Latest and greatest realistic FSX hardware

[Guest crash_geh]

Well back with another episode of realistic hardware for FSX in 2011.Am going to list what I have and why and then let the Sidewinders have at it.First the Flight Sim hardware and software:FSX w/ SP1 and SP2. Level-D 767 or PMDG 747-400. Want to add 737NG (new one from PMDG) and 777 also from PMDG and 757 from Level-D (it won't happen in my life time. My how long did it take to get winglets (they are wonderful but like pulling teeth to convince those folks that the winglets had a huge demand. TrackIR ver 4.. Radar Contact (instead of VATSIM due to lack of coverage to my favorite destinations). FS2Crew voice edition for the 767 and 747. For now using the kinda real-time FSX weather soon to be replaced to ASE. Only use WoAI AI planes as they don't put the huge strain on FSX..the stock AI is a killer. Saitek yoke and rudder pedals. Can't afford the NICE ones..only $500+. Also want the $500 4-engine throttle that is out there..not going to happen. May add some of the extra Saitek units like the radio stack. 90% of my FSX add-on ware is running on the system now, wondering if the X6 will be a positive influence. I know FSX does multi-core but can it make use of six? I could set one core aside for my "extras" but would rather let FSX and Windows 7 Pro 64-bit sort it out. MB: Gigabyte GA-790FXTA-UD5. Decided overkill as I'll never do anything such as play games (Don't get me started if you call FSX a game..even if M$ does). Will run only one video card and use it for mundane uses such as email, office software, web-surfing and watching web TV....and FSX. Oh, now a GIGABYTE fan since the company I used since my first build, ASUStek has simply lost it IMO. Their reputation is now the pits in many circles.Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 955 BE. Great chip and have it OC'd from 3.2MHz to 3.8MHz without pain. Have a CoolerMaster V8 cooler that keeps prime95 happy at 59C at 3.8MHz. But change on the horizon. Keep the MB and replace the processor with the Phenom II X6 1090T OC'd to maybe 3.6MHz. If people that do FSX for a living, like me since retirement, agree on anything, it is that FSX is a unabashed CPU HOG. I know FSX does multi-core but can it make use of six? I could set one core aside for my "extras" but would rather let FSX sort it all out. Changing out the V-8 for the Corsair H70. The specs and reviews I've read say they would do the job. And boy would that make it easier to navigate around the processor.Memory: 2x2GB G.Skill PC3-12800 / DDR3-1600 - F3-12800CL9-2GNBQ. The size is right. System has never gone to the forth stick and barely the 3rd stick. May replace with G.SKill F3-12800CL7D-4GBECO 2x2GB. This memory has tighter timings 7-8-7-24-2N and runs at a paltry 1.35V. Current memory is 9-9-9-25-2N and needs at least 1.5V. And the ECO memory is only $67 now on NE.PS: SeaSonic X-750 SS-750-KM Plus 80-Gold Couldn't be happier with this VERY quiet unit and its neat fan. Should be enough for my projects.HDD: 2x250GB WD and 2x1TB WD. Have carefully placed the active FSX files on the 1TB drive on the outer tracks and the critical files like .bgl at the outside edge tracks. Every recommendation I've heard urges this type of allocation. Won't do RAID-0 as I've never found ANY bang and am paranoid of seeing a RAID-0 get screwed up, even with proper backups. The other software is optimized on other drives. Placement does make a difference. Also haven't seen a concrete situation where the Raptor returned what the money you paid gave back. Have heard that the 7200 RPM 1TB drives work darn well when set up the way I do.Case: CoolerMaster Sniper. Big as a Boeing assembly hanger. No issue there.Now the most controversial part: the Video Card. First, my second card is an ATI 4850. The reason it is second is that IMHO after reading little stories that the design team preferred the nVidia or only had use of the nVidia. Another point. When FSX was created, video cards weren't nearly as sophisticated as they are now. With that thought, having a huge expensive G-Wizz card on a system that was not at all designed for the new bells and whistles, like the new DirectX 10 made no sense. I bought a nVidia for it is supposed to run faster on FSX and that has been my experience.Remember what I'm running. Small stuff and FSX. Memory hungry FSX. I've heard various folks say DirectX 10 is worth turning on in FSX, I've heard others say that was some of the worst code that was written. So it is forever off. My current card is a BFG GTX 260 OC. Alright I hear BFG closed their doors to video cards, but the ones left sure had some crazy good numbers. I like the memory bandwidth of 111.9 GB/sec. Move all that magic code in and out fast would seem to be to be a good idea. The texture fill rate seems impossible as well with 42.5 GB/sec. Some of the much higher cards of the time could hardly keep up. It does only run DirectX 10. So what? One could say FSX doesn't either. So of all listed, is there justification to go for a fancier card like the EVGA GTX 285 SSC 01G-P3-1287 that also has very good numbers? How about a GTX 460 EVGA SSC+ w/backplate - 01G-P3-1380-KR that has outstanding numbers. Should that make my heart pump faster? The ONLY stress on the system are my 19 hour real-time flights. Will the complexity of the new architectures cause FSX to slow down as many have reported?My system works nearly perfectly. The sliders in FSX are set VERY aggressive and nary a glitch. Yes, have made some minor changes to the NVIDIA Inspector settings for FSX and the fsx.CFG. Am only confused by the BUFFER parameter.Am an old fart that has wasted well over 3000 hours since my first FS, ver 1. ah subLogic. Bruce Artwick and the gang. Have had every version since. And for a person that has commented that this is the last version of FSX because it was so bad...BS. I worked for the 2nd largest software company to M$ and one day the ENTIRE staff for a product that was in alpha testing, some 19 of us were given our pink slips when our company was acquired. It wan't ACES, it was the suits that don't have a clue about FSX except to say that the product did not fit the long term direction of the corporation. What a crock.Safetys off, let those sidewinders make me smarter or at least retired while having the right stuff for FSX. REMEMBER FSX, NO GAMES.

