Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Six-core CPU


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 sundemon56

sundemon56
  • Posts: 84

Posted 02 May 2010 - 15:53

Hi all, I just found out my local computer store sells 2 new AMD X6 CPU's. After reading some reviews I realized that X4 955 I have now isn't too far behind perfomance wise, so Im not sure if upgrading is a prudent thing to do, besides, 12-core CPU's will be introduced later this year and 16 cores in 2011. Isn't it great? Imagine what kind of war we can have on 16 cores :shock: Im just curious if ROF is capable of utilizing more than 4 cores as of now…
  • 0

#2 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 03 May 2010 - 01:52

That's one for developers to answer for sure. But, I also know the Intel has plans for a 6-core CPU to slide into their socket 1366 platform this summer as well. If there's any decent improvement at all, I'll drop one in (will probably require firmware update, but oh well) to replace my current i7 920.

Do this and buck up for a next-gen GPU (like a NV480) and I'm all done upgrading for another year at least. :mrgreen:
  • 0

#3 SC/JG_Oesau

SC/JG_Oesau
  • Posts: 2024

Posted 03 May 2010 - 01:57

Intel i7 980X http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=47932">http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=47932 is a 6 core CPU
  • 0

#4 TX-Gunslinger

TX-Gunslinger
  • Posts: 751

Posted 03 May 2010 - 02:49

They will scale. Any truely threaded application, which has been observed to scale automatically from 1 to 2 to 4 cores (ROF does), will scale to 8 and 16, as long as the O/S will recognize it.

I've been thinking about building an 8 or 16 way machine for a long time.

S!

Gunny
  • 0

#5 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 05 May 2010 - 11:26

The Phenom II X6 1090T is pretty cheap though, and it's a six core!
How does it compare to the i7 dual cores? IS it better? (It's cheaper than some)

Is this approximately correct?
http://www.cpubenchm...h_end_cpus.html">http://www.cpubenchm...h_end_cpus.html
  • 0

#6 Gisbod

Gisbod
  • Posts: 1086

Posted 05 May 2010 - 11:28

Still can't fix yours heh Greg? :?
  • 0

#7 O_catarM

O_catarM
  • Posts: 382

Posted 05 May 2010 - 12:23

If you upgrading from dual core 6 cores are way to go but if you alredy have quady in your system there is no point as they perform same or just a little bit better then AMD quads.http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1289/1/ for gaming they perform prety much same as I7 but for multithreaded applications I7 wins hands down.Good thing is that new CPU's and 890GS/FX mobos are not that expensive
  • 0

#8 kirock7

kirock7
  • Posts: 1138

Posted 05 May 2010 - 12:36

That's one for developers to answer for sure. But, I also know the Intel has plans for a 6-core CPU to slide into their socket 1366 platform this summer as well. If there's any decent improvement at all, I'll drop one in (will probably require firmware update, but oh well) to replace my current i7 920.

Do this and buck up for a next-gen GPU (like a NV480) and I'm all done upgrading for another year at least. :mrgreen:

Must be nice to be the King! :lol:
  • 0

#9 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 05 May 2010 - 14:11

That's one for developers to answer for sure. But, I also know the Intel has plans for a 6-core CPU to slide into their socket 1366 platform this summer as well. If there's any decent improvement at all, I'll drop one in (will probably require firmware update, but oh well) to replace my current i7 920.

Do this and buck up for a next-gen GPU (like a NV480) and I'm all done upgrading for another year at least. :mrgreen:

Must be nice to be the King! :lol:


Nah, let's just call it the benefit of maturity, the income that comes with it and the retained desire for childlike fun toys.

I set a monthly budget a few years ago for my hardware upgrade path that was agreed upon by my lovely bride. Even when I don't have an upgrade in mind, I set aside the funds. That way when a fancy new gizmo comes out, I can either cover it or at least lessen the sting. If there aren't any decent upgrades over the course of 18-24 months, I just build new. The displaced rig (or its components) get cascaded down to some of the other machines in the house. Win, win.
  • 0

#10 kirock7

kirock7
  • Posts: 1138

Posted 05 May 2010 - 16:12

SNIPPED: If there aren't any decent upgrades over the course of 18-24 months, I just build new. The displaced rig (or its components) get cascaded down to some of the other machines in the house. Win, win.

