New system advice on parts please.

[blibba]

I ask about GPU load not because I think the GPU is insufficient, but in case it is not being loaded properly. Also, you never responded regarding temperatures - if anything's getting too hot, it will throttle, resulting in poor performance.

[BarbaricSoul]

Originally Posted by Alcpone

I am going to have to clock it some what, I will need better cooling to start with before hand though. I am wishing I never went the AMD route, but hey ho, we live and learn.

How in the hell is that six core 3.5ghz cpu not handling FSX when FSX minimum requirements are-

PHP Code:

Minimum System Requirements •Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 
•Processor: 1.0 Ghz 
•RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB 
•Hard Drive: 14GB 
•Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible 
•Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones
 •Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play 


Min specs say a 1 ghz single core cpu is sufficent. Recommeneded is going to be well under what the FX 6300 is. That is why I recommended the FX 6300 originally. I've used a FX 6100 myself, and I didn't notice a hugh difference between it and my 2600k. But then again, I see you blew a hugh chunk of your budget on a 240 gb SSD and went with a lot lower performance video card (mistake IMHO, SSDs are nice, but not worth skimping on something like the video card for). Looking at TPU's review of the GTX650, I wouldn't even consider it a gaming card. The HD7770 by AMD, which sells for about $120 gives 20% more performance. I would look at the GTX650 before assuming the CPU is the bottleneck.

[Alcpone]

Originally Posted by blibba

I ask about GPU load not because I think the GPU is insufficient, but in case it is not being loaded properly. Also, you never responded regarding temperatures - if anything's getting too hot, it will throttle, resulting in poor performance.

How can I tell what kind of load the GPU is getting? Is their any programs I can use to see? It has a massive heatsink and 2 100mm fans that arn't spinning like mad so I dont think it is getting too hot.

Originally Posted by BarbaricSoul

How in the hell is that six core 3.5ghz cpu not handling FSX when FSX minimum requirements are-

PHP Code:

Minimum System Requirements •Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 
•Processor: 1.0 Ghz 
•RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB 
•Hard Drive: 14GB 
•Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible 
•Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones
 •Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play 


Min specs say a 1 ghz single core cpu is sufficent. Recommeneded is going to be well under what the FX 6300 is. That is why I recommended the FX 6300 originally. I've used a FX 6100 myself, and I didn't notice a hugh difference between it and my 2600k. But then again, I see you blew a hugh chunk of your budget on a 240 gb SSD and went with a lot lower performance video card (mistake IMHO, SSDs are nice, but not worth skimping on something like the video card for). Looking at TPU's review of the GTX650, I wouldn't even consider it a gaming card. The HD7770 by AMD, which sells for about $120 gives 20% more performance. I would look at the GTX650 before assuming the CPU is the bottleneck.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_6...es/perfrel.gif

Have you used a fx 6100 in fsx? Only 3 of the 6 cores are getting full load when running it, I have tried the fsx tweak tool aswel to get more cores going, if I could get 5 of the 6 running at full wack I think I might make head way on the FPS. As FSX is a cpu heavy game I dont think having the 650 will be a problem. I was running it better on a HD6750m 512mb gfx card in the imac, which is a much older card with less power than the gtx650, yes its not the best of cards for other newer games but for fsx it should be fine. The SSD was recommended for loading the terrain in quicker as that is what it has to do all the way through a flight, probably not a massive difference in load times but thats what I bought thinking it would make a difference. Hopefully I will find a sweet spot to run it with the hardware I have

[BarbaricSoul]

Originally Posted by BarbaricSoul

How in the hell is that six core 3.5ghz cpu not handling FSX when FSX minimum requirements are-

PHP Code:

Minimum System Requirements •Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 
•Processor: 1.0 Ghz 
•RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB 
•Hard Drive: 14GB 
•Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible 
•Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones
 •Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play 


Min specs say a 1 ghz single core cpu is sufficent. Recommeneded is going to be well under what the FX 6300 is. That is why I recommended the FX 6300 originally. I've used a FX 6100 myself, and I didn't notice a hugh difference between it and my 2600k. But then again, I see you blew a hugh chunk of your budget on a 240 gb SSD and went with a lot lower performance video card (mistake IMHO, SSDs are nice, but not worth skimping on something like the video card for). Looking at TPU's review of the GTX650, I wouldn't even consider it a gaming card. The HD7770 by AMD, which sells for about $120 gives 20% more performance. I would look at the GTX650 before assuming the CPU is the bottleneck.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_6...es/perfrel.gif

Opps, I'm mistaken on the actual card you bought. I missed the ti in your specs. But even so, the GTX650ti isn't much better than the regular GTX650, with performance just over that of the $120 HD7770. Still not what I consider a "gaming" video card. There is a reason I recommended a HD7950. If you really wanted to go with Nvidia, you should have atleast got a GTX660ti IMHO.

How can I tell what kind of load the GPU is getting? Is their any programs I can use to see? It has a massive heatsink and 2 100mm fans that arn't spinning like mad so I dont think it is getting too hot.

MSI Afterburner will show you the load on the the video card

[blibba]

650TIs are fine, comparable to the 560TI that everyone was worshipping last gen.

They fall between the 7770 and 7850, both of which are perfectly viable cards for 1080p.

OP: You can use GPU-Z to monitor GPU load, HWmon to monitor temps.

