breaking a sweat just be increasing the frequency in the bios setup. I used a ATI 4850 graphics card and used the tuning program within the Catalyst driver to speed it up a bit (it does it automatically).
My FSX setup consists of UTX, GEX, one piece of add on scenery (Plum Island, but I plan on getting more) and a number of additional aircraft (both payware and freeware [thanks to many of the guys on this site]).
In GEX most objects are turned on, but some of the most resource intensive were not. In FSX most sliders are all or most of the way right except water effects and vehicles. Anisotropic is selected and anti-aliasing is left unselected. Other than that, I have not attempted to optimize the graphics in any way.
So with this set up I checked various aircraft at the same location (but different times). The aircraft I get the slowest frame rates with are Aerosoft F-16 and Isis T-6 at dawn going into KIAD (FPS between 20 and 35). I have used limited (at 35) and unlimited FPS. With FPS limited the pictures seems to be slightly 'crisper' than unlimited and also seems to run a touch smoother, but either way is the best I've seen in FSX.
I am truly shocked with the graphics I am getting out of this ATI 4850! Seems the old saying is proven once again - FSX needs processor horsepower, not graphics horsepower. It also seems my general computer with this cpu, m/b, graphics card and Win7 perform well together - smooth and all systems (like the sleep function which both turns off and on when I move the mouse) function well.
I will be doing more tests during the week and next weekend - trying an ATI 4890 in the rig and, possibly, putting solid state memory as my boot / FSX drive. I will also be working on the Core2 E8500 when my DDR3 memory arrives. It's got Vista 64 so it could be handicapped (lol).
If anyone has an idea about how I can improve the performance (which, in my experience is good already) please let me know. If anybody wants me to test a 'tweak', I'll do that also. (I was looking at the frame limiter program as a potential test.)
H
harleyman
Guest
That system needs no tweaks except the TBM in the config..
The 4890 is awsome...I fly FSX on a 3850 with great results....
The 4890 is awsome...I fly FSX on a 3850 with great results....
Thanks Harleyman
What is the TBM? (I'm familiar with some stuff, but most of the people on this site know so (so so so soooo) much stuff that I'm here to learn with the hope of enhancing my simulator experience.) Of course, I'll post any improvements when I pop in that 4890!
What is the TBM? (I'm familiar with some stuff, but most of the people on this site know so (so so so soooo) much stuff that I'm here to learn with the hope of enhancing my simulator experience.) Of course, I'll post any improvements when I pop in that 4890!
H
harleyman
Guest
With your set up all you should ever have to redo in the FSX config ie the
TBM (texture bandwidth Multiplier)
Its default at 40....
I change mine to 10 for ATI cards to eliminate stutters...You can also test(after using 10 first) 20 30 60 70 80 90 100....
After you find the one thats smooth..keep it there always...
To test you need to do more than a quick flight...Pick any airport as your permenant test place...Always use that same start point...Fly a circuit and land...About 15 minutes..if it stutters at take off that setting is no good...Close FSX and change it and retest....Typically 10 is best for all my ATI cards...
After that is good...You can get better crisper scenery with this also in the FSX config..
LOD ( Level Of detail) Its default to 4.5..... I run 6.5 or 7.5
CAUTION...If you make one scenery change within FSX, the LOD will always default back to 4.5 ...So watch for that......
Once you have it tuned...Save that profile ....Good to go
TBM (texture bandwidth Multiplier)
Its default at 40....
I change mine to 10 for ATI cards to eliminate stutters...You can also test(after using 10 first) 20 30 60 70 80 90 100....
After you find the one thats smooth..keep it there always...
To test you need to do more than a quick flight...Pick any airport as your permenant test place...Always use that same start point...Fly a circuit and land...About 15 minutes..if it stutters at take off that setting is no good...Close FSX and change it and retest....Typically 10 is best for all my ATI cards...
After that is good...You can get better crisper scenery with this also in the FSX config..
LOD ( Level Of detail) Its default to 4.5..... I run 6.5 or 7.5
CAUTION...If you make one scenery change within FSX, the LOD will always default back to 4.5 ...So watch for that......
Once you have it tuned...Save that profile ....Good to go
One More Question (At Least)
Your last response caused me to remember one small thing I noticed, but failed to previously mention in my write-ups. When I start up in takeoff position at an airport and pan around in outside view there is a "triangle" (that flashes) on the asphalt behind the aircraft. It's not real distracting so I kind of ignore it. Any idea how to correct that issue?
Your last response caused me to remember one small thing I noticed, but failed to previously mention in my write-ups. When I start up in takeoff position at an airport and pan around in outside view there is a "triangle" (that flashes) on the asphalt behind the aircraft. It's not real distracting so I kind of ignore it. Any idea how to correct that issue?
For Those Seeking to Acquire a Quad Core Processor
I just happened to see this article on Tom's Hardware comparing various Quad Core Processors. I'm very budget minded so I'm always looking to get the most "bang for my buck". Here is a link to the article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-core-cpu,2499.html
The article does not come right out and say it, but today's 'value minded' buyers should seriously consider an AMD socket AM3 processor (like the 965 or 965 Black Edition with huge overclocking potential) coupled with an AM3 motherboard costing about $100. I've been to the $$ bleeding edge of technology in the past and I'm now comfortable that you don't need to be there to get great performance!
I just happened to see this article on Tom's Hardware comparing various Quad Core Processors. I'm very budget minded so I'm always looking to get the most "bang for my buck". Here is a link to the article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-core-cpu,2499.html
The article does not come right out and say it, but today's 'value minded' buyers should seriously consider an AMD socket AM3 processor (like the 965 or 965 Black Edition with huge overclocking potential) coupled with an AM3 motherboard costing about $100. I've been to the $$ bleeding edge of technology in the past and I'm now comfortable that you don't need to be there to get great performance!
Snuffy
Happiness Consultant
LOL! You O.C.ers kill me. LOL!