Simviation Forums

I installed the 940 yesterday and it was a straight forward install with no problems. My motherboard recognized it on startup.

I am at 3.792G with it and that seems like it is as far as it wants to go.

I found it to run in the comfort zone overclocked so was happy with that.

Running stock speed I had 31C idle and 38 loaded.

Overclocked it is still 31 idle but jumps to 44 with a load.

I have not had FSX loaded in a while so it is time to load the sim and see what happens.

I would be interested in hearing any comments from anyone else that runs a new Phenom II

Price wise it was also in the comfort zone, $375 CND ($307 US)

Hi,

Here is a review PII
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.h ... VzaWFzdA==

Ulf B

I think its time to let them go... they were a good friend for many years however they are pretty much dead and buried in the perf computing game unless some miracle raises them up


I took a beating on their stock when I dumped it..

I think its time to let them go... they were a good friend for many years however they are pretty much dead and buried in the perf computing game unless some miracle raises them up

I am pretty much in agreement with that.

I was not trying to brag up AMD but just did the post in case anyone was thinking about buying the chip.

I think its time to let them go... they were a good friend for many years however they are pretty much dead and buried in the perf computing game unless some miracle raises them up

I am pretty much in agreement with that.

I was not trying to brag up AMD but just did the post in case anyone was thinking about buying the chip.

I know Richard  

I would really like to see people stop upgrading AMD and make the switch with FSX systems. I know some cant afford to make a full switch and if their board and BIOS support the proc it may be a upgrade for them but with AMD and FSX its like that boat, a hole in the water you throw money into

If the switch is made to the right platform, the money added up in the AMD upgrades over time could have bought Intel

FS9 was a bear but FSX is a 2000lb Hog

I really do not expect hardware to ever catch up to the title when you start talking about cars/boat/ships/airport vehicles/default traffic and water shaders at nearly 100%

The title is a year 2000 rendering engine which got some fixes and a facelift from FS9 to FSX and resold

IF they had managed to get DX10 to a FULL INSTALL mode instead of a preview I could see one getting close in a year or so but still.. the base of this product is sinkhole of memory and CPU due to its age.

The bottom line to it is FSX is like a fully loaded 10 year old heavy duty tanker truck currently being powered by a common automotive gas engine.

The truck is so heavy and old I bet even the next 2 years wont deliver hardware able to run it flat out simply because the problem is hardware is going one way toward shader powered 3D engines and the FSX core engine is stuck in 2002



I really think people should start planning the full monty upgrade if they wish to move into 2009/2010 with any fun  :)

I could not agree more.

I hope to move a couple of my AMD computers to the down town office (pay checks again) where they are better suited.

If that happens I will do the "full monty" with an new Intel system.

Not working for the last year has put a crimp on my computer budget.

you get that high a score on your benchmark with an AMD?

look at my specs and I'm only getting 16,305 marks with my cpu and gpu both highly clocked

I wish AMD would step it up. I mean, REALL REALLY REALLY step it UUPP!!!! If they don't, they are going to go down in the old technology books as the biggest failures in techo history. I have an AMD Athlon 64 x2 4800+ and I am saving up to buy a new board and a new CPU. Probably a Q6600 or E8600.


PS, does anyone know what the best CPU you can get for $200 max?

Thanks!

you get that high a score on your benchmark with an AMD?

look at my specs and I'm only getting 16,305 marks with my cpu and gpu both highly clocked

isnt it funny how much of a crock 3D mark really is?

He has a shader engine video card

isnt it funny how much of a crock 3D mark really is?

He has a shader engine video card

I am not a big believer in synthetic bench marks, but I have run the same basic setup for years so it is nice to see some improvement after spending the money.

Actually I made the 3DMark06 run to check CPU temps and thought I might as well post it.

The 4000 series ATI cards rip through 3DMark like it rips through Crysis so the scores will always be better. That was my main point about FSX... the hardware is moving away from how FSX is designed and as it does FSX run worse on it even though the hardware is much faster and better designed.

If you really want to push the CPU use OCCT v2.01

The 1hr auto test will bleed the CPU till it screams  :)

If you really want to push the CPU use OCCT v2.01

The 1hr auto test will bleed the CPU till it screams

Well, I could not finish at 3.8, 3.7 or 3.6g. I crashed and rebooted at about the 5 minute mark. Temps were not the fault (54F max).

Ran it at stock settings and it ran fine.

Prime95 ran fine at the highter settings. What is the major difference in the 2 programs that one will crash and the other does not?

OCCT nails the memory subsystem as well as the CPU caches

so if you crash on OCCT you probably are unstable somewhere

Its well known you can prime all day long and still crash on OCCT which is why its replacing PRIME as the preferred stability test

however this new processor may not be supported in OCCT like i7.. I did not think about that.. They are updating it now to v3.x so that may be a reason too