Simviation Forums

Still not sure which AMD to get to be able to fly FSX... which one do you have and how well does it take on FSX?

Cheers.

AMD Socket A, Athlon XP Thoroughbred 2600+ MMX....(2.1 GHz).... ...!

One of the oldest Micro-Processors in the whole history of Micro-Processors...

...and it runs my FS '98, FS 2000, FS 2002, FS2004, and FSX wonderfully!... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]...!

(It just gets a little bit warm, now and again)... ...!

Paul.... ... .... ...!

I have the 7850 Kuma BE
and it is decent, with 30% airline traffic, 15% GA, and all Medium High settings I get solid 20-30 FPS depending on the air port.
If your looking for a good CPU (AM3)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103846
Overkill AM3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103849
    
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 3471       am2+
EDIT-added more cpus
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 3674        AM3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 3727          AM3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 3692            AM3

btw what board do you have?

For FSX you're going to want the fastest Phenom II x4 (QUAD CORE) you can get.

AMD quad 955 clocked at 3.9 GHz stable, seeems its clocks better then the 965, and this is on air. Just get a heatpipe cooler and youll be good.

If you're doing a new build.. I'd still advise Intel..

If you're doing a new build.. I'd still advise Intel..

Intel is good and all, but I prefer AMD.
More affordable.
No heat problems so far.
I max out at 29 C on a 80 F day while playing FSX(non oc atm)(and on stock cooler)
And when my CPU fried from my psu, they replaced it no question asked,even thought I had a pin bent a little bit too.

but then again both CPU companies excel in one thing,
Speed vs Toughness basically.

Plus I can get all my drivers from one site(amd/ati)

More affordable.

People seem to have this weird misconception that Intel does not have cheap processors. They do. It just depends on what kind of product you are after. FSX loves quad cores. Therefore, if you're looking for a really cheap quadcore then AMD is the way to go. The Phenom II x4 940 is practically unbeatable in that regard. If we up the ante, the slowest Intel quad core (Core i5 750) is just as good as competition from AMD (Phenom II x4 955 / 965) for a similar price. The i5 750 also puts out less heat, and overclocks further than competition from AMD. If you're looking for premium performance then the only product that can give that is Core i7. Which product is the best for you? It depends on your price and your required performance level. It would be stupid to recommend a Core i7 960 to someone who needs a quad core yet has a budget of $140 where a Phenom II 945 would be a far better option. Likewise, it would be stupid to recommend a Phenom II 940 to someone who needs a Core i7 930. Consider all options.

I don't like it when people advice one computer manufacturer over another without taking into account the performance requested and price range. There are plenty of great AMD processors, and great Intel processors....

No heat problems so far.

No processor should EVER have heat problems on stock cooling. In my experience stock coolers are garbage for overclocking, but have considerable margin at stock speeds. When you hear about overheating it's always due to dust, improper heatsink installation, and improper overclocks. I had an old Pentium 4 Dell that was overheating. It was due to faulty heatsink supplied by DELL.

I max out at 29 C on a 80 F day while playing FSX(non oc atm)(and on stock cooler)

What are your idle temperatures on an 80F day?

Plus I can get all my drivers from one site(amd/ati)

So? The drivers on the intel website are not difficult to find. Windows 7 downloads them automatically.

No current Intel processor uses pins. They're on the motherboard...

but then again both CPU companies excel in one thing,
Speed vs Toughness basically.

Not sure what you mean? I've never had a CPU die on me. It's generally other components that go first. The processor I have at the moment has a reputation of being practically indestructible.

Of course, budget is a concern.. but in the building of a new computer, ground up.. an extra $100, and even $200 spent on the processor, is relatively small, when you consider that you'll be using the computer for at least a couple years.

At this point, a quad-core is a given.. and a cpu speed approaching more than 3.5ghz is assumed. If that's not your target for an new, FSX build, you'll regret not waiting till that target fits you budget.

Now.. aside from CPU speed, the CPU's architecture and cache size/handling is important. In other words..an Intel quad-core running at the same speed as an AMD quad-core will outperform it pretty significantly, in FSX. NickN explained it to me, many moons ago.

It's kinda like when AMD's architecture was far superior. Circa 1998 to 2004, a gamer wouldn't even consider an Intel CPU. AMD even labeled their chips so that you could reference them to Intel's performance. Remember the days of an AMD 2000XP ? It ran at 1.6 Ghz, but could perform with a 2.0ghz  Intel (hence the 2000).. and an AMD 2500  at 1.8ghz, could game like a 2.5ghz Intel.

If you're building a new computer meant to run FSX... Intel is the way to go (for now).