That's one of my problems… everytime I do a new build I end up with another older box… I'm starting to have to give them away. If there's nothing I can cannibalize they really serve no purpose. I think we have 5 PC's and 1 Apple now… plus parts for another 2 or 3 PC's.
My wife thinks I'm a pack rat. :roll:
  • 0

#11 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 06 May 2010 - 13:44

Well, I have my Wife's machine that can really use an upgrade, but she won't let me fiddle with it because all she does is use it for billpay, email and music and her current rig does that just fine. I still have two children living at home and can usually drop a better VC, RAM, or maybe even a mobo+CPU combo in to give them a boost.

If there is something relevant that I simply can't use, I look for friends or squad mates to simply give it to. Despite my best efforts, I still have a "Box O' Stuff" in my closet and have to periodically sift through it and toss some junk.

If you build your own machines, it's always good to have a couple spare parts that you know are still good as they can help isolate suspect hardware should something fail. It suck going through a motherboard RMA only to find out you had a porked PSU etc,.
  • 0

#12 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4370

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:42

If you upgrading from dual core 6 cores are way to go but if you alredy have quady in your system there is no point as they perform same or just a little bit better then AMD quads.http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1289/1/ for gaming they perform prety much same as I7 but for multithreaded applications I7 wins hands down.Good thing is that new CPU's and 890GS/FX mobos are not that expensive
In my country the AMD X6 1090t/890FX setup has the same price as the i7-920/X58 setup, [excl. RAM]. For running the AMD 6core I think it is better to wait for the lower prices. Keep in your mind that a Intel i7-860 socket 1156 is the real bang for bucks RoF-setup now, his performance is great and at some test-sites it shows even better than the i7-920 on multi threat applications.

The newer i7-930 is only 20,– more then a i7-920 btw.
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#13 Murf

Murf
  • Posts: 137

Posted 08 May 2010 - 23:24

I have been reading about the 6 cores (and was planning on getting one)… and it seems to appear that the x6's are not so wonderful for games…. but are GREAT for multi threaded applications and running a bunch of window's and applications at the same time….

I thought this a bit curious… :geek:
  • 0

#14 US103_Hunter

US103_Hunter
  • Posts: 253
  • LocationOver The Front!

Posted 10 May 2010 - 04:41

Got so sick of crappy play that I broke down and ordered one of the 1090t's and a new mobo from newegg. Goodbye e8400! I'll let you know how it works.

J2_VonKost
  • 0

#15 O_catarM

O_catarM
  • Posts: 382

Posted 10 May 2010 - 11:50

Anyone who has an opinion to voice, and with hardware that's everybody, has long held the belief that games don't take advantage of extra cores enough to justify spending your cash on anything other than a mental dual-core.

All of our results showed this belief to be absolute rubbish. The Dirt 2 test had the stock AMD Phenom II X6 1090T beating our 4GHz i7 930 system, despite giving up 800MHz in processing power, having dual rather than tri-channel RAM, and being priced at a similar level.

The AMD Phenom II X6 1090T is so brilliant that, given its expected retail of around £250, nothing under £800 gets near it. Sure the Intel i7 980x is vastly superior. But you can buy the an entire system based on the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T for the price of one of those elite chips.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_1090t_six_core_review/1
  • 0

#16 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 10 May 2010 - 18:26

Goodbye e8400!

J2_VonKost


Got any plans for that E8400?

btw, that upgrade, while not the cheapest or easiest you could have done, will make RoF seem like a brand new game…really.
  • 0

#17 US103_Hunter

US103_Hunter
  • Posts: 253
  • LocationOver The Front!

Posted 10 May 2010 - 22:16

Goodbye e8400!

J2_VonKost


Got any plans for that E8400?

btw, that upgrade, while not the cheapest or easiest you could have done, will make RoF seem like a brand new game…really.

