Recommend a CPU for Flight Simlator Fiend

[wacki]

Recommend a CPU for a flight simulator fiend. Mostly MS flight simulator.

Right now I was thinking of the:
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor Model BX80570E8400 - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115037

Thoughts? Other recommendations?



Current setup:
Mobo - ASUS p5qc
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...131327&Tpk=ASUS%20p5qc

Monitors

Dual 25" LCD screens with DVI connectors.

CPU
In process of purchasing... possibly this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814150314
XFX 9800 gtx+

Powersupply - Corsair vx450w
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article751-page1.html


Thanks for the help!

 

[james1701]

FSX gets a big boost with quad cores.

 

[betasub]

Second and third egg links don't work (for me at least).

James is right that FSX demands a quad. Which one depends on your budget (Q9300?).

Also go big on RAM (both system and video): a new build with 4GB RAM and a gfx card with >512MB vRAM (of course this assumes a 64bit OS).

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: james1701
FSX gets a big boost with quad cores.

this. fs9, not so much, fsx yes.

 

[mmntech]

FSX has native multi core support since SP1. A quad core would be best since the FS series is vary CPU intensive. For RAM, you should have at least 2gb for XP, 4gb for Vista.

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: james1701
FSX gets a big boost with quad cores.

Big boost? Do you have any articles that I can read? Benchmarks?

I'm basically budgeted ~$350 for the CPU and video card. Do you have a recommended setup?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Q9300 $240 I would actually recommend the Q9400 for $15 more at eWiz

4670 1gb $90

 

[james1701]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115017

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?Item=N82E16814121278R

With dual 25" monitor, you need at least a 1gb card for textures. I would go with nothing else.

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: james1701
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115017

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?Item=N82E16814121278R

With dual 25" monitor, you need at least a 1gb card for textures. I would go with nothing else.

Looks like this item has been deactivated. :-( I'm sure I can find something similar though.

Does anyone have any supporting evidence that a quad core CPU w/ $100 card is much better for Flight Simulator X than a dual core with a $200 graphics card?

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: wacki
Does anyone have any supporting evidence that a quad core CPU w/ $100 card is much better for Flight Simulator X than a dual core with a $200 graphics card?

GPU vs CPU review: FSX

The take-home message I got was just how CPU-bound FSX is, although clock speed and large cache seem to be more important than the extra cores.

There's very little separation between the newer (G9x) cards on the Q6600@3.2GHz until resolution is increased to 1920x1200, and even then, the larger frame buffer of the 1GB 9600GT OC wins out over the faster GPU of the 9800GTX 512MB. So a high-end, expensive GPU isn't necessary.

 

[Denithor]

More benchmarks to show interesting results.

Tom's FSX 1280x1024 ultra quality
Tom's FSX 1920x1200 ultra quality

Look closely there. The top cards are all nVidia. That's your first clue for what to buy.

Hmmm...

Now consider that dropping from 1920x1200 to 1280x1024 (both ultra quality) with the same GPUs only results in a 3fps increase. Yep, you read that right: 3fps!!! And you see less than 2fps difference among the top ten cards, ranging from an $80 9600GT to a $350 GTX 280. Which tells me this game is insanely CPU bound.

EDIT: However, after further consideration of the benchmark provided by betasub, it looks like clockspeed reigns supreme over number of cores. Because the E6750 @ 2.67GHz beats the Q6600 @ 2.4GHz and if the game was fully core optimized the Q should have no problem beating up a faster E-series chip.

So, to summarize: fast nVidia video card (9800GTX or GTX260 depending on budget) and a fast dual-core (overclocked e8400) is probably the way to go.

 

[betasub]

The benchmarks I linked claim to use MS's latest Service Pack for FSX that (accordinging to MS) includes performance enhancements to provide:

20 to 50 performance increase [and] optimize for multi-core CPUs and improve draw times for faster loading.

Surprising then that the C2Q @2.4GHz (stock) didn't perform better than a slightly higher clocked C2D.

9600GT 1GB is the bang-for-buck stand-out card for high-res FSX.

 

[Denithor]

When did the SP for FSX come out? Toms is bad about not running the latest patches/drivers/etc so their charts can be suspect at times.

But also keep in mind that a dual-core chip is by definition multi-core and many, many games are "optimized for multi-core CPUs" but still gain zero advantage from quads versus duals.

If you take a look at this benchmark you'll see a fast dual-core beating up quads soundly in 3 of 4 games. In the last game (UT3) the E8600 drops back to fourth place, only beating the much slower Q8200 (which is neutered by its 4MB total cache) and the Phenom X4 9950 (actually, kind of surprising, and disheartening for AMD's future).

Now, if FSX has been optimized for quad-core then the recommendation would stand at Q9400 or Q9550 depending on budget. If still only optimized for dual-core stick with an E8400 and OC the snot out of it.

 

[wacki]

Thanks guys. I got the:
EVGA 01G-P3-N870-AR GeForce 9600 GT 1GB
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz
4 gigs (2x2GB) of ram

 

[betasub]

Looks good wacki, I hope you friend enjoys his air miles!