Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Has Anyone Play Flight Sim X On Amd FX-8120

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 31, 2012 12:29:24 AM

Hello Has Anyone Play Flight Sim X On Amd fx-8120 n What Kind Of Results They Got With it Thank u
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 31, 2012 2:26:28 AM

You already opened a thread about 2 weeks ago...i am sure it will be good, but not as good as an i5-2500k.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 2:28:57 AM

amuffin said:
You already opened a thread about 2 weeks ago...i am sure it will be good, but not as good as an i5-2500k.



yeah i hear that alot i just wanted to see if someone had really use it n what results they got
m
0
l
Related resources
February 8, 2012 8:15:13 AM

amuffin said:
You already opened a thread about 2 weeks ago...i am sure it will be good, but not as good as an i5-2500k.


Got some Bad news for ya mate, I have an FX 8120 and My Flatmate has an i5 2500K. My 8120 Performs much better at higher Mesh and Vehicles than his 2500K. I run the game maxiumum settings at 1920x1080 with everything on and traffic Medium- High, with my flat mates you ahve to turn the traffic off to get the same performance. So that being said if you don't care about traffic then go for the 2500K it's almost the same. But if you want more planes in the air and some cars on the ground to make it a bit more "Lifelike" then the FX 8120 is pimp.

I still perfer the 2500K for most games and Im sure other gamers would agree as generally speaking the FX 8120 is not very good but in flight sim 10 the 8120 is a beast.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 8:28:52 AM

Revelate said:
Got some Bad news for ya mate, I have an FX 8120 and My Flatmate has an i5 2500K. My 8120 Performs much better at higher Mesh and Vehicles than his 2500K. I run the game maxiumum settings at 1920x1080 with everything on and traffic Medium- High, with my flat mates you ahve to turn the traffic off to get the same performance. So that being said if you don't care about traffic then go for the 2500K it's almost the same. But if you want more planes in the air and some cars on the ground to make it a bit more "Lifelike" then the FX 8120 is pimp.

I still perfer the 2500K for most games and Im sure other gamers would agree as generally speaking the FX 8120 is not very good but in flight sim 10 the 8120 is a beast.


Its not all about cpu, gpu matters also
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 8:42:04 AM

seumas_beathan said:
Its not all about cpu, gpu matters also


Again sorry to dissapoint you, FSX is nto very GPU intensive infact you can run it freakin awesome on a 9800GTX. I have 2x 6870's in crossfire and having crossfire enabled or not makes no difference (Besides that doesn't matter FSX does not support Crossfire or SLi). If you actually do your research on FSX you'll find that it's very CPU intensive and the GPU really does hardly any work at all.

I used to have an ADM 940 AM2+ with 2x 4890's In crossfire, as soon as I stuck the 6870's in it made no difference to FSX, same performance (hence why the GPU doesn't do much at all). As soon as I changed to an FX 8120 I could Crank the settings so much more. I turned 4 Cores off in the 8120 To simulate some sort of simularity to the 940 (Even though its not exact) and the Game went from 35 FPS down to 10. The CPU has everything to do with the performance of FSX so whoever told you the GPU does something for it has miselead you.

Google it, and youll see plenty of FSX benchmarks and they are all based on the CPU.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 8:48:16 AM

Look im sorry but muffin is right, i5 2500k will do better simple as
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 9:31:19 AM

seumas_beathan said:
Look im sorry but muffin is right, i5 2500k will do better simple as



Well you're wrong, google it.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 10:24:43 AM

FX - 8120 is a very bad cpu, even it was cheaper it would still be bad
m
0
l

Best solution

February 9, 2012 10:10:02 AM

seumas_beathan said:
FX - 8120 is a very bad cpu, even it was cheaper it would still be bad


Maybe you should have a good read of what I wrote, I already wrote that the FX 8120 is not good, and I quote:

"I still perfer the 2500K for most games and Im sure other gamers would agree as generally speaking the FX 8120 is not very good but in flight sim 10 the 8120 is a beast."