Well I had to get a new board and 4 gigs of DDR3 (hope 4 gigs is good) since DDR2 will not work evidently. I have no plans for the extra 84000, board and ram beyond selling them to recoup a bit.
  • 0

#18 W1ndy

W1ndy
  • Posts: 1475

Posted 02 June 2010 - 12:13

Fyvsix , how did that six core work out for you ?
  • 0

#19 US103_Hunter

US103_Hunter
  • Posts: 253
  • LocationOver The Front!

Posted 02 June 2010 - 21:17

Seems great so far. the whole is never loaded over about 50-60% CPU. The only problem I've been having is intermittent crashes, but I suspect it may have to do with RAM.
  • 0

#20 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:03

Do you mean crashes in RoF? or crashes in general?

If it only crashes in RoF, I'd suggest trying another app (i.e. a game or sim) and see what it's performance is like.

If it's crashes in general you are experiencing, there are a number of things you can do to isolate the culprit (i.e. RAM, GPU, MOBO, etc,)
  • 0

#21 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4370

Posted 03 June 2010 - 18:55

Do you mean crashes in RoF? or crashes in general?

If it only crashes in RoF, I'd suggest trying another app (i.e. a game or sim) and see what it's performance is like.

If it's crashes in general you are experiencing, there are a number of things you can do to isolate the culprit (i.e. RAM, GPU, MOBO, etc,)
TX-Thunderbolt what CPU load do you have running RoF!
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#22 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 05 June 2010 - 20:20

I'm running an early batch core i7 (D0) at 3.8ghz. I've had it there for 1 year this month. Nary a hiccup.

p.s. My rig details are in my sig ;)
  • 0

#23 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4370

Posted 06 June 2010 - 06:38

I'm running an early batch core i7 (D0) at 3.8ghz. I've had it there for 1 year this month. Nary a hiccup.

p.s. My rig details are in my sig ;)

Open Windows task manager, go to performance make one CPU Graph and CPU update speed adjust to low. Get a crowded flight above the trenches, AA clouds and lot of things going on on the ground, this will put you to a heavy CPU usage. What is your CPU read out??
Close Virusscan/adaware not necessary software to keep the CPU read-outs clean
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#24 DeLaVega

DeLaVega
  • Posts: 22

Posted 14 June 2010 - 09:36

Three weeks ago I got a new system which contains an Intel i7 980X, ASUS P6X58D Motherboard, 24 GB RAM and a Nvidia 470 GTX. My OS is Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.

Mainly I got it for rendering in 3-D applications and fiddling with video, for games I`d say it`s a little exaggerated. However, in the recent weeks I tried a few games and except "Blitzkrieg 2" (which didn`t work with Win 7) all games worked fine. Even the old "Close Combat" Series (if someone knows that at all :-) ) and "Red Baron" are working without crashing. I only got problems after installing the USB X-FI card and had to deactivate the other audio devices which were hidden somewhere in the system. :-)

Oh, and the nasty "Shadows/ Dynamic lights problem" in RoF, of course.

And for the rendering… it could go faster, of course… I still can`t create the world of Pandora with my single user home PC. :-)

For games I think 4 cores are still enough for a long time.
  • 0

#25 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 14 June 2010 - 15:36

I'm running an early batch core i7 (D0) at 3.8ghz. I've had it there for 1 year this month. Nary a hiccup.

p.s. My rig details are in my sig ;)

Open Windows task manager, go to performance make one CPU Graph and CPU update speed adjust to low. Get a crowded flight above the trenches, AA clouds and lot of things going on on the ground, this will put you to a heavy CPU usage. What is your CPU read out??
Close Virusscan/adaware not necessary software to keep the CPU read-outs clean


My bad Dutch2. I just reread your post and realized I didn't answer your question. I recently deleted some early CPU load screenshots I'd taken from the early days of the beta. Back then, TX-EcoDragon had developed a ridiculously strenuous RoF mission to use as a stress test. It involved 6 balloons within 300m of each other and 6 AI for both sides spawning in VERY close proximity to each other. Yes, this was before quite a bit of optimization, but it took my system down to the high 20's - low 30's. With Hyperthreading "on" I had all 8 cores utilizing about 55%.

