Aceshigh Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Part 2. Does anyone know these two processors ? I must decide this week... A Intel Dual core E8500 running at 3.16GhZ $208 A Intel Quadcore Q9450 running at 2.66GhZ $335 Both new models just released. I dont wish to overclock. Done that once and the CPU cooked, hot conditions here. Main reason for new System is FSX, FTX. Im happy with the rest of my product picks but cannot for "love or money" decide on the dam processor. A very fast clocked dua lcore or a slower Quad core. I cannot find any benchmarks ( tests or reviews) that mention Flightsim X. Sick of the Blurries, sick of the stutters and tiny FPS In FSX, FTX. I have my Motherboard, ram, graphics card, power supply, hard drives "etc" all picked & priced. The lack of knowledge on these CPU's running FSX is beyond me. .......... confused ! yep, 110% Anyone own or know at these prices which is the better choice ? Is the slower quad core worth $127 more or is the cheaper dual core a better buy this week? Arhhhhhhhh.... A question done to death before but I cannot find the info online to help me choose. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Harris Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 me again FSX is using 4 cores when patched +1 for the quad http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/249352-28-upgrading-gaming-e8500-q9450 dont make me come down there and make you eat your E8500 ;D tell you what , buy me the Q9450 and ill give you my E8400 + 150 bucks:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 More FPS with the E8500 - hands down... Blurries, what's that ? Pity that you don't want to over clock. This hardware is asking for. My E8500 runs at 3.8 GHz ice cold at 47 C (Super Pi 1M 12.2 sec) - it would go well beyond 4 GHz but my darn mainboard doesn't like more than FSB 1600. However, it's very fast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Webb Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'd like to see some actual stats that compare FPS and smoothness between the two. FSX is multicore aware. FSX will use all 4 cores but is the clock speed going to be a problem? FSX is limited to what it sends to the other cores. So you really need as much GhZ free to the main FSX.exe process. This is why the AffinityMask=14 tweak is used to put FSX.exe on a dedicated core. This said, if FSX.exe is put on a 3.16GhZ core, while using AltricityPC, you might get better frames than FSX running on a 2.66GhZ core, depending on how many other programs you use while flying. Preferably you would configure AltricityPC to load any extras away from the FSX core. I'm no expert, so let the expert opinins of this post flow! Cheers, Matt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotspot Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I have recently upgraded from from an E6600 (2.4 Dualcore) which was graded by my Vista Performance analysis at 5.3, to an E8500 (3.16 Dualcore) which bumped the score up to 5.5. The other components of my rig (card, RAM, HD) scored the Max 5.9 - so my 'bottleneck' is still the CPU but I can now overclock it if I wish. However, the performance is so good that I don't see the need at this stage. My FPS are quite high, except Brisbane which brings it down as low as 15, so I reduce the Autogen from full right to dense when that happens. Now I only have a problem with 'stuttering' in the flight replay mode which pees me O. I would be interested to hear from anyone changing to a Q9250. Guess the only way to find out is to suck it and see. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'd say Intel Quadcore Q9450 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Webb Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'd say Intel Quadcore Q9450 I'd agree with this. After thinking of some mathematics of it. With the 4 cores, FSX can take up a whole core on its own, plus offload work to 2 others, assuming AffinityMask=14. Compare this to a 2 core CPU: FSX on the main core sharing with all the "OS, running programs, etc garbage" and only offloading to 1 other core. If all that "OS, running programs, etc garbage" takes up more than .5Mhz (the difference between the two), then you're already behind on the faster dual. This is true especially if you're running ActiveSky, FS Flight Keeper, etc. EDIT: Also add the other stuff FSX doesn't offload. Cheers, Matt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Hanley Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Mmmm...I am in a similar situation to aces, although I am looking to build a brand new pc. I went to a computer fair yesterday, and I must say that prices varied a lot. I was considering the E8400 (priced as low as $190 yesterday) or E8500 (as low as $213), and the Q9300 as low as $290. Didnt look at the Q9450, but would a Q9300 processor do the job? The older Q6600, was cheap at at between $210 and $240. :o I'd shop around for the right priced cpu, as what I found was a huge difference in prices yesterday. Jury is still out for me on a new cpu, as i am still in two minds on the dual core or quad core. There is so many differnt opinions, but for me, anything will be an improvement on my old AMD Athlon 3000+ ;D Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I don't know exactly in how far you can feed the additional 2 cores with workload other than FSX is designed for. FSX utilizes core 3 and 4 for occasional texture loading - your startup will be faster. Well, i don't see my second core at 100% all the time and i don't have the smallest problem with blurred textures (in any situation except fast slewing). One thing i can say for sure - for better FPS you need CPU clock speed, high front side bus and high memory speed at low latencies. And depending on your resolution and settings GPU power of course. The math isn't that easy at all... But from the day on when games are designed to take full advantage of 4 or more cores, it will be more easy to decide. My next CPU is called Bloomfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Hanley Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 One thing i can say for sure - for better FPS you need CPU clock speed, high front side bus and high memory speed at low latencies. And depending on your resolution and settings GPU power of course. The E8400/8500 both have a fsb of 1333mhz, but the Q6600 has only a 1066mhz fsb, although the Q9000 series also has a fsb of 1333mhz. Based on your quote, would the dual core give you a better result, or a quad core with a lower clock speed? You obviously find your E8500 ok at an overclocked speed, with no issues. The Q6600 can be overclocked to 3ghz with no problems, but it still has a slower fsb. The more I read the more undecided I become? Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Well, i too had to make the decision, but in my case i needed a CPU for not more than the next six month (maximum). The over clocked E8400/E8500 is very fast and a big bang for the buck when used mainly for FSX, Crysis, ect. So if you are planning an upgrade or a cheaper system until the Nehalem release, it's a perfect choice. But if you invest a lot of money in a future proof system now (f.e. for the next 2 years), you should go with a quad. Not a Q6600 though - a new 45 nm 9450 if you are planning to o/c, or the fastest model you can afford at stock speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozzy_06 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Q9550 here. Just added a small O/C to 3.4. Haven't done much testing but my blurries are gone (even with the stock 2.83GHZ). The usual FPS suspects still apply - clouds, Autogen and AI (not necessarily in that order) but its way smoother. I'm interested in testing the AffinityMask = 14. What are user's experiences with quads on this setting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.