lthendrix Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I7 3770k quad or 3960x hex...........The price difference has me doing some thinking. or do you fine folks think I should keep sitting on my 990x to 2013 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael63 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I would say stay put and wait to see which Ivy bridge wins the battle: X79 or 1155. I am ruling for the 1155. Also the price will come down eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lthendrix Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 thanx for that . The guy over at jetline systems said there test concluded that that the 3770k was equal to or better in fsx than the 3960x here is his response from my query. "We have just recently finished testing the Core i7 3770K processor (Ivy Bridge) with FSX and we have determined that we can achieve the same or better performance with the Ivy Bridge processor vs. the i7 3960X" here is what i am thinking about Operating System - Windows 7 Home Premium Edition (64-Bit) Chassis - CM HAF 912 HellFire Edition Mid-Tower ATX Motherboard - ASRock Z77 Professional SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Processor - Intel 3rd Gen Core i7 3770K (4.5 GHz Overclock) Quad Core CPU Cooling - Antec 920 Dual Stage CPU Liquid Cooling System Memory - 16GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM 1600MHz Graphics Processor - 2GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 680, GDDR5, PCIe System Power - 950 Watt PC Power & Cooling MK II Sound Card - 7.1 High Definition Integrated Audio Primary Hard Drive - 2TB WD Black 7200 RPM + 64GB Solid State Cache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael63 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Looks very sweet. I am looking at a cheap upgrade of my system: Intel I5 3570K Processor ASUS MB P8Z77-V PRO Crucial Ballistix RAM 2X4 Gb 1866Mhz Rest is recycling of my old system for now. Comes in at around $ 600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Hahaha....that bloke must be kidding. I got both of those chips and I know that there is a difference (you know, the old FPS and shade and stuff). The 3960x is a 1200 dollar chip and it's 6 core. The 3770 is a sub 400 dollar chip and only quad core, but from my perspective, it's chalk and cheese! And I also believe that the 3770 is the next best chip on the market for FSX! But then again, it does come down to a lot of your ancillary equipment as well. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lthendrix Posted June 9, 2012 Author Share Posted June 9, 2012 "But then again, it does come down to a lot of your ancillary equipment as well" .thanks also Frank .. I know where you are coming from in terms of the chip but this bloke was only talking fsx . and I know that the hex core chip would be your choice because of the cockpit you are making . i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boetie Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 For my two cents worth (and I'm no expert) - I've gone from i7 960 to the 3960x and have noticed a big difference. I can now put my FSX sliders all the way to the right with little (some airports still suffer) performance issues and it responds nicely to a little overclocking. Still tweaking my settings in Inspector etc but match this with a good video card and I reckon you'll be chuffed to bits! For my two cents worth (and I'm no expert) - I've gone from i7 960 to the 3960x and have noticed a big difference. I can now put my FSX sliders all the way to the right with little (some airports still suffer) performance issues and it responds nicely to a little overclocking. Still tweaking my settings in Inspector etc but match this with a good video card and I reckon you'll be chuffed to bits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yeah, Loren, I was actually talking about SSD's, video cards, quick ram and stuff. I think sometimes people believe that by changing their cpu's, it will be the magic fix, but if you are running a bog standard drive, forget it. I'ts just my experience, but I've found that FSX doesn't just need a fast cpu to perform at it's best, it also need other bits of gear to complete the picture. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAB Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I'm kind of in the same boat here aswell. I'm just about to put together a new system, I was going for the i7-3770k cpu, but now I'm considering the i5-3570k. I've heard that it produces less heat then the i7 when overclocking (still more than Sandybridge though) as it doesnt have hyperthreading. FSX doesn't need HT and the i5 is $150 cheaper - not chicken feed by any means.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie P. Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Your right Sab. I think that most of the time, people just go for the i7, just for the sake of it being an i7... In fact the i5 not only produces less heat than the i7, but also out performs it too. Sandy vs. Ivy is a whole other story, and comes down the what you want out of a system build. But 5 vs 7, that is just my 2 and a half cents. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAB Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Your right Sab. I think that most of the time, people just go for the i7, just for the sake of it being an i7... In fact the i5 not only produces less heat than the i7, but also out performs it too. Sandy vs. Ivy is a whole other story, and comes down the what you want out of a system build. But 5 vs 7, that is just my 2 and a half cents. lol It appears the only features that the i7 has over the i5 is hyperthreading and 2MB extra cache, I can't see myself spending $150 for something that FSX doesn' even utilise. But as you alluded to, i7 does look better than i5 on paper though !!! Instead I'll be putting that money toward a 120GB SSD for the OS and programs and having FSX sit on the Velociraptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie P. Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Great choice! Don't let that suggest though that the previous posts before mine, about having to accompany that CPU with great hardware (like the velociraptor) isn't nesicarry.. Because it very much is. You can get a new processor all ya want, but it wont make your 9800GT serries card (just an example) spin new circles by any means. The hard drive is another great example. You can have all the greatest motherboard and processor's your wallet can handle, but if your running it on a slow hard drive, then you'll be limited to what the drives performance can put out. Sounds like you'll be well on your way to a sweet fsx victory. I just can't believe that even today our new hardware is only just now getting to the point of being able to fully take advantage of what fsx can do..lol insane... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Sorry to be a wet blanket, Charlie, but I can't agree with yourself and Tennyson. The 17-2600K blows socks off most other procs - perhaps not the latest 6-pack, but 5 gig is almost "no problem" for most experienced simmers - and FSX absolutely DOES respond to high-speed procs more than ANY other hardware item. The necessary pieces are the fast - at least 1600meg, low CL memory - and a moderate vidio card - the drives are no big deal at all - you don't need VelociRaptors. Mine are a Maxtor 6L200M0 200gig for C drive, an ST31000528AS 1 TB for E-drive, a WDCWD 500AAKS-00V1A0 500gig F-drive for the sim. The backup is a WD 1.5 TH external USB drive. None of these are anything to write home about. The only thing an SSD will give is a faster load time, I've sat at 4.9 gig since the SB came out and have pushed it to 5.2, but been able to only because of water cooling. That proc, tied in with the newest Nvidia Inspector with the 1/2 Refresh Rate Vertical Sync enabled and most (not all) of a combination of Jesus Altuve's, Nick Neeham' s and Ryan Maziarz's suggestions - gives a very smooth ride in the Milviz Baron, over KSEA, with ASE/Rex fairly heavy cloud, AI - 39, GA - 39, FreewayD - 20, Boats -10, MTX 5.3b traffic. AG and SC max and LOD 4.5. Set at 30 fps, it will hold that with occasional trips down to 27 - but smooth. Tennyson: And I also believe that the 3770 is the next best chip on the market for FSX! Yes, I think so, too. 3.5 gig core frequency against 3.3 gig. lower power requirement, 22 nm lithography. .. anf the price?? No brainer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie P. Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a bunch of "other" expensive hardware is going to solve the problem of low fsx performance. I'm merely implying that the notion of "just replace the cpu and all is well" is not so true. Sure fsx is purely processor driven, but that processor can't and wont run mericles by itself. To some extent, you do have to have at least some of the other decent hardware to even take advantage of what the new processor can do... I'm by no means any kind of "expert". I just know what I know from going on down the line with each of the components. That is all. But I see where your coming from. Personally, I use my rig for a lot more than just fsx, and therfore have a much wider range of things I'm looking to get out of a build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Personally, I use my rig for a lot more than just fsx, Charlie! There's more than just FSX?? Yeah - I know what you mean - you need to 'balance' the system, and it's the same with the fsx.cfg, or setting up Inspector, as both can overpower all existing procs. Generally, if you decide on the proc first - pretty much as it's released, and then buy the rest according to your purchasing ability - the pc will give you the longevity you need before the next 'jump' in raw power ocurrs. FSX doesn't use six cores, nor do we need more than about 8 gigs of ram, so that 3770 is the one. I reckon we should be truly 'happy' when we have a proc that is good for 7.0, maybe 8 GHz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie P. Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Absolutely Paul, but I also reckon that even then we (refering to all flight simmers lol) will find something that needs improvment...that one more little touch of something that seems to make "all the difference". I just can't believe how far "hardware" has come in the last few years... I just amazes me. I remember a few years back, thinking about adding a stick of ram here or a new (but old) graphics card that would fit in my mini tower (micro board for those who dont know)...and wondering why I was not seeing much of a difference in the games and such I was using. To think of all the things that I have personally learned about computers and hardware since then is crazy.. Heck I even remember when I was hitting my "teens" and pretending I knew what I was doing, fooling around with plugging different components into a old 386/486 chip system..LOL oh how those were the days, having the entire operating system on about 5 floppy disks (whats a floppy disk?!?! lol). Anyway enough of me rambling on. I'm just glad that were able to have discussions like these and actually have high end hardware to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 At one time I owned a Tandy "Business II", and it used 8-1/4" floppies!... Then CP/M, then a Trash80 - then an XT - 14" monochrome - Amber, (and running the very early MS Flight Simulator in that color). I still have MS Macro Assembler, Nantucket's Clipper and DBase3 and 4.. and 'C' on 5-1/4" floppies. Don't know if one could even find a 'B' drive for them! Yeah - talk about rambling on! ... 386.... let's see.. where did I put that math co-processor... Arrrgh! We're getting old! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotspot Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Adding to the general discussion re the i5 2500K and the i7 2600K, having two of each - the i5's are unstable over 4.4 Ghz, and the i7's are happily churning away at 4.8 Ghz on air with good temps. I've seen many times the claim that the i5 is the better chip, but I wonder if those making the claims have actually used the the two in their own rigs for comparison, or are they just repeating the latest 'myths'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.