Simviation Forums

I'll try to keep this from getting too confusing (for me)..

I'm sitting on a relatively new m-board (Asus A8N-E), with an Athlon64 3700, a 7800GT256

I'd go the AMD route because you seem to have an AMD board right? so stick with AMD. The ram will be worth buying, FSX is proof of that, and I hear BF2 is as well. Personally I plan to eventually upgrade to a 4600 or 4800 simply because my motherboard allows it, but there are a few people on here who would probably tell you to yank the board out, buy a new one and the intel.... but for ease I'd stay with AMD!

Cheers, Gunny

EDIT: Just so you know, I hate intels.... I am all AMD, Flame away at me!

Thanks Gunny.. that's kinda what I'm figuring..

By my VERY limited knowledge.. I'm thinking that an E6600/DDR2 setup is probably faster than the 4800/DDR.. but just about any video-card (within reason) is gonna be the weak link when it comes to FSX, for either of them..

For example.. right now, with my 7800GT256, I'd probably not see a difference.

Am I right ?

From what hear the Intels are a good leap and bound ahead of the AMDs (Well this to me is opinion, but every intel user I can see is raving about them) Now you would see a difference with a processer change in certain applications, But as for gaming? you'd need a DX10 card, and I guess the processers will bottleneck the 8800 Series. This is what I am able to pick up through various things I've seen...

Cheers, Gunny (I could be a bit off)

EDIT: Correct about FSX, its all about VISTA, DX10 Conversion, and a DX10 card to run it (So Microsoft says)

Code: Select all

 I know that the new Intel E6600 is the best buy for speed.

Wrong. The E6300 is the best, the extra 2mb cache really does not make a huge amount of difference. Every one of these I have seen can hit 3.2Ghz, which is one hell of an overclock and the thing flies!

The DDR/DRR2 difference is mininal. Very little real world performance difference at all.

Overall I recommend the Conroe route, it WILL save you money in the future, guaranteed.

As for bottlenecks, whilst the G80 core is fantastic, it will probably still be the bottleneck for games, as the dual core processors can easily cope with the load put on them during gameplay.

Jon

As for bottlenecks, whilst the G80 core is fantastic, it will probably still be the bottleneck for games, as there is not a huge amount of load on the CPU during gaming, and it's a dual core anyway!!

See ?

That's true as far as it goes.

The only reason I'm recommending the extra dosh now for the Conroe system is the money it will save in the future. And you get the added advantage of a much faster processor (for encoding etc) now.

Jon

Would a properly O-clocked E6600 rig with 2GB of the DDR2 RAM be that much faster than an Athlon64 4800 with 2GB of the old DDR RAM ?

Definately. You wouldn't even need to overclock the E6600 to beat the 4800. A stock E6600 runs faster a little faster than an Athlon FX-62.

Thanks GeForce..

I'm usually on a 9 month upgrade schedule. I got this 3700 back in April.. and will probably go with an Intel / DDR2 setup later in 2007...  That is,  IF  I'm  correct in assuming that as long as it's 2GB of RAM and a good v-card.. it really won't matter whether it's a Athlon4400/DDR or an E6600/DDR2 when Vista and DX10 hit the scene..(for FSX)

Yeah, your best bet is to wait. When DirectX10 hardware hits the shelves there should be price cuts too.

Definately. You wouldn't even need to overclock the E6600 to beat the 4800. A stock E6600 runs at around Athlon FX-62 speeds.

Hi cheesegrater..

Yeah.. I know that, but isn't that just numbers and potential ?

Will it really perform much better in FSX where even a G80 v-card might be the bottleneck ?

I'm still naively thinking that (especially when two cores are put to work by Vista) either cpu is MORE than enough.. and theV-card will be the weak link..

(I know it sounds like I'm repeating myself)

The 4400+ and the 4800+ are the same anyway Brett, most guys seem to get around 2.6ghz on stock air cooling before having to change things for more speed.

You can get 4400+'s pretty cheap now so I'd do that, and I am going that route myself as well.

The only bug in the ointment is the price of ram at the moment, but this is a constant cost no matter which route you take.

Don't under estimate the CPU power that FSX will, but trying to predict what usage under FSX and Vista? Maybe Nick has some idea of whether or not it's actually going to be enough.

There is no argument that an E6600 has higher potential, however, by the time you are going to need that much cpu power, there will be a much better option from some quarter.

Your current video card is certainly limited under FSX, just look at the review of the new 8800GTX when tested with FSX......... they were reporting under 1 FPS with sliders maxed on an E6600 rig LOL!
Suffice to say that the 8800GTX is one heck of a card, and even it cannot cope with the full brunt of FSX, not even close.

A 4400+ and 1 gb of ram is a good cheap interim upgrade while the intel crowd is basking in some limelight at the moment, but anyone serious about FSX performance should wait until we see the release of Vista, FSX patches and second generation DX10 hardware.

Thanks Congo..

Heap big Chief Congo speaks with strait tongue

Me no see no reason to trade buffalo and land for reservation... better to wait and let great eagle of the sky provide way to fly after many moons pass and new thunder comes over horizon from hardware gods.




But if you have the cash and are willing to play a bit, lay it down for the Conroe system with the PC8000+ memory and good motherboard. At least that way the money you put down will actually provide an improvement in FSX. The video card needs to go to but you can get a cheap interim card until the smoke clears and then plug a rocket into that new board.

It all comes down to if you really want to play right now.. if so, you gotta pay.

Things may not change that much between now and March however by then it will be defines what

[quote]Thanks Congo..