Intel 6 core gaming chip...

So, three and a half years after FS-X was released, will this finally allow people to max out the sliders and get framerates equal to the human eye? :icon_lol:

Ken
 
Acording to Ted , txnetcop , that new core will more than likely offer not much for FSX as it just is not coded to even use a quad well now...


But we'll see......
 
If this is a cpu, I don't think it'll do much other than process the instruction sets faster.

To max out the sliders on FSX you need a GPU

(just my $0.02 )
 
Over the years I've come to realize FSX (and earlier versions) needs a combo of advanced hardware to operate optimally. Advances in CPU's, GPU's, RAM, and HDD access speed all come together for a smooth(er) experience. I'm convinced that many of the stutter issues have to do with (relatively) slow HDD access time as well as CPU limitations. Faster GPU's help with crisp textures, and more and faster RAM helps with panning and texture load. The totality of your system more than any one single component are key to the experience. However, a 6 core CPU couldn't hurt. :mixedsmi:

Cheers,
Dave
 
Yeah, I am hoping Intel will give me one for free soon so I can try it out. From what I have heard the things overclock like nobody's bussiness so I am sure there will be a huge boost for FSX right there.

I know my Q9450 is getting long in the tooth for FSX.
 
the software code itself has to be efficient - the operating system, the flightsim, the graphic card drivers...sometime I think FSX's problems have less to do with the hardware its run on, than its own code...kinda stepping on itself if you like.

and if the software isn't optimized for multicore processors then it would be far better to have a really fast single core...

what is the fastest core speed today?? my dual core is 3.4 is there a 4.4? 4.8? no?

have the mfg. instead decided to stack cores at a slower speed (temperature concerns) and then rely on software engineers to utilize them?


would it be helpful if a multicore chip could be designed to be both a really fast single core by synchronizing cores - or - through a GUI - split into multicores by the user depending on what program was being run?

I'm obviously not an engineer or a programmer so maybe :pop4:
 
Just finished testing the i7 980X 3.3 GHz socket 1366 six core this week. This core does extremely well on most games, on games not set up for mulitple cores almost no difference. I ran an unofficial test with FSX with the Gigabyte X58 UD7(very fast motherboard) GTX285 GPU, 12 GB Corsair Dominator memory, oc'd to 4.2GHz on water. By the way almost all socket 1366 motherboards will run this 6 core processor with a simple BIOS update which they will all be releasing.

All sliders to the right, traffic 100% all, everything Maxed-40fps locked-produced periodic micro-stutters( worked with various affinity settings,buffer pool sizes etc best was 30fps locked (65 to 128 unlocked) but more stutters. The FSX addons were GEX, REX2, and Traffic X. While I was able to make FSX show up on all six cores it really was no faster than the OC'd i7 930, 950, or i7 975 Extreme. I set the system up similar to Nick N's i7 Core. Still working on it until they recall the processor this next week. We only have two weeks to test and report.
Ted

One thing I would like to point out is that the new i7Core processors do a great job of keeping the FPS steady, no dropping of frame rates over certain cities or forests. When I say locked I mean locked they stay there. I can run them higher at locked but more stutters occur more often. We are still working on this so this is not final. It is however very unofficial! Our lead testing engineer would go nuts if he knew what we were doing on the side!
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
Running an I7 2.66Mhz, the 4 core is great for sharp textures, I don't have any issues with blurries, but frames rates still take a dive at times. I think that 4 cores is enough for FSX, but the clock speed needs to be up there to get any improvements in FPS in high density areas. It obviously doesn't effectivley utilise the cores as it can still multi-task very well with hardly any impacy on the game.

As some of mentioned, how effective is the coding ? I have the Wings of Prey demo which is packed with tree & building detail as well as lots of AI, but it runs as smooth as silk, so what is done differently ?
 
Sergio and Cindy are our resident software engineers and they say the coding for FSX has moments of brilliance, but mostly it needs further developing. They put FS9 and X-Plane at the same level as far as under-developed programming goes. Sergio feels that Rise of Flight is the APEX flight simulator! FSX does have some wonky coding. I do agree that Wings of Prey and Rise of Flight has the best coding for efficient use of CPU, GPU and memory! Excellent, but the planes in Wings of Prey lack authenticity. I will say that Sergio was very impressed with A2A Accusim and RealAir-some of the most accurate coding he has seen to date for FSX.

Sergio was an programming engineer for Boeing Space and Defense Systems and now a GA jet pilot! Cindy was a programmer and systems engineer for General Dyanmics on the Y F-16 team and later moved to General Dynamics Information Technology Adavanced Information Systems. We are really lucky to have them at TechCorp.

I do hope that one day we get a really great General Aviation flight simulator that is efficient! I personally am glad Microsoft dropped it. Microsoft tends to move software onto the shelves before it is user friendly-which I understand as income pays for programmers, graphics artists, and supports service packs. I am hopeful an independent company puts one together. Do you remember FlyII? Wow that was awesome it just needed further developing.
Ted
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
DaveKDEN said:
Over the years I've come to realize FSX (and earlier versions) needs a combo of advanced hardware to operate optimally. Advances in CPU's, GPU's, RAM, and HDD access speed all come together for a smooth(er) experience. I'm convinced that many of the stutter issues have to do with (relatively) slow HDD access time as well as CPU limitations. Faster GPU's help with crisp textures, and more and faster RAM helps with panning and texture load. The totality of your system more than any one single component are key to the experience. However, a 6 core CPU couldn't hurt. :mixedsmi:

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

yeah that would kinda be cool to have it run on Cores 3,4,5,6 and leave all of the other programs to cores 1,2 becuse alot of programs still dont do much with more then 2 cores.
 
Well...Shucks...

my little E5200 OCed to 3.33 still runs FSX great and smooth as silk with one TBM tweak locked at 35....On an old ATI 3850 too...




Cores..Cores..more Cores..When will it all end???? LOL



BUT..One thing I cant do is have those high end textures running, it simply cant keep up in loading or memory ....
 
The reason FSX, 3 years later, is still hard to max out, is the fact that it is HORRIBLY un-optimized. Look at Crysis, a game which is also 3 years old and is also un-optimized and hard to max out. However Cryisis, with a 3.6Ghz Phenom II and a 9600 GT OC2, got it on ultra high. What did it take? Lots and lots of self patches, and lots and lots of time researching, and editing the configs. Same goes for FSX. I am now running FSX on max, without a six-core chip, without a $500.00 GPU, and without 6 Gb of Ram. Just 4. All it takes is optimization, not an extra $1,000.

Also (quoting Snuffy), just my $0.02.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top