Intel Core i7 3930K 4.8GHz w/FSX Quick Review

[dazz 69]

Here are the files:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19353176/Flight%20Simulator%20X%20Files.zipIt works like FSMark11, but it includes it's own CFG file with custom settings. If you want to try your settings too pass me the file please

[worldclassleader 0]

Here are the files:http://dl.dropbox.co...20X%20Files.zipIt works like FSMark11, but it includes it's own CFG file with custom settings. If you want to try your settings too pass me the file please

Ok, got'em. Question, were you referring to my FSX config file? If so, here it is: http://dl.dropbox.co...1327404/fsx.CFG

[dazz 69]

Ok, got'em. Question, were you referring to my FSX config file? If so, here it is: http://dl.dropbox.co...1327404/fsx.CFG

Hehe, I mean the CFG file that FSX saves (Settings -> Save) at DocumentsFlight Simulator X Files, but the fsx.cfg will do too.

[Kosta 122]

Thanks for the tips Word Not Allowed! I just ran the FSXMark2011 benchmark having applied the 1364 Affinity Mask you suggested and the test results for all four tests were identical to my initial tests using an affinity mask of 1344. So...go figure....lol...=)

Nothing to figure here really. It's known that FSX doesn't use anything really well beyond 4 cores, as said already, those are only texture threads, and no matter how many threads you add, FPS are going to be the same as long as we are talking same clock and CPU architecture.

[worldclassleader 0]

Nothing to figure here really. It's known that FSX doesn't use anything really well beyond 4 cores, as said already, those are only texture threads, and no matter how many threads you add, FPS are going to be the same as long as we are talking same clock and CPU architecture.

I see...so then, those extra cores/threads will be utilized by FSX to load textures during game-play? Therefore, is it fair to reason that a SB-E [6-core] CPU will provide the best overall experience, as those extra threads take some of the burden off the primary CPU core(s), and is the reason that in my observation the 3930K "feels" more fluid compared to the 2600K at the same speed?

[Kosta 122]

I see...so then, those extra cores/threads will be utilized by FSX to load textures during game-play? Therefore, is it fair to reason that a SB-E [6-core] CPU will provide the best overall experience, as those extra threads take some of the burden off the primary CPU core(s), and is the reason that in my observation the 3930K "feels" more fluid compared to the 2600K at the same speed?

Correct. They will be utilized, but as I mentioned before, the *need* of FSX for so many threads is not given. They are not required, not used, understand it whatever way you will.It might, but it won't. They don't take any burden off the main thread, since the Core 2&3 are doing the job already. While flying, the two threads are hardly being full utilized. Thus I very strongly believe that what you are seeing is just "I want to believe"-thingy. What you are seeing is a placebo and configuration thing, sorry.Or as in quote from Armageddon: "That's like shooting a B.B. gun at a freight train, Doc."

[worldclassleader 0]

Correct. They will be utilized, but as I mentioned before, the *need* of FSX for so many threads is not given. They are not required, not used, understand it whatever way you will.It might, but it won't. They don't take any burden off the main thread, since the Core 2&3 are doing the job already. While flying, the two threads are hardly being full utilized. Thus I very strongly believe that what you are seeing is just "I want to believe"-thingy. What you are seeing is a placebo and configuration thing, sorry.Or as in quote from Armageddon: "That's like shooting a B.B. gun at a freight train, Doc."

Nope, not a placebo; definitely not that. I can't argue with you as well, as you and many others at AVSIM have tested different CPUs with FSX and know your stuff. It will be great to see additional comparisons by those in the AVSIM community that implement SB-E and share their results.Thanks for your feedback!Jacob

[Kosta 122]

Nope, not a placebo; definitely not that. I can't argue with you as well, as you and many others at AVSIM have tested different CPUs with FSX and know your stuff. It will be great to see additional comparisons by those in the AVSIM community that implement SB-E and share their results.Thanks for your feedback!Jacob

Well, I hope you are wrong. Looking forward if someone else posts same results.

[cmeeks 8]

If only there were a good way to benchmark "smoothness", or at the very least, a way to prove a direct relationship between measured FPS and smoothness. I can't handle the subjectivity of it all.I would be interested in seeing a MaxxMEM result, though!

[Dan F 6]

AHHH!!!Beat me to it! Nice rig! Glad to see it makes you happy.I have the following things out on a brown truck somewhere on their way to me (Thursday I'm told). I plan to begin the OC as soon as I have it together and stable. But it will be my first time trying to "overclock" anything that isn't an engine, so I would love some tips on getting it to 4.8 as you have.Motherboard: ASUS P9X79 DELUXE CPU: Intel i7-3930KMemory: Corsair Vengeance 32GB (8x4GB)GPU: 2 X Sapphire HD 6950 (Crossfire time)PSU: CoolerMaster 1200WStorage: OCZ Vertex 3 Sata III SSD 120GB (praying this works right)Storage: Crucial M4 Sata III SSD 120GB (both of these could be 128, I just dont remember at the moment)Storage: WD 1TB...maybe 7200 rpm but these are in my old rig and there are 3 of them.Case: Corsair 800DCPU Cooler: H100 Fans: Lots and lots of fancy ones. Lamptron Touch to make the fancy fans turn. Monitor: 3 x 23in (I really cannot fit any bigger than that on this desk)Seems like every forum with SB activity around has a debate over LGA 2011 and 1366 and 1155... I have no interest in it personally. This rig should be FSX proof for my needs. I love to see the 2600K crowd getting great numbers. As these are the early days of the 3930K and 3960X I doubt we have seen the top of their potential. However when it comes to this level of computer knowledge I am a total rookie so my commentary and opinion are worth what you paid for it. I will be watching this thread with interest.Dan

[SpiritFlyer 987]

If only there were a good way to benchmark "smoothness", or at the very least, a way to prove a direct relationship between measured FPS and smoothness. I can't handle the subjectivity of it all.I would be interested in seeing a MaxxMEM result, though!

