Build advice - FS9/X Gaming

_Chris_ · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:50

Hello,

Please don't kill me for asking, I have been going through endless amount of threads for days now and haven't actually progressed an awful lot, probably due to my indecisiveness.

In short, looking to build a new rig for gaming, although only games are FS9 and FSX and some photo editing, running a Samsung 20inch screen at 1680x1050.

I already have an AMD3700, ASUS A8NE, Segate and Hitach 160GB SATA drives, Antec 600W PSU and a (dodgy) 8800GT, so the minimum requirement is a motherboard, CPU and RAM.

Currently thinking of

Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) - Retail
Asus P5Q3 Deluxe @ Wifi-N Intel P45 (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro CPU Cooler (Socket LGA775)

I've been pointed round in circles, P35 boards, P45 boards, neither,go for X48 etc. Probably planning to run XP 64bit on it rather than Vista.

Budget is around £600, maybe £700 at a push. I have an old (30months) Coolermaster case, so may be looking at a new one for the extra space plus I was recommended to renew the PSU (also 30months old).

Any advice or edits gratefully received. I built the last rig myself 2 1/2 years ago after much research though since then I've been out of touch and am lost when it comes to this dual/quad core stuff.
Thanks

Ben M · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:52

if your rig is for gaming, then you'll be better off with a dual core.

Ch3m1c4L · 4 Aug 2008 at 07:46

get the e8600 in a few days, rest looks fine

asim18 · 4 Aug 2008 at 08:38

Ben M said:
if your rig is for gaming, then you'll be better off with a dual core.

Agreed, especially for FSX.

Heres some random cpu readings i took while flying around in fsx:
Bold= cpu usage
Italic= core temp

08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#0): 49 100 3402.00
08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#1): 38 5 3402.00
08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#2): 34 4 3402.00
08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#3): 36 3 3402.00

08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#0): 46 92 3402.00
08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#1): 38 14 3402.00
08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#2): 35 8 3402.00
08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#3): 37 8 3402.00

08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#0): 47 80 3402.00
08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#1): 37 15 3402.00
08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#2): 35 10 3402.00
08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#3): 37 10 3402.00

As you can see the other three cores aren't being used at all!

Here is the same data, averaged, and put into a graph:

By creating this graph, I have determined that FSX will run faster on a single core CPU with the highest clock speed.

EDIT: This is WITH SP1 and SP2 installed.

semi-pro waster · 4 Aug 2008 at 10:26

Is there any particular reason that you are picking a motherboard that uses DDR3? For the money I don't think it offers any significant advantages over DDR2. Maybe something like the below would do you and it comes in under budget so you might want to buy another hard drive or two. And perhaps wait for the E8600 as suggested.

Gainward ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 TV-Out/Dual DVI/HDMI (PCI-Express) - Retail £144.99
(£170.36) £144.99
(£170.36)
GeIL 4GB (2x2GB) PC2-6400C4 800MHz Black Dragon DDR2 Dual Channel Kit (GB24GB6400C4DC) £52.99
(£62.26) £52.99
(£62.26)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 LGA775 'Wolfdale' 3.16GHz (1333FSB) - Retail £107.99
(£126.89) £107.99
(£126.89)
Tuniq Tower 120-LFB CPU Cooler (Socket 478/754/939/940/AM2/LGA775) £23.99
(£28.19) £23.99
(£28.19)
Asus P5Q Pro Intel P45 (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard £71.99
(£84.59) £71.99
(£84.59)
Sub Total : £401.95
Shipping cost assumes delivery to UK Mainland with:
City Link Parcel Next Day (Delivered Mon-Fri)
(This can be changed during checkout) Shipping : £8.95
VAT is being charged at 17.5% VAT : £71.91
Total : £482.81

FreeStream · 4 Aug 2008 at 10:28

asim18 said:
Agreed, especially for FSX.