NNNG what I ment in my comments were the fact that the best intel cpus are expensive, when a almost equal match (in terms of CPU speed in Ghz) is the same or better. Now intel from what I seen beats AMD in all of those other categorizes like cache and stuff.
-----
After rereading my comment about heat, I do agree with you on that,
-----
Idle temps are 20 C-23
-----
I have XP, so it is more convenient

Thanks for all the in put, sorry I didn't thank you before was out.. Well I'm limited to AMD as thats what my MOBO takes at the moment I have a 545 dual.. so looking for an upgrade was looking at the "AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad-Core Processor - 3.20 GHz" as mentioned in the Hardware area of the forum.. but wanted to double check that the 955 can handle FSX, I don't know how to overclock so what to really keep it stock.

The 955 is easy to over clock, just change the multiplier to X18 and it will run at 3.6 Ghs happily on stock heatsink, then try X18.5 that will get you 3.7 Ghz and make sure it is the C3 ver identified by the part number
     HDZ955FBK4DGM or on the box
     HDZ955FBGMBOX.
It wil go higher but that requiers some fiddling

NNNG what I ment in my comments were the fact that the best intel cpus are expensive, when a almost equal match (in terms of CPU speed in Ghz) is the same or better. Now intel from what I seen beats AMD in all of those other categorizes like cache and stuff.

Remember that different CPU's get different amounts of performance per clock cycle. As an example, a Core 2 Duo E6300 at 1.83ghz will perform like a 3.6ghz Pentium D. An AMD FX-55 at 2.6ghz will outperform a Pentium 4 overclocked to 4.4ghz. The Phenom II gets slightly less performance per clock cycle compared to a Core 2 Quad, ergo a 3.0ghz QX6850 is approximately as fast as a 3.2ghz Phenom II 955. That's where the efficiency of the Core i5 750, and Core i7 comes into play. A 2.66ghz Core i5 750 will be as fast as a 3.2ghz Phenom II 955. A 2.66ghz Core i7 920 will kill the Core i5, and almost every other processor (except faster versions of the i7) as it is even more efficient.

That's why my most recommended processor as the moment is the Core i5 750. It's 2.66ghz stock, but performs like a 3.0ghz Core 2 Quad or 3.2ghz Phenom II. It gets the most performance per watt of any processor (technically a Core i7 860 would probably do better). It will also overclock to 3.8ghz on good air cooling, which is a massive 43% overclock. Going from 2.66ghz to 3.8ghz is a bigger deal than a Phenom II going from 3.2ghz to 4ghz, or a Core 2 Quad going to 3.8ghz.



http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/U ... tled-2.jpg


That's a SINGLE core of my Q6600 @ 3.0ghz versus a 3.4ghz Pentium 4.

Idle temps are 20 C-23

You might want to check your temperatures. They seem low. 23 degrees celcius is only 74 degrees F, which would be impossible if ambient is 80F. I'm betting the software you're using is buggy and is recording ambient temperatures for some reason.

Of course, budget is a concern.. but in the building of a new computer, ground up.. an extra $100, and even $200 spent on the processor, is relatively small, when you consider that you'll be using the computer for at least a couple years.

I agree that people shouldn't buy really cheap hardware, because you get what you pay for. But $200 is a fair amount of money, and that adds up because you have to pair it with more expensive memory and motherboard. As of February this year only 1% of processors were LGA 1366........... you should change it to intel socket 1366 and quad core socket 1156 is the way to go (1156 dual cores suck). I would hate for a larger amount of users to buy a Core i3-530 instead of a nice Phenom II x4 925 because in that price range ($120) then intel is clearly not better.

Just checked and my CPU temp reader is 10 off from BIOS.
So I am running at an average of 35-40 on idle, and maybe 40-45 on FSX load.I ensure my case is not over heating, I have dealt with that before...
And about price, i7s may preform like that, but that is a pretty heavy price tag.(and ya you get what you pay for)  But, if you look on both ends, getting the best line CPU will cost about the same in the end, but, AMD has a lot of in bewteen lines.(not sure about Intel, don't check on them that much)
And plus I know more about AMD than I do about Intel.

Now if I had the money I would switch to Intel, or when I build my next build if they are cheaper than now I might go to them, seeing a good amount of people know about them.



Now if I was given this for free
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115212

I would sure switch in a nanosecond.

If given normal I7 probably in a a week when a new board would come to me

Don't rule out an LGA775 CPU...

My Q9550 is 45nm, and 12MB L2.. clocks effortlessly to 3.6Ghz.. and can be had for $280 

The only tangible advantage that an 'i' has, is that it will clock a little higher, and runs a little cooler.