New CPU...will it be worthwhile?

[UnknownGuest12]

Wonder if it’s worth to change my CPU and Mother plus ram to speed up FSX....
MB Asus P5QD turbo
CPU Core 2 Duo E8400 3Ghz
8 GB ddr2
Geforce GTX 560Ti 296.10 Driver
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
"Rated" 5.9 on my system
Read a long time ago that FSX is much of a “cpu affair” and know this has been addressed before.
But if, I change it´s going to cost me, so just want to know if it will be worthwhile in terms of performance improvement.

Thanks, best regards

 

[AndyE1976]

3ghz is more than adequate for FSX, but I think you would still see an improvement from a new CPU for a couple of reasons; the new CPU will most likely be quad core, so the O/S has the option of offloading work to other cores and the new CPU will most likely require a new motherboard (with a faster bus speed) and consequently new memory, which also will be faster.

In otherwords the new CPU won't be the sole reason that FSX will be quicker, the associated parts that it forces you to acquire will also benefit performance.

FSX is basically an old program that doesn't make use of multiple cores or 64bit memory addressing, however many other things do and having a system where there is capacity to move those items out of the way of FSX will result in better performance.

I have an i7-960 @ 4ghz with 12gb RAM and a GTX580 and I can regularly get over 100fps with settings maxxed. I also upgraded from a core 2 duo and there was definitely a benefit.

 

[teeboy]

I upgraded last year from a Core 2 Duo E8500 to an i5 760 both with 4Gb and the difference was most notable in how smooth the sim became. I run FSX locked at 30 FPS mainly in FTX areas and airports - it reacts well like this, rarely dropping below 18 even at Melbourne and running at 30 most of the time. More memory would probably help out a bit too for me, with 8Gb and a quad core you should have no trouble.

Oh I have my AI at 30% airline and 25% GA (which includes MAIW military stuff) too. Even running VRS FA-18E or PMDG NGX doesnt seem to slow it much. That said most of my flying is done in Carenado's recent offerings or Flight Replica's Supercub.

Only problem - I want more! New Ivy bridge is tempting...

 

[Daube]

Wonder if it’s worth to change my CPU and Mother plus ram to speed up FSX....
MB Asus P5QD turbo
CPU Core 2 Duo E8400 3Ghz
8 GB ddr2
Geforce GTX 560Ti 296.10 Driver
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
"Rated" 5.9 on my system
Read a long time ago that FSX is much of a “cpu affair” and know this has been addressed before.
But if, I change it´s going to cost me, so just want to know if it will be worthwhile in terms of performance improvement.

Thanks, best regards

Yes it will be worthwhile.
Your current CPU is an old architecture and moreover it's only a dual core.
Switching to a quad-core running at more than 3 GHz is the way to go. For information, my i7 960 @ 3,2 Ghz gives some nice results already. More recent i7 CPUs are even better, but more expensive too.
Don't even THINK about an i3.
Finally, you can keep this video card, it should be fine.

 

[ryanbatc]

You'll see a huge jump from your dated E8400 to a i7 2700K @ 4+ GHz... and they overclock like a champ...

Just go with a Z68 mobo.. the Z77's aren't really worth it unless you want to move to IB later...

 

[stansdds]

I saw an improvement in fps and smoothness when I simply upgraded from a Core2Duo E6850 (overclocked to 3.6GHz) to a Core2Quad Q9650 (overclocked to 3.8GHz). Swapping motherboards and going to something like an I7-920 is going to be a huge leap forward for you.

 

[UnknownGuest12]

Thank you all


regards

 

[MHAircraft]

FSX is basically an old program that doesn't make use of multiple cores or 64bit memory addressing, however many other things do and having a system where there is capacity to move those items out of the way of FSX will result in better performance.

FSX is a 32-bit application, and there is no simple way to upgrade it to 64-bit. Some folks at P3D basically indicate that whole chunks of code would have to be rewritten for that to happen.

However, from what I can see, FSX-A is already multi-threaded. I think it runs around 30 threads. Typically, threads don't run 100% parallel with each other, because there will be times that one will have to wait for the other. However, FSX can still take advantage of multi-core CPUs to the extent the OS can schedule threads around.

 

[PHo17]

Because FSX is a 32 bit program there is no way how it could use (or even see) more than 4 GB of memory. It should be rewritten as 64 bit code. Yet in 64 bit systems it is good to have more RAM for other programs and for 64 bit programs.