[ZachLW 37]

With the questions your asking, it seems you're not following these threads at all! The 260 is a 2 year old card. The new architecture is more efficient, cooler, faster per watt! It's not a question of "will performance be better". It's a question of "do you have the money to fork over?"I won't start on the processor part of your post too much, but AMD processors just don't keep up with modern Intels. Pure and simple. The latest AMD's quad and hexa core are somewhat comparable to Core 2's (in my experience).That's all I've got!

[dazz 69]

Well, Core 2 chips are not that bad anyway, and neither are AMDs. Not everyone flyes all the time to JFK, ORD or other uber demanding hubs so not everyone needs the faster system on earth. Crash_geh, I went from a 965BE to a 1090T not too long ago and the performance increase you can expect is zero. FSX can use the extra cores to load textures a bit faster, but that about it. If you were to get an X6 no matter what, why not a non BE like the 1055T for example since it's cheaper and you already have a good OCing mobo? anyway, I wouldn't bother with a X6Memory: we've been discussing about that hereGraphics: truly controversial, yeah. First thing I would do is to follow this thread to set up your GTX260. There's lots of usefull info there. As you said, FSX is very CPU limited, so a GPU upgrade won't help much with frame rate. A GTX460 should allow you to run higher Anti Aliasing though (I run 8xSQ with good performance)Try this configuration tool and you should experiment a nice & free performance boostFor a real upgrade with performance in mind, a Sandy bridge CPU + motherboard is your only option. An I5 2500K + MSI P67A C45 is the best bang for the buck.

[Guest crash_geh]

With the questions your asking, it seems you're not following these threads at all! The 260 is a 2 year old card. The new architecture is more efficient, cooler, faster per watt! It's not a question of "will performance be better". It's a question of "do you have the money to fork over?"I won't start on the processor part of your post too much, but AMD processors just don't keep up with modern Intels. Pure and simple. The latest AMD's quad and hexa core are somewhat comparable to Core 2's (in my experience).That's all I've got!

