Sponsor Message:
Aviation Hobby Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question Regarding CPUs & FSX  
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2314 posts, RR: 21
Posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12744 times:

I'm looking at different CPUs trying to compare their specs.

I'd like to know how big the difference is between these two processors:

Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) E6600, 2,4GHz, EMT64, 4MB, LGA775

and

Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) E6700, 2,67GHz, EMT64, 4MB, LGA775

Would the 0,27ghz mean a lot of difference if used with FSX?

Sorry I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to this kind of thing :P

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2314 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12743 times:

I should add that the price tags on those two CPUs are very different.. that's why i'm wondering. The 2,67ghz processor is almost double the price

User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12736 times:

Hey, i would not recomend you getting a dual core processor...
the reason: Dual Core only works with programs that have been written for dual threading. And sadly FSX is not capable of doing this yet but they have stated a patch will be released in a year or so with vista coming out.

And using dual core on a non dual core prog. can make it run even slower than normal.

Again my mothers friend works for a pc magazine and I get a lot of info. from him,
so for now i would stick with a normal CPU look at some Pentium 4 or AMD processor!

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2314 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12740 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 2):
Hey, i would not recomend you getting a dual core processor...
the reason: Dual Core only works with programs that have been written for dual threading. And sadly FSX is not capable of doing this yet but they have stated a patch will be released in a year or so with vista coming out.

And using dual core on a non dual core prog. can make it run even slower than normal.

Again my mothers friend works for a pc magazine and I get a lot of info. from him,
so for now i would stick with a normal CPU look at some Pentium 4 or AMD processor!

Thanks for the advice!
I am just wondering what will make fsx run smoothly then.. My graphicscard is one of the best you can get at the moment and I have 2gb of ram..

my processor is a 3,2 ghz pentium 4 processor.


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12693 times:

Thanks for the advice!
I am just wondering what will make fsx run smoothly then.. My graphicscard is one of the best you can get at the moment and I have 2gb of ram..

my processor is a 3,2 ghz pentium 4 processor.

Correct me if im wrong but i heard that the chip makers really screwed up the the whole ghz speed thing, and that now a 2.67 ( as noted above) is not the equivialent of a 2.67 we're used to, and that Intel's chips while having a higher displayed clock speed don't actually perform higher than comparable AMD chips.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12667 times:

Quoting Greaser (Reply 4):
Correct me if im wrong but i heard that the chip makers really screwed up the the whole ghz speed thing, and that now a 2.67 ( as noted above) is not the equivialent of a 2.67 we're used to, and that Intel's chips while having a higher displayed clock speed don't actually perform higher than comparable AMD chips.

Measuring a processors speed in Ghz/Mhz has always been a bad way of doing it, however there is not really a better way of doing it, so its continued to be used. When referring to a processors "speed", you are talking about the number of cycles a processor can perform per second (mhz / ghz). Given that each processors can perform a different number of tasks per cycle, this figure is an unreliable measure.

Take for example AMD chips, as you suggest. AMD chips are normally quoted as being "3200+", the Ghz/Mhz is never mentioned. The reason being that this processor infact performs just 2,800mhz, however as the processor can perform more instructions per cycle, it is roughly equivelent to a pentium running at 3.2ghz.

Now that we are moving into dual and even quad core processors, the ghz speed is even less reliable. A 3ghz quad core processor can perform 4 times as many instructions per cycle as a single core processor, however ONLY if the application has been written to take advantage of dual/quad cores.

An alternative measurement is MIPS (milions of instructions persecond) however even this has issues and is not an accurate reflection of a processors speed.

Processors are very complicated things, and there is no easy way to measure and compare their peformance.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineGoinv From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 264 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 12653 times:

My understanding of Dual Core processors was that they can handle two different applications at once.

So, for example, my AMD Athlon 64 3000+ needs to run FS, Anti-Virus and whatever else is running in the background.