When you say that only three cores are being loaded, are they being fully loaded?

[Alcpone]

I have been doing some more tweaking and it is certainly running smoother, getting high 20's fps now. So I am fairly happy with the outcome. I have taken this screenshot for you to see, most I have seen the gfx card loaded to is 50ish % so that can definitly cope, I have played some hitman and it struggles to get over medium settings in that with adequate fps, it is a fun game though none the less and looks very nice. What would you say was the highest temps for the cpu I could safely run at? I am getting a new case fan to get some cooler air in next week and a definite aftermarket cpu cooler to do some clocking, should beable to clock it to 4.1ghz happily. If I do clock it will it clock down when it has not alot of load like it does now?

[blibba]

Originally Posted by Alcpone

I have been doing some more tweaking and it is certainly running smoother, getting high 20's fps now. So I am fairly happy with the outcome. I have taken this screenshot for you to see, most I have seen the gfx card loaded to is 50ish % so that can definitly cope, I have played some hitman and it struggles to get over medium settings in that with adequate fps, it is a fun game though none the less and looks very nice. What would you say was the highest temps for the cpu I could safely run at? I am getting a new case fan to get some cooler air in next week and a definite aftermarket cpu cooler to do some clocking, should beable to clock it to 4.1ghz happily. If I do clock it will it clock down when it has not alot of load like it does now?

Looks like it really is the CPU holding you back. Possibly FSX is just compiled with Intel in mind. You could look into the option of returning it and switching to a 3570K, but that'd probably be pretty expensive at this point, if they let you at all.

You might be able to do quite a lot better than 4.1GHZ. Remember to disable turbo before you start overclocking. Your maximum temperature is about 60 degrees for modern AMD CPUs. If you go above that, you won't damage the CPU, but it will throttle and lose performance (temporarily). The only way you're going to damage anything is with excessive voltage - just read some reviews and guides for AMD Piledriver (FX-*3**), to see what kind of voltages to be considering.

The downclock you mention is a set of power-saving features which can be enabled and disabled in the BIOS. I've had no issues overclocking with them left enabled on numerous Intel and AMD chips in the past. I've never tried an FX, but I don't see why it should be any different.

EDIT: I forgot to mention - have you downloaded the Windows 7 hotfixes for AMD FX performance? They're not huge but they might help a bit.

[Alcpone]

Originally Posted by blibba

Looks like it really is the CPU holding you back. Possibly FSX is just compiled with Intel in mind. You could look into the option of returning it and switching to a 3570K, but that'd probably be pretty expensive at this point, if they let you at all.

You might be able to do quite a lot better than 4.1GHZ. Remember to disable turbo before you start overclocking. Your maximum temperature is about 60 degrees for modern AMD CPUs. If you go above that, you won't damage the CPU, but it will throttle and lose performance (temporarily). The only way you're going to damage anything is with excessive voltage - just read some reviews and guides for AMD Piledriver (FX-*3**), to see what kind of voltages to be considering.

The downclock you mention is a set of power-saving features which can be enabled and disabled in the BIOS. I've had no issues overclocking with them left enabled on numerous Intel and AMD chips in the past. I've never tried an FX, but I don't see why it should be any different.

I could ask but I doubt it as it isn't faulty. The 3570k chip alone would of cost me the same as this chip and the mobo cost, so I would have another chunk of cash to splash out on the intel mobo, I will probably settle for this, I may beable to get another core pumping at full wack leaving one for other stuff and a nice oc to get some more fps. FSX is one mother of a cpu drain.

I will do a google on them and see if it makes a difference, cheers for the help

[BarbaricSoul]

It really surprises me that the FX6300 can't handle FSX. By that, even the best Core2Quad couldn't handle FSX as the FX6300 has more performance than the Q9650 core for core. How a game with minimum specs for a 1 ghz single core could bottleneck on a modern 3.5ghz 6-core, or even a quad core for that matter, just baffles me. If the FX6300 can't handle FSX, how in the hell is a 1ghz single core going to

[McSteel]

Minimum requirements are for minimum settings. Once you increase the traffic setting to maximum, even a modern Ivy Bridge will sweat blood. Compared to FSX, GTA IV is a timid little mouse when it comes to CPU hogging...

[Alcpone]

Originally Posted by McSteel

Minimum requirements are for minimum settings. Once you increase the traffic setting to maximum, even a modern Ivy Bridge will sweat blood. Compared to FSX, GTA IV is a timid little mouse when it comes to CPU hogging...

What he said, although world of ai works the best of all the traffic programs ive used and takes the least power to run it. Win win situation

[BarbaricSoul]

Apparently.

Funny, never really had any interest in playing FSX until now. Hmmm, a game that will actually push my system. Too bad it'll only use 4 threads.

[Alcpone]

Originally Posted by BarbaricSoul

Apparently.

Funny, never really had any interest in playing FSX until now. Hmmm, a game that will actually push my system. Too bad it'll only use 4 threads.

I've had it using all 6 cores, alot of tinkering is needed with the FSX.CFG file or even your i7 will struggle.

[BarbaricSoul]

how's it run with all 6 cores being used?

[Alcpone]

Originally Posted by BarbaricSoul

how's it run with all 6 cores being used?

It is running better, Atleast it is pushing the chip now, still tweaking the cfg file and need a bigger cooler to start clocking. Hopefully I can get it up to 4.3ghz ish.