Heres some random cpu readings i took while flying around in fsx:
Bold= cpu usage
Italic= core temp

08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#0): 49 100 3402.00
08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#1): 38 5 3402.00
08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#2): 34 4 3402.00
08:24:37 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#3): 36 3 3402.00

08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#0): 46 92 3402.00
08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#1): 38 14 3402.00
08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#2): 35 8 3402.00
08:24:47 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#3): 37 8 3402.00

08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#0): 47 80 3402.00
08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#1): 37 15 3402.00
08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#2): 35 10 3402.00
08:25:57 08/04/08 CPU#0 (Core#3): 37 10 3402.00

As you can see the other three cores aren't being used at all!

Here is the same data, averaged, and put into a graph:

By creating this graph, I have determined that FSX will run faster on a single core CPU with the highest clock speed.

Nah, dual core would be quicker up to a point IMO (background tasks onto 2nd core), not that it matters as you can't buy single core C2Ds

Buy a wolfdale and CLOCK THE NADS OFF IT!!!

rjk · 4 Aug 2008 at 10:56

i would go vista 64 rather than xp64

to be honest - if you are dead set on xp i would go xp32 over xp64

Tetsu · 4 Aug 2008 at 12:14

Crazy, I always thought FSX was one of those games that really makes goo use of a quad.

badbob · 4 Aug 2008 at 12:19

Is that post SP2/ Acceleration?

rodders · 4 Aug 2008 at 12:38

badbob said:
Is that post SP2/ Acceleration?

Even if it wasnt, you could squash that 4 core usage into a dual core easily. Plus your going to able to clock the 2 core higher, therefore its going to run FSX better.

If you want to use DX10 in FSX then you will need vista too. I've run it on XP32 and vista 64 and vista is ever so slightly better. So for the sake of it to use vista as its the way things are going.

badbob · 4 Aug 2008 at 13:22

SP2 adds multi core support.

rjk · 4 Aug 2008 at 16:43

would be interesting to see results based on that tbh

FreeStream · 4 Aug 2008 at 19:07

badbob said:
SP2 adds multi core support.

Adds support, doesn't mean it uses it.

asim18 · 4 Aug 2008 at 20:53

Concorde Rules said:
Adds support, doesn't mean it uses it.

Exactly.

Those reading I took were with SP1 and SP2 installed.

_Chris_ · 5 Aug 2008 at 13:05

Sorry for the late reply, shifts all over the place at the minute.

Thanks for all the advice, so now steering towards dual core and Vista. I picked up something about new cores coming out on 10th, likely to cause the current ones to drop in price? Worth waiting another 5 days then?

No real reason for picking the DDR3 board, so I'll stick with DDR2, thanks.

Is FSX ever likely to take full advantage of quad cores?

GunRunner · 5 Aug 2008 at 13:31

_Chris_ said:
Is FSX ever likely to take full advantage of quad cores?

I doubt it. It means a code rewrite.

semi-pro waster · 5 Aug 2008 at 13:52

_Chris_ - you might want to remove the swearing and check the FAQ.

It's probably worth waiting the few days to see what happens if nothing else, you've waited this long so I doubt that another week will make much odds.

_Chris_ · 5 Aug 2008 at 14:49

semi-pro waster,
I apologise, honest typing error. I meant shifts, had only got out of bed. Sorry.

I'll have a wait until next week and see what happens with the prices, like you say another week won't kill me and might as well spend the time and get it right and as affordable as possible.

Thanks

spp · 5 Aug 2008 at 15:18

I'm surprised with those FSX results. I was under the impression quad core was better for FSX esp with sp2, but those results speak for themselves.

GunRunner · 5 Aug 2008 at 16:18

spp said:
I'm surprised with those FSX results. I was under the impression quad core was better for FSX esp with sp2, but those results speak for themselves.

Yes so am I. I am a hardcore Flight Sim person and I was most surprised. I dont have FSX, and I am thinking out aloud here, but is there not a switch in a config file to use multi cpu support? There is in IL2 Forgotten Battles, but it makes no difference in the game.