Was the characteristis of multi-threaded brought to the FSX originally or with SPs or Acceleration?

Pekka

 

[kjb]

FSX is basically an old program that doesn't make use of multiple cores or 64bit memory addressing, however many other things do and having a system where there is capacity to move those items out of the way of FSX will result in better performance.

Try running some benchmarks. I have and FSX performs significantly better under Win7 64 than any 32 bit OS. FSX does use multiple cores, but it doesn't take advantage of the GPU. A decent video card with a fast multi-core CPU will produce the best results. A slower quad core will outrun a faster dual core.

Computer Pilot ran a series of articles written by Doug Horton on the subject. Surprisingly, SSDs weren't much help, especially considering the price tag. The cutting edge video card provided the same results when compared to the mid-range card. Doug ran a lot tests with lots of hardware variations.

Sure, it's an old program, but a 64 bit OS, especially Win7, and multiple cores do improve performance.

 

[neutrino]

I'd like to hear more opinions from people who upgraded from a dual core CPU to one of the newer quad cores... I have Core 2 Duo E8500 overclocked to 3.8GHz. I chose it over a quad core CPU when I bought it 3 years ago, because it was the fastest dual core CPU and I knew that FSX cannot benefit directly from additional cores. For the same reason I bought a decent video card, but not the fastest because the CPU is the bottleneck for a simulator and not the video card (unless it is very old).

 

[kjb]

I knew that FSX cannot benefit directly from additional cores.

It does benefit from additional cores. You can test it yourself.

 

[Daube]

I'd like to hear more opinions from people who upgraded from a dual core CPU to one of the newer quad cores... I have Core 2 Duo E8500 overclocked to 3.8GHz. I chose it over a quad core CPU when I bought it 3 years ago, because it was the fastest dual core CPU and I knew that FSX cannot benefit directly from additional cores. For the same reason I bought a decent video card, but not the fastest because the CPU is the bottleneck for a simulator and not the video card (unless it is very old).

The rules are simple, as we always say it since 5 years or so:
- more GHz = more FPS.
- more cores = fewer blurries, more complex/detailled terrain
That's why it was said since the SPs appeared that quad cores were the choice to make for FSX.
So basically, if you switch from a dual core @3GHz to a quad core @3GHz (provided the two CPUs are from the same generation, of course), you won't earn a single FPS, but you will be able to crank up your scenery details without having your terrain textures looking like FS9 (or worse) after 30 seconds of flight.

Concerning the video card, its power is only necessary for handling the high resolution textures of some airplanes, and handling the AntiAliasing and Anisotropic filtering for high resolution screens.

 

[TeaSea]

Beaufighter,

After 30 years of working in the IT field I will give you my best assessment of your question and my best answer....


"I dunno, maybe."


And that's about as precise as anyone will ever be able to make it.

Well, there's always the other answer.....

"It depends."

 

[neutrino]

The rules are simple, as we always say it since 5 years or so:
- more GHz = more FPS.
- more cores = fewer blurries, more complex/detailled terrain
That's why it was said since the SPs appeared that quad cores were the choice to make for FSX.
So basically, if you switch from a dual core @3GHz to a quad core @3GHz (provided the two CPUs are from the same generation, of course), you won't earn a single FPS, but you will be able to crank up your scenery details without having your terrain textures looking like FS9 (or worse) after 30 seconds of flight.

Concerning the video card, its power is only necessary for handling the high resolution textures of some airplanes, and handling the AntiAliasing and Anisotropic filtering for high resolution screens.

Thanks, I've never seen this written in such a concise and informative way. I knew about the FPS, but not about the benefit of additional cores. Perhaps I haven't checked the hardware discussions since I bought my PC

 

[fxsttcb]

With Triple or Quad Cores, you can also use the Affinity tweak in FSX.cfg to leave a single core for OS and background process use.
[JOBSCHEDULER]
//AffinityMask=6 //Binary 110, Uses 2 cores on triple core machines 7(111b) = all three cores assigned
//AffinityMask=14 //Binary 1110, Uses 3 cores on Quad core machines 15(1111b) = all four cores assigned

As noted, your GTX 560 Ti will be fine. Do not discount the Z77 motherboards as overkill.
They have proven to be superior overclockers, even with Sandy Bridge chips.
Z77 offers PCIe 3.0, and has faster I/O capability, when an Ivy Bridge CPU is in place.
That may not mean much now, but, that's some futureproofing...Don