Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd phenom ii x6 1045 fsx

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 6, 2013 6:40:31 PM

Hello,

My 965BE has been damaged and needs replacing (wont go into how it got damaged). The question is do i go for another 965 BE or look to go for the 1045 x6. I mainly use the machine for AutoCad and FSX. I have 4 gb Ram and a GTX260 gpu.

More about : amd phenom 1045 fsx

a c 148 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2013 9:10:39 PM

I would definitely go x6 just for FSX alone; it loves cores. Get an aftermarket cooler and you should be able to get a decent overclock on it.
a c 152 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2013 9:24:26 PM

I agree with popatim. In this case for what you are doing more cores are better.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2013 9:49:43 PM

Flight sim is really processor limited. At the risk of sounding redundant, I would say get the best CPU you can, the more cores the better with FSX.

To be honest I play FSX all the time. I use ORBX PNW, Starks twin oaks, allot of Ceranado planes and REX. I have an AMD 8150, 16gb of Ram, dual 9800gx2's and raid 0 configured 124gb ssd's. I still get about 45 solid fps.

I used to have a quad core with everything else the same and would be lucky to keep things stable at 20fps. Moral of the story, the more cores the better off you will be.

Also, limit you auto gen vehicle traffic, that is a real FPS killer.

When you look at FPS youtube vid's you will see people who claim over 100 FPS with max everything. Don't believe it, they are really at about 30 and have changed the config to display better frames than they are really getting or they are flying in a region with no real scenery to speak of. I could go out over the ocean in a default 737 and get 100fps. Most people I know that play this on the regular and have great systems get about what I get for FPS.
a c 381 à CPUs
a c 166 À AMD
February 7, 2013 3:00:24 AM

I guess I'll add my 2 cents and agree with the rest. The 6 core is the best choice for heavily threaded apps. Not that the 965BE wouldn't be good too. But I feel the extra cores makes up for the slightly slower speed.
February 7, 2013 8:20:52 AM

So would FSX use all 6 cores? Working on a tight budget as this was all unplanned, what would recommend is a good cheap cooler for the CPU?

How much better than the 965BE x4 would the 1045T x6 be. Would I notice much difference?
a c 381 à CPUs
a c 166 À AMD
February 7, 2013 4:12:15 PM

Use this for a general comparison. (The site didn't list the 1045 so I went with the slightly faster 1055):
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=102

In lightly threaded apps, the faster quad core will pull ahead, but for heavier threaded apps, the hexa core makes up for slightly slower speed with more cores. Would you notice the difference? That's hard to say. Adamvi seems to have a first hand experience with the program. But he may not have been able to compared his 8 core to a comparable 4 core.
February 7, 2013 8:47:41 PM

Thanks for your help. I have gone for the 1045T and will let you know how it goes. Graphcs card next. GTX 260 currently...
a c 381 à CPUs
a c 166 À AMD
February 7, 2013 9:04:12 PM

Here's a recent blog you may want to read pertaining to FSX and building a PC for it. According to the author, FSX just recently went multi threaded. Check out the section on CPU. FSX may indeed be unable to utilize all six cores. I'm not a FS fan so I was only going by others' experience. But if the author is correct, the faster quad core may be better than the slower 6 core.
http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/topic/201175-gener...

I know, you're more confused than ever now, right?
February 7, 2013 9:13:29 PM

Aghhhh. dont know what to do!
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2013 9:27:11 PM

Sorry clutchc, but I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about.

Intel's site on FSX states that it can use up to 32 cores since sp2.
just add this line in your fsx config and your good to go. If you have 32 cores.

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=32
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/microsoft-flig...

Secondly the guy say's windows 32 only supports 3gb's of ram when it actually supports 4 or 3.5 if you count what is in use by windows.

After those errors I discounted his whole rant. Sorry.
a c 381 à CPUs
a c 166 À AMD
February 7, 2013 9:27:52 PM

craigomills said:
Aghhhh. dont know what to do!

Keep reading and searching. Look for something like "build a FSX PC". From the quick perusal I've done, it appears the program is not all that demanding of the processor. It needs a quad core and a good mid range or higher card depending on the resolution you play at. The more VRAM the card has, the better it seems.

The FSX community is quite large, you need to go to one of their specific forums and ask around.
Example: http://www.simforums.com/forums/custom-fsx-pc-build-hel...
a c 381 à CPUs
a c 166 À AMD
February 7, 2013 9:31:11 PM

adamv1 said:
Sorry clutchc, but I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about.

Intel's site on FSX states that it can use up to 32 cores since sp2.
just add this line in your fsx config and your good to go. If you have 32 cores.

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=32
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/microsoft-flig...

Secondly the guy say's windows 32 only supports 3gb's of ram when it actually supports 4 or 3.5 if you count what is in use by windows.

After those errors I discounted his whole rant. Sorry.

You may be right. I am going to step back and let someone who actually uses the pgm take over ;-)
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2013 9:39:43 PM

I will reiterate, in my experience higher clock speed doesn't seem to make much difference with respect to frame rates. The amount of cores does. You need to add the affinity mask to take advantage of more than 4 cores but the difference is really noticeable as you can see by my frames 20 with 4 cores and 45 with 8.

I'm going to try a server with 32 cores later this month, we will see if 32 cores makes the difference. Who knows maybe I will get 100fps in heavily congested areas. Then i'll post a youtube video saying I did it on intel atom with 2gb of ram. ;0)
February 8, 2013 11:35:50 AM

adamv1 said:
I will reiterate, in my experience higher clock speed doesn't seem to make much difference with respect to frame rates. The amount of cores does. You need to add the affinity mask to take advantage of more than 4 cores but the difference is really noticeable as you can see by my frames 20 with 4 cores and 45 with 8.

I'm going to try a server with 32 cores later this month, we will see if 32 cores makes the difference. Who knows maybe I will get 100fps in heavily congested areas. Then i'll post a youtube video saying I did it on intel atom with 2gb of ram. ;0)


Ok, have re-ordered the 1045T and am sticking to it this time :na: 

I think in the long term I will probably upgrade graphics as well, but interested to see how well it works with a new 6 core beast. I wanted the 1090x6 but cany justify to 'er indoors!
a c 78 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2013 11:47:15 AM

If you have a decent motherboard you can overclock the 1045t to get some speed back too.

I had my 1045t overclocked to 3.4 Ghz with little effort. (I did need an aftermarket 212+ cooler though)
February 8, 2013 11:51:48 AM

Z1NONLY said:
If you have a decent motherboard you can overclock the 1045t to get some speed back too.

I had my 1045t overclocked to 3.4 Ghz with little effort. (I did need an aftermarket 212+ cooler though)


My motherboard is Asus M4A79XTD Evo. Looking on Asus' website I will apparently need to update my bios. Looks straight forward enough :o 

Bit of a noob, hence why I'm on here asking silly questions! :??: 

Is the standard cooler okay until I want to overclock?
a c 78 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2013 12:04:08 PM

It's a little noisy when temps get high, but it works at stock settings.
!