[Guest crash_geh]

Might want to rethink your ideas on video cards and how they fit into a system. Because something has a new architecture means little if the software that is making calls to the card, in this case FSX is making calls made and code executed that FSX can't make use of because of things like timing. You may not like my answers but that doesn't change facts. There were developers of FSX that admitted that it was a mistake to get a pumped up card. I had a ATI 4890 at one time and my GTX 260 is running circles around it because the calls to the video card are not having to wade through the electrical design and drivers to support the far more complex DirectX 11. Instead is has just what it needs to get the job done. I have followed the threads to see if anyone else followed the threads. What do you know about video cards and I'm not trying to be a smart &@($*? It is not about being efficient or cooler or faster. Those attributes are great for GAMES, but the architecture of FSX is anything but a game. The developers were working in the era of the 8800 and 9600 Nvidia cards and DirectX 9.0. They were developed with the timing and instruction paths that matched up with mainly DirectX 9.0. If you spend time reading about FSX, timing is one of the huge factors for good FSX performance. Timing is tricky thus all the trial and error folks have to go through to get maximum performance.The developers did not anticipate the today's hardware, drivers or DirectX 11. Observe also that one of the premier people that posts on the net (name escapes me), an expert in FSX related that the DirectX 10 that you can turn on within FSX, says it is there so you can sample DirectX 10, but use it day to day. In fact the DirectX10 code in FSX was some of the worst code written. Will that code run on a tricked out DirectX 11 card? Yes, but it will actually run even worse. The point was well illustrated in a Tom's Hardware article showing various cards. Look at how they sorted out. The 8800's and 9600 cards were wiping up GTX 260s and GTX 280s. The GTX 280 usually came in no better than 10th after the better card the 8800 GTS OC consistently took over first place and it had exactly 512MB. How could that card win? The GTX 260 was generally a couple steps behind. What I'm looking for is that card that contains the attributes that were the basis for FSX. If through trial and error you can find the "perfect" card that the FSX developers would have chosen for themselves to run FSX. Let me try to illustrate the concept. I had a Cadillac STS and have a Volkswagen New Beetle. Lets look at them. I'm no longer wealthy (a bit above minimum wage) so which car do I choose? The Cadillac is sure nice, comfortable, powerful and worth every cent of the $50,000 that a previous owner paid for it. The down side is it burns premium gas which is the pits when gas hits $4 per gallon. It was expensive as all get out to maintain and broke as much as any car I've owned. Then you have the Beetle. It is comfortable, has a lot of features, rarely breaks, gets good gas milage and uses regular gas. What did that person really get for thier $50,000? Do both cars get me from point A to point B? Yes. But can I maneuver the Beetle more easily? Is the insurance less? Is it far less complicated under the hood. The Cadillac was an absolute nightmare! I dumped the Caddy, the fancy expensive car made life worse and didn't give me any added value getting me from point A to point B. The $50,000 care turned out to be not so impressive after all. And the Beetle can pass any car doing 85 to 90 on a 2.0 liter automatic. Just to finish the point, my 11 year old Beetle still has a resale value of $6500.Yes Intel makes a fast processor but for the price of an Intel six core, you can build an entire AMD system. The AMD has the same Turbo mode of processing but Intel has 4 "extra" virtual threads that not all software can take advantage of, in fact FSX may be one of them. They must have a physical cores to use the multiple core feature. I have had the Core 2 Duos and Quads and my experience is that again reviews say AMD's 2 and 4 core are much beyond a Duo. I had a Q6600 OC' and long ago an E6420 Duo and the AMDs kicked back just fine. The AMD is a joy to OC, the Intel not as easy. Anyway we all have thoughts on hardware. I spend a lot of time at AMD and Intel's sites seeing just what the differences are and you might be surprised........or not. I had to do this as I was a systems programmer for a good deal of my 30 year computer career. You might give some thought that one should learn something new everyday and your line "With the questions your asking, it seems you're not following these threads at all!" might demonstrate that with your response to my thread you might find that you might want to follow the the threads a bit more closely.

[Guest simmer9304]

Despite the claims in the past that older cards like the 8800GT are perfectly sufficient for FSX, they aren't really. A newer, more powerful, card will win hands down. I upgraded from a 1GB 9800GT (derived directly from the magical 8800GT) to a 768mb GTX460 and the logic of FSX getting less performance from newer cards should be especially true here since there is less VRAM. Needless to say I will not be reinstalling the 9800GT since my computer can now actually stay locked at 30fps in rural areas and 12fps in heavy scenery as opposed to about 25fps and 8fps. Despite what is said about FSX not being made to use newer drivers or DX11 cards, a newer card with a higher clock speed, more cores, and a die-shrink will beat the older one any day.

[Andydigital 93]

I went from GTX285 to a 580 and the difference was surprising, I really didnt think I'd get as much improvement as I did, so im sorry I dont agree with the OP. Oh yeah and my i7 920 @ 4ghz pees all over the Q6700 I had OC'd to 3.25Ghz.