With a dual core processor, wouldn't one core look after FS (meaning the full processing power of a single processor is available) whilst the other core could run my anti-virus software?

Am I right, reading the comments in this post that, with a dual core processor, a single core would still run FS and AV etc whilst the other core remains static ?



Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12632 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 2):
Hey, i would not recomend you getting a dual core processor...
the reason: Dual Core only works with programs that have been written for dual threading. And sadly FSX is not capable of doing this yet but they have stated a patch will be released in a year or so with vista coming out.

I was informed that only the Deluxe version will be capable of running Dual-Core, and only with Vista. Is this true?


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12623 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 7):
I was informed that only the Deluxe version will be capable of running Dual-Core, and only with Vista. Is this true?

Almost right  Smile'

All FSX versions will be able to run Dual Core once the patch is out.
Once vista in out january-feb. 07 then we can expect the dual core patch
along with a good range of DX10 cards. And yes I know the Nvidia Geforce 8000 is coming in nov. 06 but it is the first DX10 card and is not all too stable yet.

Regarding the Dual Core etc. i got some more information from my mothers friend.

The dual core is capable of operating two programms better of course, so
FS and an Anti virus for example with more ease. But! it will not be able to use all of its processing speed. So all programms will run slower with dual core if they were not made for dual core and the only advantage it has is that the processor uses about 5% less in processing power to do 2 programms but will not operate faster than a pentium 4 3,4Ghz.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 3):
Thanks for the advice!
I am just wondering what will make fsx run smoothly then.. My graphicscard is one of the best you can get at the moment and I have 2gb of ram..my processor is a 3,2 ghz pentium 4 processor.

That is another thing with FSX!

The problem again is that FSX is programmed for Vista and will only run perfectly on Vista so its not your system specs. but windows XP! So there is no need to worry and once Vista is out you will be able to use you PC with full power.



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2314 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12618 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 8):
The problem again is that FSX is programmed for Vista and will only run perfectly on Vista so its not your system specs. but windows XP! So there is no need to worry and once Vista is out you will be able to use you PC with full power.

Thanks that comment saved my day Big grin


User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12584 times:

You can change the program affinity to have it run on which CPU you decide or just use either. Its kind of hard for me to set affinity cause I honestly disable viruscan and other programs when I play games. I have a NAT firewall so I am not affected security issues when playing games online with no background tasks running. so I wont bother with affinity settings, but

I need to wait for Vista.

I wish the dual-core patch would be allowed for even Windows XP 64Bit which
I am using now.



There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12564 times:

Quoting Malaysia (Reply 10):
I wish the dual-core patch would be allowed for even Windows XP 64Bit which
I am using now.

Yup.. sucks! i use the XP64bit SP2 and thats why I stayed with a pentium 4 with 3,4GHz 4GB RAM and my new Dual Nvidia Geforce 7960 with 1Gb memory each.

They only thing FSX now operates compared to FS9 is when you have dual cards with SLI Antialising SLI 8x and SLI 16x

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineSv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12546 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 8):
The problem again is that FSX is programmed for Vista and will only run perfectly on Vista so its not your system specs. but windows NEW: Xtra Airways (USA) and OLD: Casino Express (USA)">XP! So there is no need to worry and once Vista is out you will be able to use you PC with full power.

unfortunatly this is a myth and completly wrong.

- Vista will likely slow the game down on the same (any given) hardware because it uses more resources.

- FSX might be optimised for Vista and DX10 but this means I think nicer graphics, not improved FPS (although a small improvement might be possible).

It will run faster on Vista BUT ONLY WITH NEW DX10 HARDWARE (Video card and faster CPU). You are unlikely to see any improvement on your existing (DX9) hardware.

Remember the main reason it'll run faster with DX10 is that DX10 cards are simply newer and faster than DX9 cards! it has minimal to do with Vista.


This is one exception to all this - if you have bought a DX10 card but using it with NEW: Xtra Airways (USA) and OLD: Casino Express (USA)">XP, and you then upgrade to Vista, you will probably see a small but noticeable improvement.



