It's running 4.7-5ghz.I have been working on my San Francisco Multiplayer Carrier Ops project for quite a while now, and am finally ready to release ! If you want to see benchmark comparisons, just use the FX-9590 benchmarks to compare against your chip. In decently multithreaded games(and pretty much every release this year has been, using all 8 cores on my 8350/8370E) the FX would easily come out on top of a 2.2ghz 4core sandy bridge. As far as gaming goes, AMD is much slower per clock, so in single threaded only apps they'll be close(although the FX should edge it out if it's clocked at 2.2ghz).
FSX ACCELERATION MISSIONS PLUS
A pair of SP120's plus the corsair fans should do nicely.Īs fair as beating that sandy-bridge, assuming it a four core the FX will whip the floor with it when it comes to rendering. Push-pull fans on an intake radiator helps keep it cool. I'm okay with temps a little higher than reccomended for some added performance. With an H100i you should be able to count on 4.8, maybe 5ghz, but temps will be your limiting factor. I mean mine was 4.8ghz with 1.380 vccore, Intel burn test stable. There's some threads on with low voltage benching, getting a 4.7-4.8ghz overclock on 1.4 vcore or under seems to be fairly common.
FSX ACCELERATION MISSIONS SERIES
The E series should about 60% less leakage than a standard FX series and usually require Atleast. There has actually been some refinements to the productions process. I think my chip is standard fair for the E series. With an 8370E, an H80 should be able to hit 4.8-4.9ghz, limited only by temps. Something like a corsair H80 for 4.6g-4.8ghz would be good. Just remember you'll need a nice BIG cooler to get good clocks out of these. The E series is much better for air overclocking as well. My new 8370E runs 5 ghz at 1.46 vcore, my 8350 was 1.512 for 4.7ghz(although 4.6 was easier than that!). My 8350 was stuck at 4.7ghz, it basically hit a wall. I would recommend the E series, as they are much cooler and I've found that they are better overclockers. And tweaking the config for 8 cores is pretty easy as well(there's an online tool for it). Turning out the traffic and other CPU intensive things can further increase performance. Other than that, though, it plays it very well. The tweaked config helps, but the steam version definitely seems more multicore optimized.
In some cities it drops into the 20's, sometimes even lower. It runs well enough to play, but this game definitely prefers Intel CPU's. But 17% is well past margin for error, I think you would agree. Granted, these were manually flown so there could be some variance. I don't know what the difference on an intel based chip would be, but I'd bet it's even higher. Average frames are up 17% and min frames are up almost 10%, even with a tweaked config in FSX Acceleration at 1440P. So, there seems to be better optimization as they suggested. So, min frames went from 25 to 27( 8% improvement), Max frames went from 77 to 95( 23% improvement), and Average frames when from 53 to 62( 17% improvement). Then I ran the steam version, same mission and got these numbers: I ran stock(I do have a tweaked config for my system, regularly see 100% usage across all 8 cores) first and got these numbers: My system is as R9_290 crossfire(disabled for this test)Ģ7" 1440P Qnix 2710 monitor running at 90hz I didn't change view at any time or pan the camera around,and flew mostly with trim and throttle for a smooth flight.
FSX ACCELERATION MISSIONS DOWNLOAD
So I felt that FSX steam edition was running better for me than the original FSX download I have from GFWL, so I broke out fraps and ran a benchmark.
0 kommentar(er)
