Singletracker Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Hi Guys I'm looking at upgrading to an Intel I7 CPU and X58 Motherboard. I'm willing to Overclock a little. Considering the price increase from the 920 to the 940/965. I'm only running FSX on this machine and are just looking for better frame rates around big airports. For those that have upgraded, is it worth paying the extra money for the 940? The 965 is probably out of the question at this time given I'll probably go for a new GPU also GTX 280. Any idea how this translates to frames? I have done some research on overclocking the 920 but I'm probably not going to go crazy with the cooling, so will only overclock a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper31 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Well, I have an I7 940 and it rocks for me, along with my EVGA X58 SLI mobo, and EVGA GTX 260 GPU card. I use it for FSX mostly, and the frames are WAY better than my old Q9450 PC, not to mention MUCH smoother, and better looking to boot. I'm running Win7 Beta on it too without any problems what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 Thanks Sniper I get excited when I hear stuff like that Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I have the i7 920...and I am happy with it.....even though I live in the US I fly mostly using FTX and the only place I take a hit is YMML...and even there it is still very smooth with no stutters. I have mine clocked at 3.5GHz with my memory at 1360. This is the problem with the 920. I have a good cooler on the CPU and it is stable but I am running DDR3 1600 memory and to get it to that is hard to do and keep it cool. The simple reason is I have to use the BCLK to OC and the 940 one can change the multiplier and it is easier to get it to 4GHz than the 920.....thus you can use the memory at the higher frequency. My memory can be set to run at full speed but the CPU is at the stock setting. Many people have said they can get the 920 to 4GHz on air and they may do it but I don't even want to try. Of course I did not have the money at the time to get the 940 or I would have done that. If you can spring for the 940 I think you will be much better off but I don't think you will be unhappy with the results of the 920. I know since buying this CPU flying with FTX has been an awesome experience....and anywhere else I fly in FSX has been totaly transformed.....but I must say I don't venture away from FTX often.....it just looks too good. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Mate, I concur with Randy and Sniper. We all bought our i7's early and have been singing their praises for some time. I had a problem with my P6T but it was BIOS related and shood have been fixed quickly, but that's a whole other story. I'm not an OCer but bought the 940 because I, like you thought it to be better value (and it has a higher base clock speed ) than the 920. I think in the long run, there's not a lot of difference. Can't wait for the retail version of Windows 7 later in the year. That and the i7 will be a force to be reckoned with. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I can agree with Frank about the i7 and WIN 7..if they don't mess it up. Even though I have read that one or two did not care for it, what little time it was on my PC...and the only reason I took it off was video driver issue...it was a whole new sim. Of course it is 64 bit and I was running XP 32 but the differnce was astounding. On XP FSX is smooth and runs great...even at YMML...but with WIN 7 it went beyond smooth and FPS showed a huge increase....from high teens on the ground at YMML to 30 locked at 30. To me that is impressive....and after takeoff 60 locked at 60. So when it is released I will upgrade. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 SingleTracker - I'll add my bit here. I'm not much of an overclocker - but the i7 LOVES clocking .. and in my limited experience NEEDS a bit of clocking to shine. I had been running mine stock standard for quite a while mainly to ensure it was stable - and have only just begun tweaking, prompted by feeling I had paid a bit too much when I could have pushed something cheaper a bit harder. The difference is enormous - with a small amount of clock, and no voltage tweaking. It also seems stable. Dropping the latencies on the memory has possibly made as big an improvement. This is with [JobScheduler] AffinityMask=254 (just a guess for 8 cores) dropped into the fsx.cfg. Prior to that it didn't seem to be using all 8 logical cores. As you can see - sometimes the processor even cruises! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Thanx Ian, I'll give that a try in my fsx.cfg file and check her out, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeTops Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 hcornea, thanks for the suggestion of setting affinity mask to 254. this fixed my problem with the TrackIR (see general threads). Now its making my i7 920 sing on all 8 cyclinders. What o/c'ing have you done so far? TreeTops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Not Much - only to 3.4 at present. Dropped the mem latencies to CL7 - running at 1200. Seems stable - will leave like this - get a feel for temps etc, before pushing. To be frank, I'm pretty happy as it is for most of my flying, now. Might try pushing 3.9 / 4 at some stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeTops Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 ok. never done any clocking before. Like you i dont really have a need for clocking apart from flying the pmdg 747 which could use a push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Frankly - I was a little scared of frying the new toy - but I'm getting over that now. My knowledge of OCing is rudimentary at best - and hampered by fear. But there is benefit here that cannot be denied. PMDG 747X struggles at YMML - esp through TH2GO and 3 monitors. I have a feeling that my bottleneck is mem tuning ATM - because the processes aren't maxxing all that much and the kernel times look OK too. I'm assuming that a 1G GTX280 shouldn't be groaning. Don't suppose anyone knows a good "bottleneck" checking tool? (Strangest thing: treetops - did anyone tell you you look like Bono Voxx, and Singletracker looks like Freddie Mercury? -- go figure ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeTops Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 hcornea, nope couldnt pick it. dont know what you are talking about. ha. i saw a good page on toms hardware about o/c'ing the i7 920 to 4GB stable which is very interesting. im off to get a cpu cooler in the next couple of months and try some o/c'ing when the temp cools down a bit. I have no idea about o/c'ing which can be a bit daunting but from what i read the i7 chip is awesome for o/c'ing. kind of feel like we are stuck in first gear still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Thanks All, great info. When I get back to Oz I'm going to start the process. I'm looking forward to the upgrade , just not the down time and hours of installation time \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Thanks All, great info. When I get back to Oz I'm going to start the process. I'm looking forward to the upgrade , just not the down time and hours of installation time \ If I was doing what you are doing I will go with the i7 940 (easy to overclock) and the thermalright 120 extreme 1366 to cool it down, myself I'm waiting for the next generation of i7 965 and motherboard. Hope everything will go smooth with your new rig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Hey Ian, I tried the Affinity Mask change, but it didn't seem to make any difference. Any ideas, mate? Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareagle Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I'll share some comments.... First of all I would save your money and get a 920. The yields on these chips are so good that the 940 and 965 are not even more likely to produce a better overclock. There's guys out there dropping $1000 on 965's only to find they can't even hit 4GHz with them, while you've got guys like me hitting 4.2GHz on 920's, which proves even the chips binned as 965's are for the most part no different in potential than the ones binned as 920's. Even at stock voltages(auto) you can get a 920 to 3.5-3.8GHz, and in my view there is no reason at all to not take advatage of the chips overclocking potential, as there is no possible way to damage your chip unless you are overvolting to extreme levels. Heck, even EVGA says 1.475v is fine for 24/7 use, and I only need 1.4v to hit 4.2GHz myself. When getting a 920 your OC will almost certainly be limited by your QPI/BClock(FSB), which tops out at around 200MHz, so with the 21x multiplier you get with turbo mode enabled you'll end up with 4.2GHz, if your chip can take it. Without turbo you will have the 20x multiplier. Provided you buy an excellent MDB, you should be able to do 200MHz without even a voltage change. I'd go with EVGA my self, as they have written the best BIOS for overclocking, and I've not seen one yet that can't hit 200MHz. The way turbo mode works varies from one MBD maker to the next, and with an EVGA X58 you can be sure it will run the 21x multiplier anytime turbo is on, plus EVGA gives you their E-LEET OCing utility, which simply rocks. Take a look at the EVGA X58 OCing guide: http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=642527 As to performance, the best part for me is the fact blurries are now a thing of the past. Even with an unlocked framerate textures are snapped into the highest LOD at all times. The micro stutters seen even on a Core 2 Quad system are also a thing of the past. Overall framerate may not go up as much as one would hope, but i7 really brings up the minimum framerates, which is where it counts. Comparing to my 3.0GHz Core 2 Quad, I was seeing a full 50% gain on the minimum value on my benchmark run. The one downside to my i7/Win7 rig is when running an unlocked framerate, I get horrible herky jerky stutters, not the FSX microstutters we have been living with, but strong jerks that seem to jerk the image 1/4 inch across my screen. This may be a driver issue with Win7, as not all i7 users report this. The solution is to run with a locked framerate, and even with a lock of 30fps, I'm able to stay pegged at 30 with no blurries or stutters of any kind using the kind of settings seen below. Contrary to some, FSX is not Hyperthreading aware, so in fact it only uses 4 threads, despite the AffinityMask tweaks that make task manager appear as though 8 threads are running. NickN says he has confirmation from somebody at ACES that FSX will not utilize the virtual cores. For this reason I actually turn Hyperthreading OFF, which allows me to reach 4.2GHz, otherwise I can't go over 4.0GHz due to the heat. So by disabling HT I gained 200Mhz, and even with that gain my temps dropped 10-15C under load. I did see a very small lifting of minimum framerate values with HT enabled, though the gain I get from running my CPU/Memory at the higher speeds out weighs that. Since I've got HT disable I used the ussual quad core AF value of 14, which made a noticeable change than without. If you are specifically looking for more frames around airports the clock speed of the CPU will be your main concern. i7 gives FSX a pipe wide enough to operate without uneeded frame drops and blurries, but if your goal is to push the raw framerate up in intense areas you'll have to push the clock speed up quite a bit. I'd say you need 3.5GHz to make i7 shine, so to make your puchase worth the investment aim for at least 3.5GHz w/ auto voltage. When choosing a cooler I'd go for the Noctua NH-U12P SE1366, as it handily beats every other cooler on the market in every review I have read. In fact it beats all contenders with only one of its two fan in use. I only have one intalled right now, but will add the other soon. Not only is it the best as cooling, but it is also the most quiet, even with both fans installed. My motherboard, memory, CPU, and cooler totalled only $820, which is pretty damn good for a 4.2GHz rig with 1600MHz CL7 memory. Check Newegg for an EVGA X58/i7 920 combo deal, as I was able to save $25 on that. Also check Newegg for 6GB OCZ Platinum 1600 CL7 which is down to about $150, and I paid $180 a few weeks ago. So here's my system values and the cfg tweaks I have settled on after a couple weeks of testing. 200MHz w/ 21x = 4.190GHz CPU @ 1.4v 200MHz w/ 2:8 = 1600MHz memory using 7-7-7-18 1T timings. Hyperthreading = Disabled [DISPLAY] TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=120 [TERRAIN] TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=2000 //Set in-game autogen to very dense TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1700 [sCENERY] SmallPartRejectRadius=3 [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=14 [bUFFERPOOLS] PoolSize=70000000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareagle Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Thanks for that Solareagle ... more experimenting to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Solar, what do you mean "delete" Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareagle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Solar, what do you mean "delete" Frank It means the post can be deleted, or that I deleted it. It was a double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Strangely - my system likes Affinity Mask 254 better (about 3-5 fps better) So many variations on this platform Also prefers default Bufferpools setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgruschow Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I find this thread very interesting. I have been mulling over switching to I7. What I would would like to hear, is a definative answer, on what is the difference in speed and performance between a QX9860 3.0 running comfortably at 3.6 and an I7 at a reasonable overclock. From some of the previous posts it seems that my 9860 is just as good as an I7. I have found that running Win 7 64 bit I get near perfect performance with FSX. No jerks of any sort. The only problems were getting the sim to start. Sometimes it took half a dozen tries before I got it running. So I am still pondering on going to I7 now and trying the beta OS again,or waiting for the final release Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareagle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Here's some bechmarks showing the type of clock per clock performance gain that can be expected when moving from Core 2 to i7. http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5878944&postcount=4 Here's one benchmark of sorts: i7 920 @ 2.8 vs. q9550 @ 2.83 * All sliders full max except traffic, which is zeroed out * 4GB ram & ATI 4850 video in both * In B-737 ****pit, full wide view, sittling on default Runway at krno with fair wx in mid-day q9550= average of 27 fps i7 920= average of 40 fps Most games don't see much improvement with Nehalem, but it looks like those who predicted that MSFS X would benefit were absolutely right. http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5879770&postcount=12 Just did a FRAPs test on a local flight over Seattle in F-18 at 1500 ft & 300 knots over the same route. Nehalem still rules but the margin was a bit lower this time: Q9550 @2.83Ghz= 17fps average in fraps i7 920 @ 2.8 Ghz= 21 fps average in fraps That's a 23% increase in frame rate for i7, which isn't as good as the 50% I saw sitting on the runway, but lots of tests will be necessary to bracket the performance difference. The i7 ran much smoother, though, and produced a considerably-better flight experience. I suspect the Nehalem will gain ground at higher Ghz, due to better memory handling. I hope to have mine up to 3.8Ghz later in week to do more tests http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5882993&postcount=36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Thanx, mate. You can't argue with those stats. Frank P.S. Now bring on Windows 7!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.