High clocked C2D or lower clocked CQD for FSX, whats better?

pieman109 · 3 Feb 2010 at 01:40

I'm in a position to have a choice of cpus to be used exclusively for a flight simulator using FSX (air cadet aviation training and recreation) and maybe "wings of prey"). I'm currently using an E8400 @ 3.8ghz which it does very easily and would probably hit 4.0ghz with a bit effort, but I'm wondering if a quad, say a Q6600 @ 3.2ghz-3.4ghz, (I'd like a GO stepping to vitually guarantee 3.6ghz) might be a better choice.
What do the other flight simmers here reckon?

HAz · 3 Feb 2010 at 02:07

Cant see it making any diffrence tbh, but i play fsx on my system (c2d e6600 at 3.4ghz) and it runs perfect.

Kenai · 3 Feb 2010 at 02:12

Is there any reason you'd be going for an older architecture quad rather than something a bit newer like a Q9550? More cache and it'll clock higher, possibly even to 4GHz if you get a nice E0 stepping.

pieman109 · 3 Feb 2010 at 02:41

Kenai said:
Is there any reason you'd be going for an older architecture quad rather than something a bit newer like a Q9550? More cache and it'll clock higher, possibly even to 4GHz if you get a nice E0 stepping.

Cost

I'm trying to get the best for the budget thats available.

chaparral · 3 Feb 2010 at 12:47

pieman109 said:
Cost I'm trying to get the best for the budget thats available.

overclocked Q6600 cpu's add loads to the electric bill

pieman109 · 3 Feb 2010 at 14:31

chaparral said:
overclocked Q6600 cpu's add loads to the electric bill

Oh I'm not worried about the electricity bill as I ain't paying for it, the mod does that. I just want to know what of the two cpus quoted would offer the best all round performance or are they basically the same performance wise?