Ok guys heres my new system I'm looking at:Intel X6800 CPUGigabyte GA-N680SLI-DQ6 Motherboard2Gb DDR2 RAM (KVR800D2N5K2/2G)2x 250Gb WD SATA Hard DriveGigabyte 640Mb NX88S640H-RH GraphicsMacron 8601 Mid ATX Case with 500watt P/S18x DVD-RWWindows XP Pro My Question is about the power supply. Is it enough or should I be looking at a bigger one.Dave.

Hi Dave, for which software? If FSX, I'ld say get more RAM. ;-) HDs: Only if they're Caviar SEs. Better would be 320GB Caviar SE. PSU, a good 500W PSU should do fine. 8-pin GPU connectors are the future and PSUs with them are still fairly rare or expensive. Once you upgrade your GPU you just need to include a PSU in the thoughts. IMHO, PSUs are a component & stability insurance. Good to have a good one. ;-) Hope this adds to thoughts, kind regards Jaap

Hi Jaap. It will be for FS9 to start with then FSX in a few months. I've decided to grab some ram also cause its cheap. Thank you for the info. It will provide some food for thought.

Hi David,to add to the above, you said you bough some more RAM?.. If you bought an additional 2GB and now have 4GB, you will require a 64bit Windows version in order to use it, if you only bought 1GB extra disregard the above.And as far as PSU wise, get a good brand with stable rails, quality rated Amps over them, and have it to have an 80% efficiency rating.80% efficient, means the power supply is using the power it is drawing from the wall outlet more efficiently, with less electricity wasted. Obviously this is better for the environment and it saves you on your electric bill. A more efficient power supply also results in a cooler power supply. So less cooling is needed, making the power supply even quieter.

Hi Davissan, adding to your words, 32-bit will usually see 3 to 3.4GB. Somebody 'only' looses the last couple of hundred MB if they get 4. So, just for the record, 4GB doesn't necessarily require a 64-bit OS, a 32-bit OS only doesn't see more than a.m. On a 3GB test setup with Vista32 here, FSX, OS and the rest uses ALL the physical memory. Cheers and kind regards Jaap

ohayo Jaapsan,Vista yes, but correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know XP pro, which is what David is using is a different story ;)

Hey Davis. Yeah I'm just gonna get 1 gig for now. Thank you for youradvice on the P/S. I'll do some more research on that.

Ohayo Davissan, you know all of this is MUCH too technical for me! :-) To keep things simple and because RAM is relatively cheap, I would tend to recommend plugging 2x2GB. Regardless whether 32-/64-bit, Vista or XP. Also in order to stick with twin-module configs - coincidentally leaving room for 8, etc. Etc ;-) Cheers and kind regards Jaap

Do yourself a favor and get an Intel E6850 processor instead of an Intel X6800. The E6850 is faster dual core (3ghz stock vs 2.93ghz), and is $600 cheaper (you can get it retail for around $285). It just came out a month ago. It also overclocks very well if you are interested in that.Brian S.

>>Do yourself a favor and get an Intel E6850 processor instead of an Intel X6800There's more to it than that, you might want to mention that the E series have locked MP's whilst the X series (and only the X) come unlocked, thats one thing where you pay premium price for, and locked MPs do have somewhat of an influence on overclocking.>>It just came out a month agoKnow that the E6850 is just a re-branded E6600 with its FSB pushed to 1333Mhz thus pushing its clock up to 3ghz.>>It also overclocks very well if you are interested in thatThe E6850 does clock nicely but, the X6800 will if you know how, outclock it, the mere fact of having an unlocked MP will give you more room to tweak, thus potentially reaching even higher OCs.Both are fine CPUs, but with everything, you want the perks, you pay for it.

Very true, and good points. But on a value basis, the E6850 is the clear winner. For 67% less cash, 3.6ghz on air is very easily reached, and a stable 4ghz on a watercooled system is achievable. Are you really going to get much more than that on the X6800? And, at a third of the price? And, if the simmer is not one to mess with settings, then you get a faster processor out of the box to boot.

Hey Brian,Yeah your right, looking at it value-wise. Now David has two options, up to him to make the decision whether he's going to OC or not, and if so to what extend.And yes, you "can" get alot more out of it, yeah running on water, Ive had the X6800 at 4Ghz easily, now when I put the PhaseChanger on it I easily got it up to 5.2Ghz @ -30c/-22F, now thats not for running 24/7 because im running the Prometia full force, and I dont want that, it does a great job now at -25c/-13F 24/7 running the range 4.5Ghz to 4.8Ghz.When I get my new DFI, I'll up the power on this Prometia and can see how far this QX6850 will go, for now I'm leaving it at 3.9Ghz since the mobo limits me.

Wow! 5.2ghz..... How does FSX run on that?

Runs ok, but games in general are not that stable, it does run excellent on the ranges 4.5 to 4.8 ;)

WOW! Thanks for the info guys. I think I'll stick with the 6850 for now. I'm not real confident about my overclocking skills.Do you think FS9 will run ok on this system.