Maybe you should understand how FSX works before underestimating the FX 8120's Power in a heavily multithreaded simulator like FSX. Everyone knows the FX 8120 is a pile rubbish but for FSX it outperforms a 2500K that's it, end of story. For everything else the 2500K pretty much craps all over the FX 8120. Again google it and you will see and maybe understand that a CPU like the 2600K would destroy the FX 8120 in FSX due to its HT. The i5 is only 4 cores the FX 8120 is 8. 8 cores is better than 4 for FSX it's that simple. FSX has the ability to run on 64 cores Microsoft said, now wouldnt that be something. :) 
Share
a c 119 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 10:35:00 AM

x plane 10 isnt fsx guys. it will use every cpu available up to 16, yes 16 cpus not cores.(or so they claim)
fsx only runs off 1 thread unless its modded and not all the mods that introduce multithreading run evenly on different hardware.
comparing a 4 thread cpu to an 8 thread cpu on a game that can potentialy use all available resorces isnt really a fair comparison. but you pair it like for like then you will notice little or no everall difference.
unlike fsx xplane 10 will also use up to 4 gfx cards so in theory the amd fx should perform quite well...
in this case it does reasonably well but doesn't beat out my old 920 which runs 8 threads its actually very close... it will beat the 2500k but only just... problem is now that i have posted this, from now on your gonna see amd fanboys crowing about how they have 1 game that they can beat the 2500k on and forget the other 10,000 it doesnt... after all it is the best cpu ever and i mean EVER!!!... no your 2500k is pants because its intel and doesnt run x-plane 10 at above medium... (the idiots)
truth is that unless you have the ultimate gaming server you wont be able to max x-plane 10 you will get slightly smoother performance on an 8 threaded cpu but its still gfx limited in that no1 with 1 gfx card can play the game above medium...

oh and if you want i can post benches from my 2 year old pc that will easily match your brand new pc... its that simple... i could play x-plane 10 2 years ago at settings your only just getting... thats how far your cpu is behind... FACT!.
m
0
l
March 17, 2012 1:20:42 AM

Best answer selected by JAYFRESH1271.
m
0
l
May 26, 2012 8:47:58 PM

Hey Hexit, You are right about everything else about X-Plane 10 except one thing. You said: "but its still gfx limited in that no1 with 1 gfx card can play the game above medium..." This is simply untrue. Austin Meyer and Ben Supnik themselves have stated that X-Plane 10 does not support sli/crossfire (ie. more than one GPU), But they are considering adding support for it in the future. All you need is one powerful GPU to run X-Plane 10 on high settings, I know this because I run it on high settings with my 1 GPU: a Radeon HD 6970.

Also, X-Plane 10 is a 32-bit application so it does not use more than 4 gb of system ram. They are also in the process of fixing this and are porting the code to 64-bit, Though they say this may be a while off, maybe a year or more.

I am an X-Plane fan and fly it daily, Just stating the facts.
m
0
l
June 27, 2012 4:40:30 PM

Joeyboots said:
Hey Hexit, You are right about everything else about X-Plane 10 except one thing. You said: "but its still gfx limited in that no1 with 1 gfx card can play the game above medium..." This is simply untrue. Austin Meyer and Ben Supnik themselves have stated that X-Plane 10 does not support sli/crossfire (ie. more than one GPU), But they are considering adding support for it in the future. All you need is one powerful GPU to run X-Plane 10 on high settings, I know this because I run it on high settings with my 1 GPU: a Radeon HD 6970.

Also, X-Plane 10 is a 32-bit application so it does not use more than 4 gb of system ram. They are also in the process of fixing this and are porting the code to 64-bit, Though they say this may be a while off, maybe a year or more.

I am an X-Plane fan and fly it daily, Just stating the facts.


+1 -- amen .... people should not speak about software they really don't know about. Looking forward to the new 64 bit update -- accessing that extra 12 GIG I have will be nice :) 
m
0
l
June 26, 2013 8:44:46 PM

fs 10 is FSX, just as FS9 was fs2004.
m
0
l
October 16, 2013 8:49:49 AM

I have two computers. 1, 2500k with a nvidia 210 and the other (my personal favorite) has a fx8350 with a 4GB Nvidia 760. both have 16gb ram.
In every game I have, with fsx the exception, the fx8350 performs better. With fsx though, even with the crummy video card, it runs smoother on the i5.
I have done considerable amounts of research regarding the subject and this is why:
FSX does a terrible job at using multiple cores. In fact, if i set my affinity mask to use only 2 of the 8 cores the game runs considerably better.
If someone out there is considering building a computer specifically for the purpose of fsx, I suggest finding the best single threaded processor they can.
If i could do it again i would put an i5 4670 and played down on the video card to actually save money on the build. The 4670 overall performs a little worse than the 8350 overall but its single threaded performance blows the 8350 out of the water and that is what is needed for fsx
m
0
l
!