I haven't checked it in many months though. I'll try sometime soon and post.

edit: Here's a thread with the data over in our TX forums: http://www.txsquadro...hp?topic=2954.0">http://www.txsquadro...hp?topic=2954.0
  • 0

#26 Hornswaggle

Hornswaggle
  • Posts: 70

Posted 16 June 2010 - 03:32

Three weeks ago I got a new system which contains an Intel i7 980X, ASUS P6X58D Motherboard, 24 GB RAM and a Nvidia 470 GTX. My OS is Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.

Mainly I got it for rendering in 3-D applications and fiddling with video, for games I`d say it`s a little exaggerated. However, in the recent weeks I tried a few games and except "Blitzkrieg 2" (which didn`t work with Win 7) all games worked fine. Even the old "Close Combat" Series (if someone knows that at all :-) ) and "Red Baron" are working without crashing. I only got problems after installing the USB X-FI card and had to deactivate the other audio devices which were hidden somewhere in the system. :-)

Oh, and the nasty "Shadows/ Dynamic lights problem" in RoF, of course.

And for the rendering… it could go faster, of course… I still can`t create the world of Pandora with my single user home PC. :-)

For games I think 4 cores are still enough for a long time.

I completely disagree with you here. I just upgraded to a 980x and I was using a Q9650 OCd to 4ghz and I notice a HUGE difference in ROF with the 980x over the Q9650.

I got good frames with the Q9650, but it was not BUTTERY SMOOTH with my Sapphire Toxic 5870 2gb @6048x1200 like the 980x is! To be honest it feels just like when I took the original red baron from my 386-33mhz machine to my dads 486-50mhz machine! Also, ROF does make use of all six cores here is a snapshot from Open Hardware Monitor:
Image

I had a quick mission 15 planes versus 15 planes setup and my FPS never dipped below 60fps! With the Q9650 they would dip down to 30fps occasionally.
  • 0

#27 W1ndy

W1ndy
  • Posts: 1475

Posted 16 June 2010 - 06:31

I got good frames with the Q9650, but it was not BUTTERY SMOOTH with my Sapphire Toxic 5870 2gb @6048x1200 like the 980x is! To be honest it feels just like when I took the original red baron from my 386-33mhz machine to my dads 486-50mhz machine! Also, ROF does make use of all six cores here is a snapshot from Open Hardware Monitor:
Image

I had a quick mission 15 planes versus 15 planes setup and my FPS never dipped below 60fps! With the Q9650 they would dip down to 30fps occasionally.

That's some good data, especially for those thinking about going to six cores. Theres so much comment that the game will not run faster, but almost all of it relates to general gaming. The 15vs15 plane mission is the closest we have to a benchmark result for six cores in RoF.

Just when I'd decided to not spend money on a cpu upgrade …this.
  • 0

#28 DeLaVega

DeLaVega
  • Posts: 22

Posted 16 June 2010 - 07:35

@Hornswaggle:

I didn`t say or mean that RoF players wouldn`t profit from an increased FPS rate, or, in an objects heavy scene, have almost no noticeable FPS reduction.

However, for me there should be a relation between price and the use you would have for such a system. For the 900$ (or even 1100$ in Germany, where I live) of the processor alone my friends buy a complete new system, and games run on them, too.

If you are in the lucky position to be able to upgrade your PC with such a processor just for games or RoF in particular, then, congratulations. Seems you have made it… ;-)
  • 0

#29 Hornswaggle

Hornswaggle
  • Posts: 70

Posted 16 June 2010 - 14:08

@Hornswaggle:

I didn`t say or mean that RoF players wouldn`t profit from an increased FPS rate, or, in an objects heavy scene, have almost no noticeable FPS reduction.

However, for me there should be a relation between price and the use you would have for such a system. For the 900$ (or even 1100$ in Germany, where I live) of the processor alone my friends buy a complete new system, and games run on them, too.

