2 Core vs 4 Core vs 6 Core CPU Deal / No Deal?

[drumsonly2002]

After reading many post about FSX, seems to me the main thought is FSX doesn't work better with more cores in the CPU. Thus why bother with a i7 CPU's vs a nice Q9650 oc'd to 4 ghz, it having the advantage of more cache. Thus a Q9550 or Q9650 are great choices, unless FSB and ram make a bigger difference with the i7 product.

  If more cores make a difference a 6 Core AMD Phenom II X6 1090T OC'd @ 4 ghz should out perform a dual core Q9640 or i7930 clocked at the same speed ram and FSB being equal. So, if more cores and over clocking the better, would not the newest 6 core chips, be it AMD or Intell work better for FSX?

  The reason for me bringing this up is the newest AMD 6 core processors are more cost effective vs i7 products, and supporting mother boards also. Thus more funds available for really good ram.

Your thoughts greatly appreciated.

[jnrjim67]

Lets get one thing straight the i7 is a completely different beast to the Q9650 it firstly does not have the restriction of FSB like the Q9650 bottleneck has,  To replace the aging FSB, the i7 has has a new point-to-point communication protocol which is known as Quick Path Interconnect or QPI meaning the memory controller is on the CPU die, The major advantage this brings is direct access for the CPU to the memory, allowing for a much higher bandwidth than possible using the FSB method.

Secondly the whole Q9650 with 12mb L2 cache while the i7 having 8mb cache is not valid, Core i7 has been granted three levels of cache as opposed to two levels on the Q9650. Each of the four cores in the Core i7 gets 32K of L1 Data and 32K L1 Instruction cache; in total, 256KB of L1 cache. Next, rather than a shared L2 cache like the Q9650 has, each core gets 256KB L2 cache dedicated to each CPU. Lastly, the CPU has a shared L3 cache to help increase overall performance, the cache size is 8MB shared amongst all four cores. The way the cache is designed and shared on the i7 is much more efficient.

Before I upgraded to the i7  I had a Q9650 @4.2ghz and I can tell you now my current  i7 @4.2Ghz is substantially quicker with FSX and the machine overall has a nicer snappier feel compared to the older rig. I do hope this clears up much misconception that just because the Q9650 has more L2 cache does not mean its on par or quicker to an i7, the i7 architecture is by far more advanced and efficient.

As for the new x6 AMD I reckon there great value for money and would be a good investment for FSX as FSX is so CPU bound the more CPU Cores the better.

[TenBlade]

Hi jnrjim67.

I´m curious, how did you achieve 4.2 on your Q9650. I am a.t.m. at a cautious 3.6GHz. And I would not at all mind reaching 4gigz.

If you can recall: What voltage did  you go to? FSB and multiplier?  Which cooler did you use?

Regards

Bjorn

[drumsonly2002]

jnrjim67, I thank you for a great post and insightful reply. That was excellent. That was a quality response.  You been there done that giving the response lots of teeth.

  I was thinking strongly towards the i7 930 but a bit swayed by the AMD product. If 6 cores @ 4.2ghz vs 4 cores @ 4.2 ghz ram and FSB being equal, will the AMD perform well with FSX? The i7 930 @ 4+ GHZ is proving to be a great chip but I have yet to read much about the 6 core OC'd AMD chip used with FSX. I guess the question is will the 2 extra cores make that big a deal with FSX.

[jnrjim67]

Hi jnrjim67.

I´m curious, how did you achieve 4.2 on your Q9650. I am a.t.m. at a cautious 3.6GHz. And I would not at all mind reaching 4gigz.

If you can recall: What voltage did  you go to? FSB and multiplier?  Which cooler did you use?

Regards

Bjorn

Hi Bjorn

I was lucky to buy it from someone at the time who allready had it running at 4.2Ghz prime stable so it was a gem of a chip, I had it @1.35v @4.2 467FSB x 9 and the only thing I adjusted from memory was the CPU-VTT voltage which was set at 1.3V. I also had it running on a low end watercooler the Corsair H50. What you may find holding you back is the your ASUS motherboard 790i chipset its a hit and miss with them some are great some are not when I had it in a 780i I could only hit 4Ghz but when I got the X48 chipset Mobo I had 4.2ghz comfortably.

What kind of volts you at currently and what cooler have you installed.

[jnrjim67]

jnrjim67, I thank you for a great post and insightful reply. That was excellent. That was a quality response.  You been there done that giving the response lots of teeth.

  I was thinking strongly towards the i7 930 but a bit swayed by the AMD product. If 6 cores @ 4.2ghz vs 4 cores @ 4.2 ghz ram and FSB being equal, will the AMD perform well with FSX? The i7 930 @ 4+ GHZ is proving to be a great chip but I have yet to read much about the 6 core OC'd AMD chip used with FSX. I guess the question is will the 2 extra cores make that big a deal with FSX.