[ZachLW 37]

Might want to rethink your ideas on video cards and how they fit into a system. Because something has a new architecture means little if the software that is making calls to the card, in this case FSX is making calls made and code executed that FSX can't make use of because of things like timing. You may not like my answers but that doesn't change facts. There were developers of FSX that admitted that it was a mistake to get a pumped up card. I had a ATI 4890 at one time and my GTX 260 is running circles around it because the calls to the video card are not having to wade through the electrical design and drivers to support the far more complex DirectX 11. Instead is has just what it needs to get the job done. I have followed the threads to see if anyone else followed the threads. What do you know about video cards and I'm not trying to be a smart &@($*? It is not about being efficient or cooler or faster. Those attributes are great for GAMES, but the architecture of FSX is anything but a game. The developers were working in the era of the 8800 and 9600 Nvidia cards and DirectX 9.0. They were developed with the timing and instruction paths that matched up with mainly DirectX 9.0. If you spend time reading about FSX, timing is one of the huge factors for good FSX performance. Timing is tricky thus all the trial and error folks have to go through to get maximum performance.The developers did not anticipate the today's hardware, drivers or DirectX 11. Observe also that one of the premier people that posts on the net (name escapes me), an expert in FSX related that the DirectX 10 that you can turn on within FSX, says it is there so you can sample DirectX 10, but use it day to day. In fact the DirectX10 code in FSX was some of the worst code written. Will that code run on a tricked out DirectX 11 card? Yes, but it will actually run even worse. The point was well illustrated in a Tom's Hardware article showing various cards. Look at how they sorted out. The 8800's and 9600 cards were wiping up GTX 260s and GTX 280s. The GTX 280 usually came in no better than 10th after the better card the 8800 GTS OC consistently took over first place and it had exactly 512MB. How could that card win? The GTX 260 was generally a couple steps behind. What I'm looking for is that card that contains the attributes that were the basis for FSX. If through trial and error you can find the "perfect" card that the FSX developers would have chosen for themselves to run FSX. Let me try to illustrate the concept. I had a Cadillac STS and have a Volkswagen New Beetle. Lets look at them. I'm no longer wealthy (a bit above minimum wage) so which car do I choose? The Cadillac is sure nice, comfortable, powerful and worth every cent of the $50,000 that a previous owner paid for it. The down side is it burns premium gas which is the pits when gas hits $4 per gallon. It was expensive as all get out to maintain and broke as much as any car I've owned. Then you have the Beetle. It is comfortable, has a lot of features, rarely breaks, gets good gas milage and uses regular gas. What did that person really get for thier $50,000? Do both cars get me from point A to point B? Yes. But can I maneuver the Beetle more easily? Is the insurance less? Is it far less complicated under the hood. The Cadillac was an absolute nightmare! I dumped the Caddy, the fancy expensive car made life worse and didn't give me any added value getting me from point A to point B. The $50,000 care turned out to be not so impressive after all. And the Beetle can pass any car doing 85 to 90 on a 2.0 liter automatic. Just to finish the point, my 11 year old Beetle still has a resale value of $6500.Yes Intel makes a fast processor but for the price of an Intel six core, you can build an entire AMD system. The AMD has the same Turbo mode of processing but Intel has 4 "extra" virtual threads that not all software can take advantage of, in fact FSX may be one of them. They must have a physical cores to use the multiple core feature. I have had the Core 2 Duos and Quads and my experience is that again reviews say AMD's 2 and 4 core are much beyond a Duo. I had a Q6600 OC' and long ago an E6420 Duo and the AMDs kicked back just fine. The AMD is a joy to OC, the Intel not as easy. Anyway we all have thoughts on hardware. I spend a lot of time at AMD and Intel's sites seeing just what the differences are and you might be surprised........or not. I had to do this as I was a systems programmer for a good deal of my 30 year computer career. You might give some thought that one should learn something new everyday and your line "With the questions your asking, it seems you're not following these threads at all!" might demonstrate that with your response to my thread you might find that you might want to follow the the threads a bit more closely.