If you are in the lucky position to be able to upgrade your PC with such a processor just for games or RoF in particular, then, congratulations. Seems you have made it… ;-)

Thanks, trust me I am the last guy to advocate the excessive price of the extreme series CPUs. Back in 2007, when I went C2Q, I had a Q6700 overclocked to 3.6ghz and then I upgraded to a C2Q Q9650 overclocked to 4ghz and noticed a nice performance bump. At that time the extreme series version QX9650 was $1,000 and for what? What did you get out of that extreme QX9650 series….an unlocked multiplier! Woooopdeeee do, a useless unlocked multiplier for the extra $700.

Now I don't have any experience with the lesser I7 series versus the Core 2 Quads, however this go around with the 980X you are actually getting so much more than an unlocked multiplier, you are also gettin those two extra cores as well, plus the hyperthreading which puts it at a virtual 12 cores! In the case of the 980X I would have to say that it is worth the price premium, I notice a difference in every application and game versus my old Q9650 that was running at the same 4GHZ clocks.

I know you can build a system for the money the processor costs, but that is how hardware goes. Most of the time I was that guy buying the middle grade stuff, however, this go around I do not regret going on the extreme hi end.

I have advice, on how to cut costs a better way (Kinda). Go high end and upgrade every two years and sell your older components after each upgrade to recoup some of your costs. For example, I spent about $600 for my Q9650, 8 gigs of ram and mobo and I will get about $400-$450 for resale, so instead of spending $600 and wait until the system is worthless, I recover 70% of my money and move on. This way I always have the best of the best and I only have to pay a fraction of the real cost to use it while its viable….in that case it only cost me $150-$175 to have a kick ass system for a year (my girlfriend spends that in two weeks at the grocery store) and I don't have to worry about hardware failure degredation because I don't keep components past their manufacture warranties.
  • 0

#30 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4370

Posted 16 June 2010 - 17:40

I'm running an early batch core i7 (D0) at 3.8ghz. I've had it there for 1 year this month. Nary a hiccup.

p.s. My rig details are in my sig ;)

Open Windows task manager, go to performance make one CPU Graph and CPU update speed adjust to low. Get a crowded flight above the trenches, AA clouds and lot of things going on on the ground, this will put you to a heavy CPU usage. What is your CPU read out??
Close Virusscan/adaware not necessary software to keep the CPU read-outs clean


My bad Dutch2. I just reread your post and realized I didn't answer your question. I recently deleted some early CPU load screenshots I'd taken from the early days of the beta. Back then, TX-EcoDragon had developed a ridiculously strenuous RoF mission to use as a stress test. It involved 6 balloons within 300m of each other and 6 AI for both sides spawning in VERY close proximity to each other. Yes, this was before quite a bit of optimization, but it took my system down to the high 20's - low 30's. With Hyperthreading "on" I had all 8 cores utilizing about 55%.

I haven't checked it in many months though. I'll try sometime soon and post.

edit: Here's a thread with the data over in our TX forums: http://www.txsquadro...hp?topic=2954.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.txsquadro...hp?topic=2954.0
Thanks, was just forgetten this but do you have RoF benchmark test in TXsquadron forum???
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#31 W1ndy

W1ndy
  • Posts: 1475

Posted 16 June 2010 - 21:21

Thanks, trust me I am the last guy to advocate the excessive price of the extreme series CPUs…

Where I live I can buy my daughter a car for the cost of this processor , and she would drive it for a couple of years. To compare that to a FPS difference of 35 or solid 60 - means I would need enough money for both, or I couldn't justify it. (Edit; you can also get 5 nights in Bali)

Also the resell-ability of the 980 will be compromised when the 1355 socket is bypassed next year. Of course there will be plenty of people wanting to buy it, but it would get a better price if the socket was still able to take the next processors.

I thought a bit later and realized that the 1090 and 1055 from AMD would not give better performance than the quads because clock for clock they work at the same speed. It would just distribute the load over more cores. The 980 is so much faster because of the architecture of the processor.

