2500K for FSX ?

[biuro74]

Hi,

I've got i5-2300 which may work @ 3.3 GHz, so let's say it may act as 2500K with no o/c Is it any sense to change it to 2500K.. or even wait for new IvyBridge & o/c it to get really noticeable higher framerate in FSX @ FullHD ?

My GFX is GTX 460 1 GB "Hawk" and I've got some free addons like GrandCanyon scenery, PW Sceneries, Gizmos Water Normals, PWS Reefs Vol 1, Rex Grass2 & Roads etc. No paid add-ons so far
My mobo is MSI P67A-GD65(B3) with CM Hyper 212+, so I'd o-c 2500K upto 4.6-4.7 GHz as I estimate.

But main question: is it any sense to do it ? I know FSX is CPU-hungry, previously I've had Q9550 @ stock and now I see just a bit better framerate. Other games work fine on my current 2300, so I frankly and truly I don't want to buy anything more. But maybe FSX would change something ?

Most valuable are FSX & 2500K users opinions, sorry

 

[Sin_Chase]

What chipset motherboard?

 

[biuro74]

My mobo is MSI P67A-GD65(B3)

And how do you think ?
BTW, I think really hard and I can't find any connection between my chipset and my question. And I think 27 years in computers, LOL

 

[Sin_Chase]

must have glossed over reading those addons and missed the Mobo line.

It matters because you cannot overclock on a H chipset and would not want to put a k series CPU in it.

As for how 27 years in computing changes anything I have no idea, hopefully it holds you in good-stead to answer your own question.

Good luck.

 

[Surveyor]

BTW, I think really hard and I can't find any connection between my chipset and my question. And I think 27 years in computers, LOL

Because if you didn't have a P67 or Z68 chipset then you wouldn't be able to overclock an i5-2500K.

But as your posts says, you have a P67 motherboard.

 

[biuro74]

As for how 27 years in computing changes anything I have no idea, hopefully it holds you in good-stead to answer your own question.

Good luck.

Naah, I'm in FSX just 4 months, which 99% of time is doing something else than flying FSX is so specific piece of soft that made me asking, does additional 1.5 GHz of power make really important difference ? Because if it brings me just 10-15% more fps, I would say it's not worth.

 

[Surveyor]

Ask Clum or Cleeecooo, I think they're into FSX.

 

[Boostjunky]

My brother uses fsx. Its a cpu intensive game so any improvement in clock speed will give an improvement. My bro has a 2500k overclocked to 4.8ghz in an Asrock P67 mobo. FSX runs really well, I don't think his goes below 60fps (vsync) very often, he has very smooth gameplay.

 

[biuro74]

I don't think his goes below 60fps (vsync) very often, he has very smooth gameplay.

Sounds very optimistic as I remember my previous Q9550 produced 17-20 FPS @ Gran Canaries airport taking off (plus free add-ons mentioned in 1st post). All settings to max (or close to max) + AAx4.
I didn't check it on 2300 @ 3.3 yet.

 

[spankingtexan]

i5 2500k @4.6ghz, FSX user, I don't think you'll get a very noticable increase in performance if you upgraded from your current chip, I upgraded from a q6600 @3.00ghz and although the frame rates shot through the roof the game still looked more or less the same only a little smoother.
I do however play using nvidia 3d vision along with a GTX 580 AND THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT BOOST in performance with 2500k. I don't know how your chip would perform if using 3d but I suspect it would be hunky dory as my old q6600 coped quite well.
I'd keep the 2300 and get an nvidia 3d vision kit for FSX, it will blow you away and you will never want to play it without those glasses again. You would also need a 120hz monitor though but I think you will be aware of this fact.

 

[spankingtexan]

You may also want to consider the Saitek panels for FSX as they further enhance your FSX experience, i recommend Switch panel that handles landing gear and aircraft lighting, Multi panel that offers a pitch trim wheel, flap control, auto throttle and auto pilot controls with led readout. What are you using for control? The Saitek X-52 joy and throttle combo is excelent.

As for add on scenery I can recommend Generation X Version 3 for England and Wales which also offers better perfomance over default. Check out the Earth simulations scenery too as they produce some of the best scenery for FSX with animations.
Orbx scenery is also a must if you want the best and give aerosofts Madeira a go.

 

[spankingtexan]

Just one further recommendation for you, As you have a gtx 480 you can get an idea of what FSX will look like in 3d at no cost. Just go into Nvidia control panel and click set up stereoscopic 3d. Then click on stereoscopic 3d display type and choose 3d vision discover, apply it and start FSX, slip on a pair of those cheep cardboard 3d glasses, you know the ones with red and blue lenses that you can find in cerial boxes or a dvd movie and enjoy. This works on standard 60hz monitors and other games other than FSX.

The quality isn't near as good as the proper 3d kit but you will get the idea. I rushed out and bought the 3d kit after trying 3d discover.

 

[Charlatan]

FSX needs as much CPU grunt as you can give. Check out avsim forums, there's a benchmark they've created there in the mobo/cpu/hardware forums that will tell you all you need to know.

 

[biuro74]

Thank you for all answers.
So far I discovered that most optimal CPU is Sandy Bridge around 3.8-3.9 GHz (more o/c gives no noticeable FPS increase), and o/c my graphic card would raise some minFPS. It's all I've read on avsim forum - benchmarking thread.
Looking at my 3.3 GHz SB I think I will loose about 10% of FPS, so in my case CPU change is completely useless. I will o/c CPU and GPU, of course, to get maximum efficiency, and I think it's all best I can do. Maybe IvyBridge will change my mind, but so far - I think any change is pointless.
spankingtexan - 3D probably is breathtaking, but expensive, too. I'll check anaglyph glasses which I have in drawer, maybe it will give more juice to flying So far I've found Medieval Total War II the best looking 3D game in my collection, maybe it's high time to change it, LOL.