That's a very long write up for a very simple thought! :P I understand your idea, but in this case it is absolutely and positively wrong (So far for FSX/FS9). What I know about video cards must be a little more in depth than what you think. I used a GTX460. Before that a GTX260. Before that a 9800GT(retagged 8800GT). My system up until two weeks ago was an aged E8400 C2D. What I know about all of the cards you have mentioned is this: My current card is faster than the GTX 460 I owned last week, which was faster than the GTX260 before it and the 9800GT before it... Now I believe I have made the point that I have experience with the cards you mentioned. When put into 'service' in my FSX/FS9 system, there has been nothing but performance increase WITH FSX/FS9 with each architecture change. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is? I'm only speaking from actual experience; not conjured-up theory (with all do respect).I'm also having a hard time connecting my Intel I7 to your automobiles, but I digress. :Thinking: I should add that my "thoughts" on hardware are this: I look at posted results and benchmarks, and buy accordingly. No more, no less. I should also mention that I buy according to FSX performance. Tom's Hardware is great but they don't benchmark FSX, do they? That is why we're on this forum, isn't it?! FSX/FS9! :Drooling:What I took from your OP was this: "Will the newer gen GPUs give you a performance increase?" The answer is a resounding "YES!" Simple as that. Same would happen if you jumped to a higher end I7 system... And they're not "harder" to overclock, by the way! I promise! :Big Grin: Especially on the new "K" skew i5s, I7s.EDIT: And I promise you, even the high end AMDs are comparable to Core2Duos/Quads. It's not theory. It's in the numbers.

[ryanbatc 13,011]

I'm trying to figure out this post. Are you asking a question about buying better hardware? OR are you stating performance is right where you want it to be? :Confused: As usual, there's a bunch of variables when running FSX. Smooth fps or high fps according to you may be different than what I want. For example, my system is very outdated, but some people could probably run FSX on it with high fps. They'd lose a lot of scenery features if they did though. Also, a high end video card helps mostly for higher resolution monitors, with a lot of driver added features like AA/AF (and their variations). Enabling transparency AA on my 8800GT just destroys my performance. I'd need a GTX570 or something to really crank it.If you have it running well kudos to you! But "running well" to you may not be "running well" to someone else. :P

[ZachLW 37]

Ignore

[cmeeks 8]

There are tons of theories floating around from very highly regarded people within the FS community. On almost any given issue, you and I can go dig up some theory to prove our point. These arguments are tiresome and really provide no benefit to the FS community. I'm all for exploring theories, but let's not be so quick to state them as fact.If we can't participate in a 10 page long bash fest, how shall we ever proceed? Solution? We just developed it - it's called FSXMark11. Let's cut all the BS and let the numbers speak for themselves. Honestly I know absolutely NOTHING about AMD processors. I would LOVE to see some FSXMark11 benchmarks with this so called 965BE, 1090T, 1100T, or whatever. And throw in one of those 8800GTs as well!

[Guest crash_geh]

Let me put this out for thought. Those with the high performance cards don't exactly have a slouch system behind those cards. Were the increases in performance in video divorced from any other changes to your systems? Like more powerful processors? As stated I read a LOT of posts and this is exactly what I want for discussion. What the ACES design team and other "experts" have said about FSX versus what people are seeing in 2011. I am repeating much of what those experts said and doing the tuning that was suggested. Am trying to get a consensus of why they are right or wrong. I related my experience. The 4890 should have done at least some damage to my GTX 260 but it has been the other way around. I've gotten way more bang by continuing to overclock my CPU, careful placement of files on the drive and tweaking the fsx.CFG and FSX options. I'm running the FSX clouds at 90 miles without a stutter, in fact, according to FSX getting a fairly steady 40 FPS and never have the frame rate limited. Please explain to this crazy old man that drives around in a Model T why I may be getting this kind of performance. Am really interested in finding out some answers. I have a little money now and am trying to decide where I can get the most value. My first thought was going to a six core and then video card. Am I hearing that video card, and that is WHAT I am hearing would give me more bang than overclocking an X4 or X6. The "experts" and am sure you've read the long HOW-TO threads on how to tune FSX would say that going with the X6 and overclocking is going to do more than a video card. Am trying to respond to a bunch of your replies at one time here. I fully agree that what works for one person may not work for another. I was trying to start the discussion by quoting what these many "experts" have said and then debunk or verify. I just ran FSMARK07 last night. Did not have time to do anything with it other than make it run. Maybe next week. About the FSX vs GAMES, the architecture of the two is entirely different. I don't do or care about games so I don't care if a video card can burn up the field of battle. My battle is landing a 744 with a 30knot crosswind in Denver in a blizzard.For now, I have what I need. Thanks all for your input.

