CPU Upgrade plan need your help please.

[isisisaac]

HI there,

nice to meet you all.

I am using an Intel DP965LT board with E6300.

My board is restricted by Intel and not able to overclock any CPU from the BIOS. Try SetFSB with not much help.

My problem:

I want to play FSX at around 1650 X 1050 resolution with all setting ~High/Ultra High.

I have done a research and foudn that FSX is all about CPU performance.

my question.

If I just buy a Q6600 at stock speed (cause cant overclock), will it help much? I have seen good FSX performance for Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz+, but what about the performance at stock speed?

Or should I buy a new board and pair with Q6600 or Q9400? Will it not worth the money if I just use Q6600 at stock spped for FSX?

PS: Using 8600GT only.

Thanks for all advice.

 

[Noya]

I have done a research and foudn that FSX is all about CPU performance.

You just answered it. The highest clocked quad core will give you the best performance.

 

[aznguy0028]

Or should I buy a new board and pair with Q6600 or Q9400? Will it not worth the money if I just use Q6600 at stock spped for FSX?

don't buy the Q9400. by newegg prices, its 275$ while the Q6600 is only 189$ Q9400 is 2.66ghz while the Q6600 is 2.4ghz.

so what i would do is buy a Q6600 and a new mobo, a P35/45, your choice but a P35's prices are now 100 or sub 100. so for roughly a little bit more than the Q9400 itself, you can get a Q6600 with a new mobo and just OC it to 3.0+ and you're set.

 

[o1die]

With a newer 1333 motherboard, you can try a "cpu pin mod" with special copper tape that is about the same thickness as aluminum foil, if you can find it. If it works, you get a 25% overclock on your e series cpu, changing it from 1066 to 1333. I use this technique on my e4300 (from 800 to 1066), and have never had any issues. The tape is sold by Fry's electronics for $3 in a roll. Radio shack might have it online, but I haven't checked. Use yahoo or google for the link. Some folks use the solution from rear window defroster kits, but the stuff is tricky to work with. I don't recommend using it.

 

[bobbknight]

^ This sounds like a really good way for a nubie to kill a computer^

 

[isisisaac]

don't buy the Q9400. by newegg prices, its 275$ while the Q6600 is only 189$ Q9400 is 2.66ghz while the Q6600 is 2.4ghz.

so what i would do is buy a Q6600 and a new mobo, a P35/45, your choice but a P35's prices are now 100 or sub 100. so for roughly a little bit more than the Q9400 itself, you can get a Q6600 with a new mobo and just OC it to 3.0+ and you're set.

Hi there,

thanks for the reply. Please help me with some follow up...

few questions.

1. What about the FSX performance for Q6600 at stock speed with my DP965LT coz this can save me $ on mobo as well as reinstalling windows.

2. I am very new to OC, I am just using DDR 2 667 Kingston ram (normal speed), will that limit me from overclocking the Q6600? (ofcoz, with a new p35 board as suggested by you). Will Q6600 break easily if I OC it?

3. Other than clock speed, the Q9400 must have something better than Q6600 ? Really no point for a Q9400?

4. The heat generated from Q6600 is huge? what about after OC?

Thanks so much and I need you guys' advice...

 

[geofelt]

I think a Q6600 will serve you well for FSX. Not only is the clock rate higher(2.4 vs. 1.86), but you get twice the cores which FSX can use. Your limiting factor may well become the vga card.

I would see how you do with a Q6600 at stock first. If you think an overclock would help, then it will cost you about $90 for a motherboard, and $40 for a good cooler.

The newer quads are built on a 45nm technology, and they run cooler. There are also some minor improvements which make them a bit faster, clock for clock.

The stock retail heatsink that comes with the Q6600 is OK and will do the job. Under heavy load, the fan will spin up and become noisy, but the heat will be under control.

 

[isisisaac]

One more comparision,

Cause I try not to change mobo, it's so troublesome you know and need to reinstall WinXP...

what about a E7400 which is a little bit cheaper than the Q6600, with a clock speed of 2.8Ghz.

So..Q6600 (4 cores at 2.4Ghz) vs E7400 ( 2 cores at 2.8Ghz).

You know, my mobo cant Overclock, so just compare Q6600 and E7400 at stock speed.