My pleasure, as for the AMD I think the x6 is great value for money and should improve FPS seeing as its a 6 core CPU but in saying that I think the i7 is a better generation CPU, most reviews out there still show even the Quad core i7 outperforms the AMD x6 in most benchmarks but again the x6 is cheaper so from a value for money standpoint I think the AMD x6 would be a good choice.

[drumsonly2002]

The i7 930 is proving itself a great chip for FSX, so I decided to go i7. I am a bit of an intell fan anyways. I bought several AMD computers thus give Intell a go this time around.

[Dean (PC Aviator)]

In recent and upcoming issues of Computer Pilot Magazine, Doug Horton has been doing extensive studies on Benchmarking FSX with different processors and components... Basically, yes more cores equals better FSX performance, as does changes in operating systems, among other things. Worth reading as many of these tests have never been done before specifically for FSX in a structured manner.

[Guest AS355F]

I've had the AMD X6 1090T for a couple of weeks now and with [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=64 set in fsx.cfg all the 6 cores are used. Combine that and 4.75Ghz reached on core0 (thanks to turbo) it really is a beast of a chip for FSX. And it's ~$1200(AUD) cheaper than the intel equivalent.

NOTE I don't get 4.75Ghz all the time that was a one off when I was studying what turbo was doing. I haven't overclocked the chip properly yet.

Even though all 6 cores are used core0 still gets hammered and is sitting at 100% most of the time so singlethread performance and high clocks are still the best way to go. AFAIK it's the scenery that uses the remaining cores.

As for benchmarks, they have been corrupted by the manufacturers, I would base my purchasing decisions on other users experiences with FSX.

Most people seem to be happy with I7's.

If only we could overclock those new 12 core server processors on a 2s motherboard....

[jnrjim67]

Very nice finally the AMD CPU's are overclocking very decently, I really like the new AMD x6 value for money you cant beat them.

[Guest AS355F]

Very nice finally the AMD CPU's are overclocking very decently, I really like the new AMD x6 value for money you cant beat them.

Yeah these are a different beast altogether.

I do use watercooling though, I'm not sure what you would get on air.

[Spirit Flyer_old]

So you are going with the i7 930 Dan?

[TenBlade]

Hi jnrjim67.

I´m curious, how did you achieve 4.2 on your Q9650. I am a.t.m. at a cautious 3.6GHz. And I would not at all mind reaching 4gigz.

If you can recall: What voltage did  you go to? FSB and multiplier?  Which cooler did you use?

Regards

Bjorn

Hi Bjorn

I was lucky to buy it from someone at the time who allready had it running at 4.2Ghz prime stable so it was a gem of a chip, I had it @1.35v @4.2 467FSB x 9 and the only thing I adjusted from memory was the CPU-VTT voltage which was set at 1.3V. I also had it running on a low end watercooler the Corsair H50. What you may find holding you back is the your ASUS motherboard 790i chipset its a hit and miss with them some are great some are not when I had it in a 780i I could only hit 4Ghz but when I got the X48 chipset Mobo I had 4.2ghz comfortably.

What kind of volts you at currently and what cooler have you installed.

I´m @ 1.275 V PCU voltage, CPU VTT volt. 1.3 V, with a Zalman 9700. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. I´ll have a go at a higher OC, hope to have a chip like yours 

[drumsonly2002]

So you are going with the i7 930 Dan?

Yup! I got a Asus board on hold like yours, and going i7 930. Be easy to overclock, and a solid performer. Did you get your 480 yet? Hope to see you at the Country Club soon.

[Spirit Flyer_old]

Hi Dan,

Good combination. I am still abroad and have not been near my FSX computer since late April. My turn for the EVGA step-up from a 470 GTX to a 480 GTX has not come yet, so still waiting. Say hello to the Prop Club for me!

Stephen

[Guest AS355F]

I've had the AMD X6 1090T for a couple of weeks now and with [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=64 (EDIT: I've found you need AffinityMask=63 for 6 cores to work) set in fsx.cfg all the 6 cores are used. Combine that and 4.75Ghz reached on core0 (thanks to turbo) it really is a beast of a chip for FSX. And it's ~$1200(AUD) cheaper than the intel equivalent.

NOTE I don't get 4.75Ghz all the time that was a one off when I was studying what turbo was doing. I haven't overclocked the chip properly yet.

Even though all 6 cores are used core0 still gets hammered and is sitting at 100% most of the time so singlethread performance and high clocks are still the best way to go. AFAIK it's the scenery that uses the remaining cores.

As for benchmarks, they have been corrupted by the manufacturers, I would base my purchasing decisions on other users experiences with FSX.

Most people seem to be happy with I7's.

If only we could overclock those new 12 core server processors on a 2s motherboard....

Overclocked it now. It runs very well.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[drumsonly2002]

AS355F        Great post! That chip is underrated. Reading good stuff about it.