Still not sure which AMD to get to be able to fly FSX... which one do you have and how well does it take on FSX?

Cheers.

I have the 7850 Kuma BE
and it is decent, with 30% airline traffic, 15% GA, and all Medium High settings I get solid 20-30 FPS depending on the air port.
If your looking for a good CPU (AM3)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103846
Overkill AM3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849
    
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471 ;      am2+
EDIT-added more cpus
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674 ;       AM3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727 ;         AM3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103692 ;           AM3

btw what board do you have?

AMD quad 955 clocked at 3.9 GHz stable, seeems its clocks better then the 965, and this is on air. Just get a heatpipe cooler and youll be good.

Brett_Henderson wrote on May 8^th, 2010 at 8:00pm:


Intel is good and all, but I prefer AMD.
More affordable.
No heat problems so far.
I max out at 29 C on a 80 F day while playing FSX(non oc atm)(and on stock cooler)
And when my CPU fried from my psu, they replaced it no question asked,even thought I had a pin bent a little bit too.

but then again both CPU companies excel in one thing,
Speed vs Toughness basically.

Plus I can get all my drivers from one site(amd/ati)

Of course, budget is a concern.. but in the building of a new computer, ground up.. an extra $100, and even $200 spent on the processor, is relatively small, when you consider that you'll be using the computer for at least a couple years.

At this point, a quad-core is a given.. and a cpu speed approaching more than 3.5ghz is assumed. If that's not your target for an new, FSX build, you'll regret not waiting till that target fits you budget.

Now.. aside from CPU speed, the CPU's architecture and cache size/handling is important. In other words..an Intel quad-core running at the same speed as an AMD quad-core will outperform it pretty significantly, in FSX. NickN explained it to me, many moons ago.

It's kinda like when AMD's architecture was far superior. Circa 1998 to 2004, a gamer wouldn't even consider an Intel CPU. AMD even labeled their chips so that you could reference them to Intel's performance. Remember the days of an AMD 2000XP ? It ran at 1.6 Ghz, but could perform with a 2.0ghz  Intel (hence the 2000).. and an AMD 2500  at 1.8ghz, could game like a 2.5ghz Intel.

If you're building a new computer meant to run FSX... Intel is the way to go (for now).

Thanks for all the in put, sorry I didn't thank you before was out.. Well I'm limited to AMD as thats what my MOBO takes at the moment I have a 545 dual.. so looking for an upgrade was looking at the "AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad-Core Processor - 3.20 GHz" as mentioned in the Hardware area of the forum.. but wanted to double check that the 955 can handle FSX, I don't know how to overclock so what to really keep it stock.

Quote:


Remember that different CPU's get different amounts of performance per clock cycle. As an example, a Core 2 Duo E6300 at 1.83ghz will perform like a 3.6ghz Pentium D. An AMD FX-55 at 2.6ghz will outperform a Pentium 4 overclocked to 4.4ghz. The Phenom II gets slightly less performance per clock cycle compared to a Core 2 Quad, ergo a 3.0ghz QX6850 is approximately as fast as a 3.2ghz Phenom II 955. That's where the efficiency of the Core i5 750, and Core i7 comes into play. A 2.66ghz Core i5 750 will be as fast as a 3.2ghz Phenom II 955. A 2.66ghz Core i7 920 will kill the Core i5, and almost every other processor (except faster versions of the i7) as it is even more efficient.

That's why my most recommended processor as the moment is the Core i5 750. It's 2.66ghz stock, but performs like a 3.0ghz Core 2 Quad or 3.2ghz Phenom II. It gets the most performance per watt of any processor (technically a Core i7 860 would probably do better). It will also overclock to 3.8ghz on good air cooling, which is a massive 43% overclock. Going from 2.66ghz to 3.8ghz is a bigger deal than a Phenom II going from 3.2ghz to 4ghz, or a Core 2 Quad going to 3.8ghz.



http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/Un3242677993362titled-2.jpg


That's a SINGLE core of my Q6600 @ 3.0ghz versus a 3.4ghz Pentium 4.

Quote:

You might want to check your temperatures. They seem low. 23 degrees celcius is only 74 degrees F, which would be impossible if ambient is 80F. I'm betting the software you're using is buggy and is recording ambient temperatures for some reason.


Quote:

I agree that people shouldn't buy really cheap hardware, because you get what you pay for. But $200 is a fair amount of money, and that adds up because you have to pair it with more expensive memory and motherboard. As of February this year only 1% of processors were LGA 1366........... you should change it to intel socket 1366 and quad core socket 1156 is the way to go (1156 dual cores suck). I would hate for a larger amount of users to buy a Core i3-530 instead of a nice Phenom II x4 925 because in that price range ($120) then intel is clearly not better.

Don't rule out an LGA775 CPU...

My Q9550 is 45nm, and 12MB L2.. clocks effortlessly to 3.6Ghz.. and can be had for $280 

The only tangible advantage that an 'i' has, is that it will clock a little higher, and runs a little cooler.