Wich is better for FSX+ACCEL: Q8300 or E8400 ?

[lefu]

Hi !

the title says it all.

q8300 is 60$ used, E8400 is 35$

 

My actual processor is E5400 2.7

 

I made the match on CPUBOSS site, but quite frankly, i have no idea..

 

it says no winner between Q8300 and E8400

E8400 wins over E5400

and no winner between E5400 and Q8300,

where to understand ?.....

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q8300-vs-Intel-Core2-Duo-E8400

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Pentium-E5400-vs-Intel-Core2-Duo-E8400

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Pentium-E5400-vs-Intel-Core2-Quad-Q8300

 

My FSX is the original version from 2006 with acceleration pack.

 

FSX ACCELERATION, ASUS P5QPL VM-INTEL E5400-2.7GHZ-DDR2RAM4GO-WINDOWS7SP1 -GT220GEFORCE

 

Thanks !

[il88pp]

Aren't the q versions for laptops?

[lefu]

Aren't the q versions for laptops?

 

nope, both are LGA775.

[il88pp]

E8400 is better at single threaded apps. Fsx is single threaded.

 

Then again, for your multi threaded ones it's less then the q8300, which has more cores. Also e8400 is less good for running multiple apps at once.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/703/Intel_Core_2_Duo_E8400_vs_Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q8300.html

 

my instinct said: e8400.

Then again, i did get very used to having my quad core.:)

Recently I worked at a single core (pentium) laptop for a few weeks, and I suddenly remembered how it was before the quads. Having to wait for one program to finish it's operations before another even starts is not nice.

 

Pentium is single core, I don't know how much of an issue it will be on a dual core like the E8400.

 

To close to call for me.

[JSkorna]

Save your money. You aren't going to notice a difference getting either one.

[lefu]

E8400 is better at single threaded apps. Fsx is single threaded.

 

Then again, for your multi threaded ones it's less then the q8300, which has more cores. Also e8400 is less good for running multiple apps at once.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/703/Intel_Core_2_Duo_E8400_vs_Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q8300.html

 

my instinct said: e8400.

Then again, i did get very used to having my quad core.:)

Recently I worked at a single core (pentium) laptop for a few weeks, and I suddenly remembered how it was before the quads. Having to wait for one program to finish it's operations before another even starts is not nice.

 

Pentium is single core, I don't know how much of an issue it will be on a dual core like the E8400.

 

To close to call for me.

 

What do you mean by multi apps at once ?

other programs running while fsx is running ?

[il88pp]

Yes.

That pentium I used was single core and slow. Starting Ccleaner tool I think 10-15 seconds. But if a virusscan was running, it took 3-4 minutes to start ccleaner.

 

My own pc is faster, and a quad core, there starting ccleaner takes 3 secs at most. If (that same) antivirus is scanning at the same time it still takes 3 seconds.

 

But, that is comparing to a single core pentium. With a dual core things may be better.

[il88pp]

And that's just a minor example. Really doing two things at once, for example a virusscan, while unzipping a file, (and firefox running) and the computer would slow to a crawl. As in: in to sleep and hope it's finished in the morning.

[lefu]

And that's just a minor example. Really doing two things at once, for example a virusscan, while unzipping a file, (and firefox running) and the computer would slow to a crawl. As in: in to sleep and hope it's finished in the morning.

 

Ok so lets say im not planning to do many tasks with my PC

i can go for the E8400 right ? i had the E5400 already and did not find major problems with it. one thing sure, once im on the sim, im concentrated on it and nothing else but there is a possibility that i use external programs as fraps, or Fps stabilizers.

 

in resume,

Q8300 is for

FSX, browsers, other software at once

E8400 is for

Gaming, one process only, no browsing or other outside software running

[il88pp]

In resume, I think yes.

 

But, as I said, too close for me to call.

Also, see post 5 by JSkorna.

 

If it was for your only pc, I would lean towards q8300. Because then you would always end up using more apps at once. Running AV and others in the background, etc.

 

If it is a second pc, used almost exclusively for fsx, then I would lean towards E8400. faster.

 

But hard to say. Especially as I don't have experience with these or similar processors. Just with the ones from before it (celeron/pentium, and with the later i53570k.)

I'm extremely happy with my 3570k and if I had to choose myself between these two I would choose neither one. That probably makes me the wrong person to advise.

[Luke]

E8400 is better at single threaded apps. Fsx is single threaded.

 

FSX is NOT single-threaded. SP1 and above can move texture loading to separate threads that aren't blocked by I/O as much. The bulk of the render work is on a single thread, but there are noticeable advantages to running FSX on 2 or more cores.

 

Set the processor affinity to a single core and see.

 

That pentium I used was single core and slow. Starting Ccleaner tool I think 10-15 seconds. But if a virusscan was running, it took 3-4 minutes to start ccleaner.

 

You weren't CPU-bound, you were I/O-bound.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Mark Hurst]

it says no winner between Q8300 and E8400

E8400 wins over E5400 and no winner between E5400 and Q8300,

where to understand ?

 

Clock speed is all, so the E8400 outshines the Q8300 for raw potential even at stock speeds. If you have a motherboard that will overclock you are better with the E8400 as it will go higher. I ran an E8600 for four years at 4GHz just by setting the auto-overclock on my board.

 

Here's a useful page from a Custom PC benchmark comparison back in 2009. I have the whole article if you don't mind a 4MB email. I can also sell you my E8600 CPU, but not for $35 :)

 

[P.S. right-click image and select 'open in new tab' to see it full-size.]

 

http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2016/07/08/a106bb7a845d1b0fc88972da605d15a5.jpg

[llivaudais]

I graduated up from the 8400 last year... it ran FSX well for years with multiple apps - usuallly FSX, Plan-G, Firefox, Explorer window or two etc. Just pare down the unneeded services. Seems like I ran above 30 most of the time but then, I like the back country. LAX and 100+ AI was probably about 9 FPS; it all depends on what you want to see in the sim.

 

Loyd

[Rupert]

I suggest you read the thread "Is this PC OK to run FSX with." It covers your question pretty well. Personally if I weren't considering a CPU faster than say 3.5GHZ, I'd not waste my money. And self-built is certainly the way to go!

 

Check out what Loyd says in the post about the 8400 just above. 9 FPS anywhere isn't very satisfying to most of us.

[lefu]

Ok so i finally decided to go for E8400. I also tried the Q8300 and think its not worthed

now my fsx is running a lot smoother, the difference is noticeable with Q8300.

But there is a new issue now. SVCHOST services are taking too much from CPU.

i started the simulator and only one svchost.exe was using 50 % cpu.

I closed it (risking pc stability...) and the CPU went douw to 5%, FSX ran really smooth from there.

So i need to know how can i get rid of those multiple svchost processes without getting my PC unstable.

 

Thanks a lot !