Will Intel HD 530 (integrated) in I7-6700T works fine for FSX ?

First let me explain, I wanna buy a Dell Optiplex with Skylake core i7-6700t and 8gb of DDR4 RAM. I need this the i7 because of work (heavy stock exchange computations/optimizations) and I don´t wanna buy a separate parts and mount my own computer (had a lot of headache last time, and I´m from Brazil so I prefer to buy a complete system from dell with 3 year warranty even being a little more expensive, last time some parts came with problem and here we can´t send them back as easily as on USA).

 

So I´ll be stuck with the integrated Intel Graphics 530 (Skylake) as the computer won´t fit any graphics card (very small factor). Here is the specs of the processor: http://ark.intel.com/pt-br/products/88200/Intel-Core-i7-6700T-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

 

I´m pretty sure this i7-6700T can withstand any load for FSX, even with PMDG, FSPassageners, and anything else, correct ?

 

My doubt is, will this HD 530 integrated graphics work fine ? what kind of FPS can I expect ? (1080p) ?? high level ? standard ?

 

I really don´t want to be perfect, but will it work "fine" with 1080p ? Please give me your thoughts.

 

Thanks !!

It should work fine, but you more than likely won't get 1080p.

 

FS is a CPU orientated game and a GPU is only about 25% of the performance in FS. In other words, the FPS will be heavily dependent on the CPU, not the GPU.

I´m pretty sure this i7-6700T can withstand any load for FSX, even with PMDG, FSPassageners, and anything else, correct ?

 

Any load? No it won't. 2.8 GHz is on the low end for FSX with high end addons.

 

My doubt is, will this HD 530 integrated graphics work fine ? what kind of FPS can I expect ? (1080p) ?? high level ? standard ?

 

I really don´t want to be perfect, but will it work "fine" with 1080p ? Please give me your thoughts.

 

Thanks !!

 

Depends on what you accept as "fine". Both CPU and the integrated graphics adapter are very weak for running any 3D application. It is hard to predict, but in an FSX really fully loaded with content and at high-ish settings I would expect around 10-20 FPS or even less.

 

Maybe you should take a look at the Alienware offerings - those are Dell too.

It's on the low end, but CPU cycles are second when it comes to the architecture of a CPU. For example. I have a 2.4GHz Q6600. I can play FSX fine. But if I had an i7 it would perform a lot better.

 

OP, what is your budget?

 

BTW, the i7-6700T has a turbo of 3.6 GHz.

It's on the low end, but CPU cycles are second when it comes to the architecture of a CPU.

 

This belief has been forced on the consumer for 10 years now - but it is nevertheless incorrect. An application programmed for single core use will not magically scale up to do parallel processing - you have to rewrite it. And an older application will never make use of advanced CPU instruction sets unless you rewrite or at lest recompile it.

 

Anyway, clock speed is crucial for FSX if you weigh it down with addons.

 

FS is a CPU orientated game and a GPU is only about 25% of the performance in FS. In other words, the FPS will be heavily dependent on the CPU, not the GPU.

 

Where did you get that number? IMHO it is a lot more complicated than that, as all components and settings depend on each other. If set up correctly, tuned and tweaked - and with the right addons - FSX will use both your CPU and GPU to the max.

 

There have been many complaints by users who thought they could skimp on the GPU because of the statement "FSX is CPU dependant". Yes a lot of processing is done on the CPU, that is in the very nature of a simulation. But the more powerful your CPU gets, the more important a powerful GPU is too, simply because more data arrives to be processed.

Anyway, clock speed is crucial for FSX if you weigh it down with addons.

 

No, single-core performance is crucial - which is clock speed * performance per cycle. I'd venture that at 2.8Ghz, that Skylake is the equivalent of a 3.5Ghz Sandy Bridge. That's plenty.

 

If clock speed was the be-all and end-all, we'd all be running 4Ghz+ AMD FX8350s.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

nuitkati is right, if you have a high end processor & a low end GPU the GPU will cause a bottleneck.

No, single-core performance is crucial - which is clock speed * performance per cycle. I'd venture that at 2.8Ghz, that Skylake is the equivalent of a 3.5Ghz Sandy Bridge. That's plenty.

 

If clock speed was the be-all and end-all, we'd all be running 4Ghz+ AMD FX8350s.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

Let us be more specific then. Your statement is probably true for modern applications, built and compiled for the latest chip generation. Sadly, FSX isn't one of them. It still relies on FLOP performance, mainly done by the ALUs. Speed wise, these didn't evolve quite as much as we consumers were lead to believe. AMDs ALUs IMHO are not quite on Intels level, they lag behind in direct comparisons - so no, clock speed is not everything. But on the same CPU type, like an i7, a higher clock speed will yield higher ALU calc speed - something than an application that uses mathematical models to simulate reality really wants. You can observe that easily when overclocking your CPU.

 

But then again, "fine" and "plenty" are in the eye of the beholder. I was just concerned by the OP mentioning PMDG and "anything else" in the same context as "fine". I think that may not work out too well for him. I know that I couldn't run my sim setup on that machine anywhere near "fine".

Well, the I7-6700T has a base clock of 2.8GHz but a turbo of up to 3.6 GHz. So it must handle it... what else can handle it if not a top i7 ? (I know it it´s the T version)

 

Anyway, my doubt is not the CPU. I really would like to hear if someone here has experience in the HD 530 integrated chipset, what kind of speed/fps....