But, I envy you, and I agree that reselling to stay at the bleeding edge is a sound policy, and I'm trying to get there too.
  • 0

#32 Hornswaggle

Hornswaggle
  • Posts: 70

Posted 17 June 2010 - 06:06

Where I live I can buy my daughter a car for the cost of this processor , and she would drive it for a couple of years. To compare that to a FPS difference of 35 or solid 60 - means I would need enough money for both, or I couldn't justify it. (Edit; you can also get 5 nights in Bali)

I own and operate my own company and work with photos, data mining, research, etc, when I prepare my reports. Time is money and my computer is a tool towards that end. The processor will more than pay for itself, with the time and aggravation that I save. Its only been a few days, but the 980x is a noticeable improvement over the Core2Quad series for me and I am very pleased with it. Also, as a side benefit it really kicks the snot out of ROF!

Also the resell-ability of the 980 will be compromised when the 1355 socket is bypassed next year. Of course there will be plenty of people wanting to buy it, but it would get a better price if the socket was still able to take the next processors.

Not true, within two years there will still be many people with the 1366 socket that will be running I7 920s and 930s and they will want to do a processor upgrade rather than a full on system rebuild. Just like the people right now that want to replace their Q6600 and Q6700 processors for the Q9550, Q9650 and QX9650s. In fact, since there will be no more extreme processors with six or more cores for the 1366 socket these processors may infact keep most of their value and desireability.

I thought a bit later and realized that the 1090 and 1055 from AMD would not give better performance than the quads because clock for clock they work at the same speed. It would just distribute the load over more cores. The 980 is so much faster because of the architecture of the processor.

You are very correct here, its the renewed architecture which makes a 4ghz I7 overperform a 4ghz C2Q….to tell you the truth it kind of reminds me of when Intel went with the Pentium series after the 486 series. I remember that time well, and the 486s were great, but the pentiums were EPIC! I put off my I7 upgrade for a while because I kept hearing that there was not a big noticeable improvement over the C2Q series, however, those people that said and claimed that are wrong, wrong, wrong. Gaming, work, its all better!
  • 0

#33 W1ndy

W1ndy
  • Posts: 1475

Posted 17 June 2010 - 11:44

Kudos. I'm just envious :geek:
  • 0

#34 US103_Hunter

US103_Hunter
  • Posts: 253
  • LocationOver The Front!

Posted 06 August 2010 - 04:28

Finally figured out why my PC with a 1090T and 890fx mobo kept crashing. The RAM voltage is defaulted at 1.51, but the DDR3 requires 1.65v to function properly. I fixed it in the bios and the system has been rock solid for days now. Just thought I'd let you all know in case someone had a similar issue.

S!
VK
  • 0

#35 WWBrian

WWBrian
  • Posts: 2418

Posted 07 August 2010 - 08:14

Intel i7 980X http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=47932" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=47932 is a 6 core CPU


I just put this same CPU in my new build yesterday for ROF's next update!

MAN does ROF 1.014 sire scream on 12 threads! :shock:
  • 0

#36 M31

M31
  • Posts: 181

Posted 09 August 2010 - 15:14

I've been lucky enough to enjoy a little windfall recently and had thought of the I7 980X six core to replace my current I7 920 @ 4GHz quad, it would drop right into my Gigabyte UD5 too, with maybe a bios flash being all that would be needed … Or I could grab a newer Gigabyte UD7 or other high end board.

But in fairness, RoF maxed out is perfectly fluid for me, mostly so is FSX with the best tweaks around, but I think an I7 (920 or 930 overclocked) gives about 90% of the performance at about 25% of the price of a 980X, no brainer really … but the guy that has one here uses it for much more CPU oriented apps, so fair play.

What I have found beneficial are SSD drives, for loading of OS and RoF, these are expensive too, especially the larger capacity ones, but in Win 7, going from a cold machine boot, to getting to click RoF and get up flying, nothing is quicker. no FPS increase, but load times are important too :)

Would I have an Intel I7 980X if I won the lottery, course I would … But I'm good to go until next year at least with my set up for Flight Sim.
  • 0

#37 WWBrian

WWBrian
  • Posts: 2418

Posted 14 August 2010 - 00:57

I've been lucky enough to enjoy a little windfall recently and had thought of the I7 980X six core to replace my current I7 920 @ 4GHz quad, it would drop right into my Gigabyte UD5 too, with maybe a bios flash being all that would be needed … Or I could grab a newer Gigabyte UD7 or other high end board.