I have heard that higher clock speed is much more vital than more cores for FSX.
(http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-10.html)

So what do you thik of E7400?

I think a Q6600 will serve you well for FSX. Not only is the clock rate higher(2.4 vs. 1.86), but you get twice the cores which FSX can use. Your limiting factor may well become the vga card.

I would see how you do with a Q6600 at stock first. If you think an overclock would help, then it will cost you about $90 for a motherboard, and $40 for a good cooler.

The newer quads are built on a 45nm technology, and they run cooler. There are also some minor improvements which make them a bit faster, clock for clock.

The stock retail heatsink that comes with the Q6600 is OK and will do the job. Under heavy load, the fan will spin up and become noisy, but the heat will be under control.

 

[jj463rd]

No,more cores are better for running Microsoft FSX.There will be a 1.8 times better improvement for FSX on a quad core CPU compared to a dual core.
FSX is one of the few applications optimized to utilize a quad core CPU.
Even the Q6600 running at stock speeds will run FSX well although you will have to adjust some display settings in FSX for desired frames per second vs detail or higher resolution.If you get a great aftermarket CPU cooler and overclock the CPU to 3.2 Ghz or 3.6 Ghz you will be able to run FSX very well on a Q6600.

 

[isisisaac]

Thanks.

But what about the figures shown in this review?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-10.html

It didnt show much improvement for a E2140@ 2.4Ghz and Q6600@2.4Ghz

I have also found from other forum, saying that clock speed matter more in FSX...

do you have any real figures or examples?

I am not saying that I dont trust you, but just the result from Internet search seems cant conclude.

2.8Ghz2core vs 2.4 4core. You know my Motherboard cant overclock..otherwize..I have switched to Q6600 already.

by the way, is my 8600GT sucks in FSX? Even with Q6600 at stock speed?

Thanks

No,more cores are better for running Microsoft FSX.There will be a 1.8 times better improvement for FSX on a quad core CPU compared to a dual core.
FSX is one of the few applications optimized to utilize a quad core CPU.
Even the Q6600 running at stock speeds will run FSX well although you will have to adjust some display settings in FSX for desired frames per second vs detail or higher resolution.If you get a great aftermarket CPU cooler and overclock the CPU to 3.2 Ghz or 3.6 Ghz you will be able to run FSX very well on a Q6600.

 

[aznguy0028]

yea, i would still stick with the Q6600. even though getting a new mobo is a bit of a hassle and reinstalling windows, i think it's a way better deal than the E7400.

you have DDR2 667, that would just be enough for you to OC the Q6600 to 3.0ghz. you can probably even push it to 3.2ghz safely.

the 45nm is clock for clock a bit faster than the 65nm. for the differences, the Q9400 has 6mb L2 cache, but the Q6600 has 8mb. imo, get the Q6600 because it is roughly 100$ cheaper. lets take OC-ing into consideration...

you can push the fsb from Q6600's stock, 266 to 333, and you would be at 3.0ghz. if you push it a bit further to 355fsb, you would be at 3.2ghz

for the Q9400, you have to push the fsb from stock 333 to 400 to get a 3.2ghz OC. but the Q9400 cost 100$ more and your ram would not be able to handle a 400fsb cpu oc. so in that sense, the Q6600 would make be the most logical choice. so there is really no point in getting the Q9400 over a Q6600.

the heat from a Q6600 is not by any means "huge". it's one of the coolest quads around. when i had mine, i was running around 28-32C idle, and when prime95, i was hitting 46-48C's.

even though the 45nm's are suppose to be cooler, that is not what i see in real world situations. i'm running a Q9450 now, and my temps at idle are 46-49C and priming would take it up to around 65C. just stay below the 70c safe limit with quads and you'll be okay.

just get a good CPU cooler if you do decide to OC. the Xigmatek S1283 for future references.

 

[jj463rd]

Here is a blog by Phil Taylor from Microsoft Aces Studio (designed FSX) at Microsoft.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/12/04/fsx-perf-benchmark.aspx

Also see the threads by Computronix here.He is the FSX expert on the Tom's Hardware forum
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253586-33-best-graphics-card-playing-flight-1080p#t1851027

 

[isisisaac]

if I have to buy a new mobo..then I am thinking whether to wait for a price cut after the release of core 7i