 

Corey,

 

Tracking levels of smoothness is already programed in and accurately accounted for. The lower frame rates produce lack of smoothness when below certain noticable levels. The higher FPS comes across as silky fluid. The average FPS tells us if it is "primarily smooth" or not. It is all in the numbers, and only in the numbers, for the image any operator sees is the direct result of the numbers, for there is nothing else to see, or to feel. The rest is simply in the head. No kidding, this is pure, rational science, not voodoo, not bluff and bluster and not wishful thinking.

 

Kind regards,

[tfm 169]

Corey,Tracking levels of smoothness is already programed in and accurately accounted for. The lower frame rates produce lack of smoothness when below certain noticable levels. The higher FPS comes accross as silky fluid. The average FPS tells us if it is "primarily smooth" or not. It is all in the numbers, and only in the numbers, for the image any operator sees is the direct result of the numbers, for there is nothing else to see, or to feel. The rest is simply in the head. No kidding, this is pure, rational science, not voodoo, not bluff and bluster and not wishful thinking.Kind regards,

Possibly, but I'm not so sure. If smoothness is a function of the EVENNESS of the INTERVAL between frame updates, including WITHIN each second, then measuring FPS with FRAP, and even looking at minima, maxima and means, is NOT going to isolate relative smoothness. FRAP lacks the necessary granularity and anyway I'm not sure how you'd gather enough data to conduct an interval analysis without interrupting the display severely.I noticed better reported FPS, but sometimes worse smoothness, going from a 975 @ 4.2GHz to a 2600K @ 4.9GHz. I am fairly confident that it is not just a false memory, or placebo, because I can still fun FSX on both machines and I still (rightly or wrongly) receive the same impression.In my view it is not to do with cores, but with memory. I think it is possible that FSX is one of the few applications that can actually take advantage of triple and presumably quad channel RAM.All the bestTim

[dazz 69]

My 920 3.8ghz with triple channel ram was smoother in low teens than the 2600k 4.6 in low teens thats for sure!! That is the only time it is smoother than the SB system. The 2600K allows me to use the NGX, for example in an add-on airport, sliders maxed with heavy ai (no way could I do that in the 920) and runs great, but if fps dip into low teens it is not as smooth as my previous platform when fully loaded. Thats for sure for me. But I am HAPPY with the 2600K over all as I RARELY get low teens!!! I would assume that quad channel and 2 cores would help smoothness. But this is all subjective and hard to judge, but I would assume with a loaded sim scenario two cores loading texture files from an ssd and two more channels of RAM would help the perception of smoothness. Not many 6 core cpu's will do 4.8 ghz though, and damn its expensive!

Thanks for the tips Word Not Allowed! I just ran the FSXMark2011 benchmark having applied the 1364 Affinity Mask you suggested and the test results for all four tests were identical to my initial tests using an affinity mask of 1344. So...go figure....lol...=)I'd be glad to give it a shot! I own the following FSX PMDG add-ons:MD-11NGX-737 800/900747x and the 8i expansion modelThat's really interesting; I wonder if the Triple-Channel memory on the X58 platform has a positive effect on FSX, compared to SBs dual channel? Ofcourse, then we got SB-E with Quad-Memory. I'm assuming this has been addressed some where on AVSIM as well..

Possibly, but I'm not so sure. If smoothness is a function of the EVENNESS of the INTERVAL between frame updates, including WITHIN each second, then measuring FPS with FRAP, and even looking at minima, maxima and means, is NOT going to isolate relative smoothness. FRAP lacks the necessary granularity and anyway I'm not sure how you'd gather enough data to conduct an interval analysis without interrupting the display severely.I noticed better reported FPS, but sometimes worse smoothness, going from a 975 @ 4.2GHz to a 2600K @ 4.9GHz. I am fairly confident that it is not just a false memory, or placebo, because I can still fun FSX on both machines and I still (rightly or wrongly) receive the same impression.In my view it is not to do with cores, but with memory. I think it is possible that FSX is one of the few applications that can actually take advantage of triple and presumably quad channel RAM.All the bestTim

Have you guys ever tried your LGA1366 or LGA2011 on dual channel with two RAM sticks to see the effect vs tripple/quad channel?

[worldclassleader 0]

Hi everyone,Just wanted to update you all on some further testing. I discovered that the PMDG 747-8i was providing a 10-15FPS increase compared to other addon's and since all of my initial testing was conducted with the PMDG 747-8i, I did experience a more fluid flying experience when I initially installed FSX. However, after further testing with various addon's and FSX default aircraft, the performance is nearly identical to a 2600K processor at 4.8/5GHz. Therefore, I conclude that the assertions made by many of you, in that FSX does not utilize all of the processor cores are indeed valid. Lastly, regardless of whether 3 cores or 6 cores are active, the FPS remains the same. Jacob

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Jacob,

 

You sir are a real man I can trust. It takes a lot of courage to admit that kind of error. Welcome to our community once again. I consider you to be a valuable and reliable flight simulation asset. I hope in return to be able to earn your respect also by my own actions and choice of words.

 

Kind regards,