I think people who install Vista on their existing hardware and expect it to run better are going to be very dissapointed.

I don't dislike Vista - but it's a next generation of OS for a next gen of hardware that dosn't really exist yet.


I


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12505 times:

Quoting Sv2008 (Reply 12):
- FSX might be optimised for Vista and DX10 but this means I think nicer graphics, not improved FPS (although a small improvement might be possible).

I cant fully agree on that, because all that SLI stuff and dual core is not capable of operating on FSX yet until the patch comes out. So the FPS will get better with vista and DX 10 cards.

And FSX will be able to be used at full power once Vista is out because it will run smoother. Correct that Vista runs on more resources but Vista in quicker as a operating system operating a lot better.

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineSv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12492 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 13):
I cant fully agree on that, because all that SLI stuff and dual core is not capable of operating on FSX yet until the patch comes out. So the FPS will get better with vista and DX 10 cards.

XP supports SLi so it's not Vista thats adding that feature, and FSX dosn't support dual core either. Again it's the game that needs patching.

Some versions of XP (not many) already supprot Dual core but the game won't use it without a patch.

It will get better with DX10 cards but mainly because the Dx10 cards are more powerful hardware.

Remember, lots of people will upgrade to Vista with Dx9 cards expecting miracles with the FPS. Vista will have the features but the card won't support them.

If you upgrade to a DX10 card of course then they'll be an improvement.

Quote:

And FSX will be able to be used at full power once Vista is out because it will run smoother.

Well just MS have said this. I think what they really mean is that "with Vista, with Dx10, With a Dx10 video card, with a powerful modern CPU, the game will run better".

Not the same as running better on older hardware! The reason I won't upgrade my current system to Vista.

As for Vista running quicker.........I'll believe it when I see it. Again I think it'll be heavily hardware dependant on if it runs quicker or not. Of course it'll run quicker on newer hardware.

Many people have upgraded recently but many haven't.

[Edited 2006-10-27 19:14:50]

User currently offlineSean377 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1225 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12481 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 13):
So the FPS will get better with vista and DX 10 cards.

I agree with what sv2008 is trying (without much success) to say. The PC you are running XP and FSX on right now, will not run FSX any better if you upgrade that same PC to Vista.



Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man... Landing is the first!
User currently offlineKovi17 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12478 times:

Im running with a intel dual core and its working just fine....


We dont worry about small things like that...
User currently offlineNycfly75 From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 750 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12475 times:

I said this in another thread, but its more valid in this one:
Well, I may be doing a FS first, installing it on a dual core mac. I put windows xp pro (nervously) on my mac using the bootcamp feature. I must tell you, it works like a charm. I put FS2004 and maxed everything out and it works better than when I had my dual core Dell XPS (Weird huh?). Im wondering if I should invest in FSX. So yes, you can run FS on a Mac, even though its on a partition with Windows XP on it.

Config: (on the XP partition)
New 20" Imac with
2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
1 GB 667 MHZ SDRAM (soon upgrading to 2 gig)
ATI Radeon X1600 PCI 128mb

As I said FS2004 works perfectly maxed out on here, I would like input about putting FSX on Thanks!


User currently offlineSv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12471 times:

About the FPs generally, FSX is a detailed game, but it runs worse than it should really on lower settings.

Some things like autogen really hurt the FPS. MS might yet release a patch to improve things.


User currently offlineGoinv From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 264 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12429 times:

I looked at a retail box of FSX yesterday - although I'm waiting for xmas to get it as a present.

It was interesting to see that Microsoft had but the Inbel Core Duo Extreme logo on the back.

Do you think that this is the processor that we should aspire to have for FS - albeitt at something like four times the price of most other processors (£650 here in the UK) ?



Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
User currently offlineSv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12421 times:

No, MS just have marketing deals with intel probably, it dosn't mean much, although they'd like you to think so of course so you buy it!