But in fairness, RoF maxed out is perfectly fluid for me, mostly so is FSX with the best tweaks around, but I think an I7 (920 or 930 overclocked) gives about 90% of the performance at about 25% of the price of a 980X, no brainer really … but the guy that has one here uses it for much more CPU oriented apps, so fair play.

What I have found beneficial are SSD drives, for loading of OS and RoF, these are expensive too, especially the larger capacity ones, but in Win 7, going from a cold machine boot, to getting to click RoF and get up flying, nothing is quicker. no FPS increase, but load times are important too :)

Would I have an Intel I7 980X if I won the lottery, course I would … But I'm good to go until next year at least with my set up for Flight Sim.

Agreed M31. Bang for the buck wasn't what I was after…One point about the 980X that I liked is that it is unlocked. So I have mine at 4.15Ghz without upping any voltage. All I had to do was increase the ratio (multiplier). No heat - no instability - no problem!


…and I do run ROF on a 60GB Corsair SSD.
  • 0

#38 LLv34_Flanker

LLv34_Flanker
  • Posts: 15

Posted 17 August 2010 - 09:35

S!

Running AMD Phenom II 1090T Black Edition, at stock speeds. In every single game, including RoF, I have nice performance. For it'd price a nice CPU accompanied with 890FX mobo and 480GTX :D
  • 0

#39 W1ndy

W1ndy
  • Posts: 1475

Posted 30 November 2010 - 07:09

Finally figured out why my PC with a 1090T and 890fx mobo kept crashing. The RAM voltage is defaulted at 1.51, but the DDR3 requires 1.65v to function properly. I fixed it in the bios and the system has been rock solid for days now. Just thought I'd let you all know in case someone had a similar issue.

S!
VK

I did not know that. I'll tweak mine up to 1.65v in the weekend. I believe, but do you or anyone have a source about this ?
  • 0

#40 TX-Gunslinger

TX-Gunslinger
  • Posts: 751

Posted 30 November 2010 - 15:55

I'm running an early batch core i7 (D0) at 3.8ghz. I've had it there for 1 year this month. Nary a hiccup.

p.s. My rig details are in my sig ;)

Open Windows task manager, go to performance make one CPU Graph and CPU update speed adjust to low. Get a crowded flight above the trenches, AA clouds and lot of things going on on the ground, this will put you to a heavy CPU usage. What is your CPU read out??
Close Virusscan/adaware not necessary software to keep the CPU read-outs clean


My bad Dutch2. I just reread your post and realized I didn't answer your question. I recently deleted some early CPU load screenshots I'd taken from the early days of the beta. Back then, TX-EcoDragon had developed a ridiculously strenuous RoF mission to use as a stress test. It involved 6 balloons within 300m of each other and 6 AI for both sides spawning in VERY close proximity to each other. Yes, this was before quite a bit of optimization, but it took my system down to the high 20's - low 30's. With Hyperthreading "on" I had all 8 cores utilizing about 55%.

I haven't checked it in many months though. I'll try sometime soon and post.

edit: Here's a thread with the data over in our TX forums: http://www.txsquadro...hp?topic=2954.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.txsquadro...hp?topic=2954.0
Thanks, was just forgetten this but do you have RoF benchmark test in TXsquadron forum???

Dutch,

Here's a version of Eco's test that I converted to SP this week. Tweaked a little, removed a few flights of aircraft - still a HUGE load.

One of the interesting things you can do is 1) run the test in Single mission and record a track and capture benchmark.

Play the track back and capture benchmark. Huge difference in system stress between track playback and track "generation".

Enjoy,

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/Jay%20Dolan/supersmallstress-sp.zip

S!

Gunny
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users