Which CPU for FSX?

[AD-15]

hello,

I currently own a PC system with an intel E6600. I run FSX (flight simulator) the most. However, I am quite disappointed with the performance I get with the 6600. Does anyone have an idea on which CPU I should upgrade to? I've been thinking about getting one of the mid-range quad cores, or the new E8600 CPU. I don't care how it runs other games, as they are normally GPU reliant. FSX however is massively CPU-bound.

Thanks in advance!

[Mossy]

Does FSX utilise 4 cores?

and what motherboard did you purchase now?

[Taz]

I'm running FSX (with the Acceleration Pack) on an overclocked Q6600 (3.0GHz) on Vista 64-bit. It runs fine at 1920x1200 on an 8800GT video card. Perhaps consider the Acceleration Pack as a first option?

Slightly off-topic, I wasn't able to get FSX to run in 32-bit colour mode at 1920x1200. I noticed a Physx application installed on my PC that I uninstalled and after that I was able to select 1920x1200 at 32-bit colour depth. I also had to check the Directx 10 box in the general setup (same panel as the resolution change).

FSX runs very smoothly at decent frame rates and is quite breathtaking with lots of detail enabled.

[AD-15]

hello,

Thanks for your advice guys.

Paul, I got an Abit IP-35 pro with my 3XS system. I'm not entirely sure whether FSX uses the four cores.

I don't care about budget (within reason obviously ) or how other apps will run, just which CPU will run FSX at the highest frame rate possible.

BTW, I have SP2 and SP1 installed, if that's of any help.

[Powderhound]

FSX only uses four cores during loading, using only the one ingame, so I have found that one core is maxed out (and yes, I do have SP1 and 2) while the others are unused.

[kevwill]

There was an article in Computer Pilot which did some tests on FSX using different systems. As I recall, the author said that FSX ran better on 2-core than 4.

[AD-15]

hello,

Thanks for that kevwill. Do you remember when it was roughly?

Thanks a lot man!

[AD-15]

*bump*

[AD-15]

hello,

I've done a bit of searching on google, and came across this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247975-28-quandry

According to this thread, quad core is the way to go.

Powerhound, I saw this on the NV forums:

for the multiple core support in fsX, to work effectivly you need to add the following to your fsX.cfg:

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=14
//1 = 1 core 0001 // cores read from back to front ~ last is first
//3 = 2 cores 0011
//7 = 3 cores 0111
//14= 3 cores 1110
//15= 4 cores 1111

Maybe that is why you find quad slower?

[kevwill]

hello,

Thanks for that kevwill. Do you remember when it was roughly?

Thanks a lot man!

Please ignore me - I am a plonker! My faulty memory strikes again!!

The article in question was comparing quad-core with.... double quad-core. The quad worked perfectly, but the double quad was poor with frame rates of between 1 and 6 fps.
With quad core, he was running at 1920x1440, med high scenery, 40-100fps.

I will go and hang my head.. Sorry.

FYO the article was by Dr David Smith, Computer Pilot November 2007.

[AD-15]

Thanks a lot for the info anyway mate.