[ZachLW 37]

Let me put this out for thought. Those with the high performance cards don't exactly have a slouch system behind those cards. Were the increases in performance in video divorced from any other changes to your systems? Like more powerful processors? As stated I read a LOT of posts and this is exactly what I want for discussion. What the ACES design team and other "experts" have said about FSX versus what people are seeing in 2011. I am repeating much of what those experts said and doing the tuning that was suggested. Am trying to get a consensus of why they are right or wrong. I related my experience. The 4890 should have done at least some damage to my GTX 260 but it has been the other way around. I've gotten way more bang by continuing to overclock my CPU, careful placement of files on the drive and tweaking the fsx.CFG and FSX options. I'm running the FSX clouds at 90 miles without a stutter, in fact, according to FSX getting a fairly steady 40 FPS and never have the frame rate limited. Please explain to this crazy old man that drives around in a Model T why I may be getting this kind of performance. Am really interested in finding out some answers. I have a little money now and am trying to decide where I can get the most value. My first thought was going to a six core and then video card. Am I hearing that video card, and that is WHAT I am hearing would give me more bang than overclocking an X4 or X6. The "experts" and am sure you've read the long HOW-TO threads on how to tune FSX would say that going with the X6 and overclocking is going to do more than a video card. Am trying to respond to a bunch of your replies at one time here. I fully agree that what works for one person may not work for another. I was trying to start the discussion by quoting what these many "experts" have said and then debunk or verify. I just ran FSMARK07 last night. Did not have time to do anything with it other than make it run. Maybe next week. About the FSX vs GAMES, the architecture of the two is entirely different. I don't do or care about games so I don't care if a video card can burn up the field of battle. My battle is landing a 744 with a 30knot crosswind in Denver in a blizzard.For now, I have what I need. Thanks all for your input.

As a matter of fact my 9800GT, GTX 260, and my GTX 460 were all used on my E8400 system. With each upgrade to my GPU, I was happy with the noticeable performance increase up to the point where my 4.4GHz C2D couldn't keep up with the 460. As far as the "expert theory" is concerned: WHO CARES?! :Big Grin: What we have on this forum is hundreds of people running different hardware and the consensus is, newer/faster/Intel/Nvidia is better suited to FSX! A properly tweaked fsx.cfg on my rig gives me performance astronomically better than my E8400 rig which had a lovingly and even more tweaked .cfg file...I really can't pinpoint what you're getting at. Bang for the buck would be an 1155 motherboard with an I5 2500K overclocked paired with quality RAM and >=GTX 460 1GB.You have your answers, now go shop Newegg! :Just Kidding:

[dazz 69]

The reason why your GTX260 outperforms the ATI4890 in FSX is more than likeky driver related, nothing to do with DX10 for sure. I used to have a 5770 and had to face tons of issues (very well known here BTW even by non "experts"), all driver related, in FSX. To name the most prominent::-AF not working at all-Awful FSAA -Terrible performance in clouds-No VsyncAs for the x4 vs x6 dilemma, why don't you test it yourself? disable 1 or 2 cores and see how it goes