 

Alienware is not avaible on Brazil. Here we don´t have a lot of options from dell.

Depends on what you accept as "fine". Both CPU and the integrated graphics adapter are very weak for running any 3D application.

 

Weak ? A 6th generation i7 is WEAK ? what do you suggest ? 2.8ghz is the base clock, turbo up to 3.6Ghz, see the link in my first post.

This belief has been forced on the consumer for 10 years now - but it is nevertheless incorrect. An application programmed for single core use will not magically scale up to do parallel processing - you have to rewrite it. And an older application will never make use of advanced CPU instruction sets unless you rewrite or at lest recompile it.

 

Anyway, clock speed is crucial for FSX if you weigh it down with addons.

 

Uhmm have you ever heard of pipelining? Cache? You are confusing microarchitecture with Instruction Set Architecture. Both are always improved each time a new CPU comes out. One doesn't require a recompile or rewrite, can you guess which one?

Uhmm have you ever heard of pipelining? Cache? You are confusing microarchitecture with Instruction Set Architecture. Both are always improved each time a new CPU comes out. One doesn't require a recompile or rewrite, can you guess which one?

 

That statement actually was about parallel processing, which doesn't have anything to do with either.

 

I am guessing that both may require a recompile, that would depend on your type of application. If you are writing operating systems or low level binaries you are probably more concerned about this than with high level, runtime based apps in C# or Java....

 

What bugs me is that people often are thinking, that as long as the CPU is "new" it just has to be vastly superior to the previous generation. All I am saying is to be careful with that statement, as its validity is depending on what you are doing with the machine.

Weak ? A 6th generation i7 is WEAK ? what do you suggest ? 2.8ghz is the base clock, turbo up to 3.6Ghz, see the link in my first post.

 

This suggestion would depend on what else you want to do with the PC. If the machine is used mainly for FSX and if you have set your mind on high quality addons, I would suggest an i7 4790K with a dedicated graphics adapter, a GTX 960 or better. I don't know anything about the market in Brazil unfortunately, or if you can get the former generation CPUs at a reduced price, but it may be worth a look.

 

If you want to rate one CPU over the other for its use with FSX, I suggest that you try to get hold of benchmarks that specifically target FLOP performance. Unfortunately there aren't many around and some are even meaningless. Some websites use Sandra, w(h)et/drystone, these can give an indication.

 

When it comes to GPUs you can mostly rely on the common benchmarks - if it is only about FSX, as it will by and large use every current GPU in the same way.

 

Both approaches and my suggestion are invalid for current and up-to-date software.

 

I ran FSX on an i7 3770K (turbo 3.9) and a GTX 660OC for a while. This wasn't "fine" when loaded with addons, FPS only rarely reached 30, even heavily tweaked and at moderate settings. Even assuming the new 6700t has the same performance, the HD530 brings only 25% of the GPU power to the table. So I can safely say, that I would not be happy with this system. I tried SLIing the 660 with a second one, but that produced more noise than it helped the sim. I still have that system, but now the 3770K is OCd to 4.5 and a GTX 780ti is happily rendering a "fine" experience for me (by and large - nothing is perfect).

That statement actually was about parallel processing, which doesn't have anything to do with either.

 

Considering that every Intel x86 processor since the 486 has both had caches and been pipelined, I think you should read up a little more on CPU architecture.

 

What bugs me is that people often are thinking, that as long as the CPU is "new" it just has to be vastly superior to the previous generation. All

 

Generally speaking, it is. The P4 was a great (and rare) exception that demonstrated the rule, and also pointed out the validity of what alaskancrab was trying to tell you. While the P4s were clocked above the latest generation P3s, their performance was inferior due to the cache latencies and time it took for certain instructions to complete (and especially block in the case of a branch prediction miss).

 

There's a lot more going on in a CPU than raw clock speed - if anything they are waiting as much as they are executing. If one can significantly increase the cache latencies, hit rate and branch prediction percentage that's worth several hundred Mhz in clock speed.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Considering that every Intel x86 processor since the 486 has both had caches and been pipelined, I think you should read up a little more on CPU architecture.

 

I don't understand, what does that have to do with parallel processing? If MP is possible or not is determined by the task that your software has to fulfill and how that software is built.

 

I admit that I am confused now. This discussion started out with the statement "I can throw anything I want at a current generation i7 @2,8 GHz and it will always handle everything fine". I answered, that when using FSX, this is not necessarily true and why that is, concluding that for FSX plus high quality addons a higher clockspeed would be desireable. Are you saying that I am wrong with that assessment?

 

And then there was the question about the built-in GPU, and there I also stand by what I wrote - the Intel HD530 will not cut it if the OP wants "fine" graphics in FSX.

 

But granted, maybe I am implying too much. "Fine" always sounds like "Youtube videos" to my ears these days.

First of all, I will say this. My GTX 980ti died the other day and while waiting for the RMA from EVGA to come through I used the HD 530 graphics just fine. Granted I had to turn some settings down to medium high. Using Fraps (only because the in-game fps counter is not accurate) I saw 50 to 60 FPS. NOTE: I had to disable addon scenery. But that was fine for me while I wait.