AMD has a reputation for being better CPU for games anyway (although everyone has a favourite brand, either intel or AMD, or Nvidia or ATi).


User currently offlineDreamer From Norway, joined Jul 2004, 374 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12381 times:

At this point in time no AMD can compare to Intels latest chips in performance ( read one article her http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1988799,00.asp )

or here from zdnet http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=240

Also saying that the speed of the chip is the way to look at performance is totally wrong, to understand why it is so, read up on the technology at the page listed above. Going back to the thread starter where he is talking about core2duo, well, right now it is the best you can get and will beat AMD.

Testing at many different sites proves this hands down, see a list of comments from sites like Tomshardware and the rest of the gang http://www.intel.com/personal/our-te...duo/quotes.htm?iid=ptab+c2dquotes.

Maybe AMD can deliver more later, but now (somehow) intels latest chips rock and use less power and create less heat.

[Edited 2006-10-29 00:57:58]


still dreaming after all these years
User currently offlinePSAjet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 12319 times:

I have not heard one word that Microsoft is working on a "patch" to make FSX work with multi-processor systems. One of the ACES designers (tdragger)has tried to explain this a number of times in the discussion groups on sites like Avsim. He explains that the entire core of the application would have to be re written to fully take advantage of multiple processors...something that did not happen with FSX (and Vista will not fix this).

Applications like FSX require multiple threads running differing parts of the system. One thread might control your aircraft, another the weather, and another the AI aircraft around you. All of these thread may have to communicate with each other to exchange data that is then utilized in that thread such as the AI thread telling the your aircraft thread where the planes are so they can be visually seen by you when you look out the cockpit window.

If thread are spread across two or more CPUs, there will be times that CPU 1 will have to wait for data from CPU 2 and you know what that means to your smooth flying aircraft.

Please read tdragger's The Last Word on Dual Core in his blog at:

tdragger's blog


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12306 times:

Quoting PSAjet17 (Reply 22):
I have not heard one word that Microsoft is working on a "patch" to make FSX work with multi-processor systems.

Neither have I, only a Vista "patch". If I've said otherwise it's just because I got swept along in the discussion but I'm still not convinced a dual-core processor won't make any difference to FSX. I still think having background tasks taking advantage of dual-core has to help a bit, even if FSX is restricted to one core.


User currently offlineGofly From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 1727 posts, RR: 39
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So should I not even think about throwing the Core 2 Quatro QX6700 2.67GHz Quad Core (which is out at the end of this month) into the equation?  Wink


Living the high life on my ex-Airliners.net Moderator pension...
25 Post contains images David L : Oh, I think you should... if only for our entertainment.
26 Dreamer : Absolutely, of course it will help. Are you also running other stuff, squakbox,vatsim, if so it will help, pluss everything else that runs on your sy
27 Post contains links Gofly : Some interesting links: http://www.uk2000scenery.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=197.0
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Question Regarding CPUs & FSX
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Aviation hobby related posts only.
  • Back all your opinions with facts.
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question Regarding Multiple Engine Control In Fs posted Sat Nov 18 2006 17:33:12 by AirPacific747
Question Regarding Fs Passengers... posted Thu May 11 2006 14:31:43 by AirPacific747
Fsx Question? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 14:56:12 by JamesJimlb
NAV I & II Or ILS Question! posted Thu May 18 2006 22:56:15 by NASOCEANA
Question For FS 2k2 & 2k4 Users posted Tue Oct 4 2005 12:52:14 by Eirjet
FSX Setup Suggestions posted Tue Nov 21 2006 00:26:59 by Dw747400
FSX Xbox Question posted Mon Nov 20 2006 03:32:21 by F9Animal
FSX Crashing Problem posted Mon Nov 20 2006 02:49:34 by Longhornmaniac
Upgrade To FSX Deluxe? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 02:32:57 by Jhooper
Whens The Last Time You Crashed? & New Website! posted Sat Nov 18 2006 03:00:22 by CSDBA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format