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Might want to rethink your ideas on video cards and how they fit into a system. Because something has a new architecture means little if the software that is making calls to the card, in this case FSX is making calls made and code executed that FSX can't make use of because of things like timing. You may not like my answers but that doesn't change facts. There were developers of FSX that admitted that it was a mistake to get a pumped up card. I had a ATI 4890 at one time and my GTX 260 is running circles around it because the calls to the video card are not having to wade through the electrical design and drivers to support the far more complex DirectX 11. Instead is has just what it needs to get the job done. I have followed the threads to see if anyone else followed the threads. What do you know about video cards and I'm not trying to be a smart &@($*? It is not about being efficient or cooler or faster. Those attributes are great for GAMES, but the architecture of FSX is anything but a game. The developers were working in the era of the 8800 and 9600 Nvidia cards and DirectX 9.0. They were developed with the timing and instruction paths that matched up with mainly DirectX 9.0. If you spend time reading about FSX, timing is one of the huge factors for good FSX performance. Timing is tricky thus all the trial and error folks have to go through to get maximum performance.The developers did not anticipate the today's hardware, drivers or DirectX 11. Observe also that one of the premier people that posts on the net (name escapes me), an expert in FSX related that the DirectX 10 that you can turn on within FSX, says it is there so you can sample DirectX 10, but use it day to day. In fact the DirectX10 code in FSX was some of the worst code written. Will that code run on a tricked out DirectX 11 card? Yes, but it will actually run even worse. The point was well illustrated in a Tom's Hardware article showing various cards. Look at how they sorted out. The 8800's and 9600 cards were wiping up GTX 260s and GTX 280s. The GTX 280 usually came in no better than 10th after the better card the 8800 GTS OC consistently took over first place and it had exactly 512MB. How could that card win? The GTX 260 was generally a couple steps behind. What I'm looking for is that card that contains the attributes that were the basis for FSX. If through trial and error you can find the "perfect" card that the FSX developers would have chosen for themselves to run FSX. Let me try to illustrate the concept. I had a Cadillac STS and have a Volkswagen New Beetle. Lets look at them. I'm no longer wealthy (a bit above minimum wage) so which car do I choose? The Cadillac is sure nice, comfortable, powerful and worth every cent of the $50,000 that a previous owner paid for it. The down side is it burns premium gas which is the pits when gas hits $4 per gallon. It was expensive as all get out to maintain and broke as much as any car I've owned. Then you have the Beetle. It is comfortable, has a lot of features, rarely breaks, gets good gas milage and uses regular gas. What did that person really get for thier $50,000? Do both cars get me from point A to point B? Yes. But can I maneuver the Beetle more easily? Is the insurance less? Is it far less complicated under the hood. The Cadillac was an absolute nightmare! I dumped the Caddy, the fancy expensive car made life worse and didn't give me any added value getting me from point A to point B. The $50,000 care turned out to be not so impressive after all. And the Beetle can pass any car doing 85 to 90 on a 2.0 liter automatic. Just to finish the point, my 11 year old Beetle still has a resale value of $6500.Yes Intel makes a fast processor but for the price of an Intel six core, you can build an entire AMD system. The AMD has the same Turbo mode of processing but Intel has 4 "extra" virtual threads that not all software can take advantage of, in fact FSX may be one of them. They must have a physical cores to use the multiple core feature. I have had the Core 2 Duos and Quads and my experience is that again reviews say AMD's 2 and 4 core are much beyond a Duo. I had a Q6600 OC' and long ago an E6420 Duo and the AMDs kicked back just fine. The AMD is a joy to OC, the Intel not as easy. Anyway we all have thoughts on hardware. I spend a lot of time at AMD and Intel's sites seeing just what the differences are and you might be surprised........or not. I had to do this as I was a systems programmer for a good deal of my 30 year computer career. You might give some thought that one should learn something new everyday and your line "With the questions your asking, it seems you're not following these threads at all!" might demonstrate that with your response to my thread you might find that you might want to follow the the threads a bit more closely.

Hi,Glad you shared your thoughts and I appreciate your rigorous defence of your statements. No offence intended, but if memory serves, some of your opinions must have been formed several years ago, before the latest hardware and software advancements were realized and widely appreciated by the FSX community. Just look back at the AVSIM threads from that era and it's like your post just emerged from a MSFS time tunnel, so to speak. That's OK! Makes me nearly nostalgic and reminds me of the slow and painful process of advancement with FSX. There were a lot of false starts and dead end theories. But, that was then and this is now! Since those days there has been the 8800 GTX, 9800 GTX, 275 GTX, 470 GTX, 480 GTX and 580 GTX, with nearly as many CPU's and motherboards to match. Each FSX machine was a significant step up from the one I had before. The collective performance improvement from back then to right now is a whole world of difference, as is the level of knowledge attained and shared community wide by so many participants. FSX performance is several times as fast with many times better quality than what was imagined even 3 years ago with a 6750 duo core and 8800 GTX. The emergence of FTX, i7 and Nvidia's technologies have changed everything.But, be that as it may, it's good to see things from a different point of view. Thanks for being willing to go against the flow by expressing your disagreement with the majority. Kind regards,