On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:38:02 GMT
"SteveH" <steve.houghREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Synapse Syndrome wrote:
> > "Tony Houghton" <h@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:20080819163902.5e83065e@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> CPU. Does FSX work better with quad core or two faster cores? He'll
> >> want good value for money rather than the very best, so is AMD worth
> >> considering? Is AM2 a dead horse, or still better value than AM2+?
> > I don't know much about gaming, but I am into flight-sims a bit (my
> > dad used to be a fighter pilot). Flight Sim X is one of the few 3D
> > games where having a powerful CPU is more important then the gfx card.
> But in the case of the very power hungry FSX its simply a case of getting
> the best CPU, video and memory you can afford. Most of the FSX users seem to
> be going for quad Intels. It would pay the o/p to ask the folks in
I did ask there and did some Googling. It's surprisingly difficult to
get a definitive answer, but AFAICT Quad does have the edge as long as
you use the FSX SP1 or newer which made it utilise multiple cores
better, and especially if you run add-ons.
I think I'll go for the very popular Q6600 then. For the motherboard I
like the look of the MSI P35 Neo; it's cheap but a decent enough brand
and I don't think he'll want anything fancy. Any good reason to avoid it
or get something else?
The Q6600 has a 1066MHz FSB, but presumably it'll work fine with slower
RAM like PC2-5300. Am I right in thinking that the extra cost of faster
RAM is far out of proportion to the speed increase?
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk