I now haveAsus A8V Deluxe AGP mbAMD 64bit 3200+ CPU1 Gb 400 MHz RAMNividia 6600Gt 256M DDR3 graphics cardAudigo soundcardWin XP HomeIs there any sensible way to upgrade here (i.e keeping the motherboard)? Can upgrading RAM CPU graphics card make any bigger difference? Like making it sufficient for good FSX performence?I'm not thinking about doing it right away. Well maybe another Gb RAM if that makes any significant advantage.Or is it a completely new computer (i.e new mb wait and save the money) that is the most sensible?

I've also got the A8V Deluxe with a 3200+. From what I've read about the 6600GT card, you could probably do better with the 7600GT at a decent price. I'm contemplating swapping out the processor with a dual core with 1mb L2 cache if I can find a decent price.For my system, the philosophy right now is to upgrade the video card and processor with the knowledge that the system will need to be replaced about this time next year after the bugs are worked out of Vista and prices of DX10 cards have come down. I'm thinkng that there won't be any DX10 cards for AGP and that there will be massive jumps in processor, GPU, and mobo technology by this time next year.

>I'm not thinking about doing it right away. Well maybe another>Gb RAM if that makes any significant advantage.>Or is it a completely new computer (i.e new mb wait and save>the money) that is the most sensible? It depends on how gung-ho you are about running FSX in the near-term.If you really plan to go with FS9 for a while yet, then maybe I would consider doing nothing.On the other hand, if you think you might want FSX then...well, you COULD upgrade a component or two, fairly cheaply, but I wouldn't break the bank at this point in time.Your 6600 could be improved by a 7600 card with 512mb memory which would help with FSX.Your 3200+ cpu could be improved by an FX57 cpu for cheap ($150??) which would help with FSX.An extra gig of ram would help with FSX.But it's all academic...if you plan to maybe make the switch to FSX in a years time, once add-ons and hardware catch up, then there's no point in spending the money now, all of this is in my opinion of course. :)Buy a nice 19" LCD that you can use with any new system you build. Or buy your girl a rose or two.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

My best freind owns a computer store and I spent the last few days trying out different systems configs.The fastest is the one Im running now. Its a asus m2n32 sli deluxe mob, AMD FX-62,Raptor 150, 2 gigs kingston hyperx and a 7900gtx.All tweaked and nothing loaded except fsx its a enjoyable sim.BUT- Even with all the latest fsx tweaks, autogen,trees,ground textures ect, the fps still takes a dive around big airports. Example 10-12-15-20 around katl and kclt.My biggest gripe is that the dreaded blurries are back from fs9. Must be a curse! Ive been trying all sorts of settings,vid card settings ect ect and the terrain is still sometimes a blurry mess.BTW- I also ran the 7950gtx and saw no difference than with the 7900gtxAlso ran the intel x6800 on another machine setup simular with the 7900gtx and could not notice any difference than the fx-62 I ended up getting.

What Jim have said is the truth of the fact... Many had a high expectation about FSX and one is myself. Thinking that ACES learned the lesson of FS9 was released.. I myself bought new one 2 mos. back to keep it ready for FSX-What a disappointment..It is purely business...Do you think guys, we will buy the future Technology if our current hardware can satisfactory run FSX?? The obvious answer is NO... Therefore, if they made it run of todays latest gadgets, then who will buy the next generation of Hardware....

>My best freind owns a computer store Arrgh. You lucky dawg. I would be trying all sorts of things.>days trying out different systems configs.>The fastest is the one Im running now. Its a asus m2n32 sli>deluxe mob, AMD FX-62,Raptor 150, 2 gigs kingston hyperx and a>7900gtx.The FX62 was probably the fastest, because it is the fastest AMD cpu at the moment (wait til next week). I guess you didn't have a Core 2 Duo to test out??>My biggest gripe is that the dreaded blurries are back from>fs9. Must be a curse! Ive been trying all sorts ofDid you try the FIBER_FRAME_RATExzdasdka;s = trick?I say that, because I do not "normally" get the blurries AT ALL on my rig with FSX. Oh, I will if I slew around too fast, but that's expected. But normal flight, nope...except there IS one thing I can do to always turn the blurries on. That is, switch to wing view, then back to cockpit = blurries almost every time.So what are load times of the sim like with the Raptor 150?A lot better than with a 7200 rpm drive? Or just a little better?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I have a totally new rig and install and having alot of problems posting. Keeps asking for my pass and its 50/50 if I can log in so thats why Im being slow responding.Yes we tried a system with the core 2 duo x6800. I saw no difference in fps,load times ect. Alot of people think the benchmarks they read in the countless reviews on the web mean everything but IMO saw nothing better or worse.7950 was no faster either.The raptor is FAAAST.XP takes 15 sec to boot up and is so fast you can barely hit delete in time to get into bios.From the time I click on the fsx icon, it takes maybe 10 sec to the main screen. Same if I change the settings in flight.I have made so many changes in the .cfg,tweaks,vid card settings ect Im getting brain freeze. Too much information!My graphics look better now thab they ever did but do not ask what I did.

>I've also got the A8V Deluxe with a 3200+. From what I've>read about the 6600GT card, you could probably do better with>the 7600GT at a decent price. The reason for having the 6600 card is that I have taken the FS-GS service and he told me that for my CPU there is no benefit in upgrading the graphics card further.>the processor with a dual core with 1mb L2 cache if I can find>a decent price.For my system, the philosophy right now is toOf course I could overclock my CPU at no cost. But would it make any significant difference?>cards have come down. I'm thinkng that there won't be any DX10>cards for AGP and that there will be massive jumps in>processor, GPU, and mobo technology by this time next year. But is it not technically possible to design a AGP DX10 card? I mean they still sell both AGP mb and graphics card.

>>The reason for having the 6600 card is that I have taken the FS-GS service and he told me that for my CPU there is no benefit in upgrading the graphics card further.I wasn't aware that was a limitation of the CPU. I'd really like to get some amplification since I'm looking at upgrading my video card and if the 3200+ won't perform better then I need to rethink that issue. Could it be the limitation is PCIe vs AGP?>>Of course I could overclock my CPU at no cost. But would it make any significant difference?I don't know anything about overclocking except that it's not for the weak of heart! Seriously, the 939 pin socket is far from dead. I've heard massive performance increases with a 4000+ over the 3200 and even better things with the FX. Check the AMD site for specs and then look at prices. From what I understand (and please bear in mind that I consider myself a "parts replacer" and not a technician), the biggest boost is from the L2 cache being pushed up to 1mb. Prices for some better AMD chips aren't that bad right now and the A8V is designed for them.>>But is it not technically possible to design a AGP DX10 card? I mean they still sell both AGP mb and graphics card.From what I understand about PCIe vs AGP, AGP is simplex and PCIe is duplex and at double data transfer rates both ways. I believe that one of the advantages of DirectX10 is the ability to transfer information quickly and share the load with the CPU. It just makes sense (IMHO) that the AGP port can't provide the bidirectionl communication or speed required. I've heard there is an adapter but don't understand the technology or if it's actually just to allow a PCIe board to communicate through the AGP slot - and why you would want to do that anyway).What I'm saying is that there is still a lot of life left in the A8V mobo and room for upgrades from the 3200+. Just remember that you're going to run into a wall (AM2 and PCIe). I'm waiting until DX10 hardware and technology matures before I replace my current setup. Until then, I can do some mild upgrades without breaking the bank.

Would like to continue this discussion with a question about FS-GS and the hope that someone with AMD experience can help.I was surprised that the FS-GS advisor said that a graphics card better than the 6600GT would not be helpful with the 3200+ CPU. The engine, increased pipelines, and memory speed in the 7600GT is reported to be a signifinant improvement over the 6600 but is this improvement limited by the 3200 CPU? Am also limited to AGP. Power supply is a 400W Antec so I should be OK there.I plan on upgrading in the hopes of making my machine a decent performer for the next year or so. The build is about 2 years old right now. I remember that some "experts" at that time said there was little sense of going to 939 pin AMD and that SATA drives had little improvement or future - went that route anyway in the hopes of having an upwardly scalable system. I realize that technology is continuously improving (thankfully) and nothing lasts forever. My question now is about the performance comparison between a fast FX CPU and a dual core if I can manually split the core workload. This computer is used for many things besides FS inluding some moderately graphics intensive work. And yes, there are quite a few apps running in the background so my thought here is that if I split the load on a dual core, I should get significantly better performance. Will it be better than an FX chip with a 1mb L2 cache? My price break right now is around $200 so that points to the FX55 and the X24400 as the reasonable possibilities. Any thoughts or links to answers?Thanks in advance and sorry if it sounds like one of those "should I buy this?" threads.

I've got the 7600GT AGP and am fairly happy with it. Can deal with most games at max settings and not too shabby on FSX. Be aware that ATI are bringing out a high end AGP card in November though- the X1950pro. Same performance as x1900XT pci-x, and will be reasonably priced too. King of AGP cards at the moment is the 7800GS+ but this is ridiculously overpriced (at least in UK). The advantage of this card is that it ha 512MB memory, compared with only 256 for the other 2- and it seems as if FSX is a memory hog. Maybe when the new ATI card comes out the 7800GS+ price will be slashed. Bloke who said 6600GT is the end of the line for your system is talking rubbish- you will see significant improvements with any of the 3 cards here even with 3200 CPU. As for choosing whether to upgrade CPU or GPU, its difficult to say which is preferable. At the moment you have a balanced system, so upgrading just one component is clearly not optimal. But once you factor in the cost of a new processor and a new graphics card things are getting expensive so maybe you should just wait till DX10... who knows.

Interesting about the 7600GT AGP - hard to find here in the states. Saw it on sale last night at Tiger-Direct for $139 (while supplies last)but it was gone this morning. I agree that the GPU and CPU should be upgraded together in this particular configuration. I've set a tentative budget of $200 each for the processor and CPU upgrades in the hopes that this will keep me fairly up to date for the next year or so given my current mobo and power supply. I completely agree that things will certainly be interesting in the next few months. I suspect that AGP and S939 products will drop in price but may be hard to find as the manufacturers phase out this technology.

>I was surprised that the FS-GS advisor said that a graphics>card better than the 6600GT would not be helpful with the>3200+ CPU. That is a highly subjective statement and it is not one that I entirely agree with. But having been in the scene for 15 years I can tell you that in many cases, it is true that people will try to config a PC with a slow cpu and a super-fast vid card, which is pointless. Equally pointless is a fast cpu with a slow vid card. Having said that, I feel like your 3200+ would in fact benefit in FS from a video card that had 512 mb ram on it, and that pretty much means you would get a 7-series nVidia card (assuming you stuck with nVidia).I see what Mr. FS-GS (probably M. Greenblatt) is saying about your cpu not being able to push data to a 7-series card fast enough...but as we all know, vid mem is more important than raw speed in FS. And a 3200+ is still a very powerful cpu, in the overall scheme of things. Especially with an app like FS.>in the 7600GT is reported to be a signifinant improvement over>the 6600 but is this improvement limited by the 3200 CPU? Yes and no. But that's all my opinion and FS-GS's opinion. The 7600 will perform a little better but not really mind-blowingly better for you. the main improvement will be with the amount of gfx memory, if you're going from 256 to 512. But I would want quantitative data on whether or not a 3200+ can push data to a 7-series card. I'm sure you can find it on the web. I say it can. I think FS-GS underestimates the power of the Venice core cpu's.But really, you should probably *not* be considering a video card upgrade at this time. DX10 is right around the corner.>Power supply is a 400W Antec so I should>be OK there.>Hmm. Not necessarily. I'd want more than 400w if I was building today. If you're going to keep your p/s, then that's fine, but keep in mind you'll be limited as to the graphics cards you can use, especially in light of the possibility that DX10 cards will use even more power.If you're planning on running a 7-series card, if it were me I would want at least 500 watts of any "normal" power supply. A little power supply info: Your 400 watt power supply will not put out 400 watts at normal operating temperatures. Most p/s makers rate wattage at 60 degF, and in the real world your p/s will be sitting in an 80 or 90 degF environment, and thus it will be putting out less wattage.>My question now is about the>performance comparison between a fast FX CPU and a dual core>if I can manually split the core workload. This computer is>used for many things besides FS inluding some moderately>graphics intensive work. And yes, there are quite a few apps>running in the background so my thought here is that if I>split the load on a dual core, I should get significantly>better performance. In that case I'd get a dual-core.If you're building from scratch, a Core 2 Duo is the best right now.But if you're going to keep some things from your AMD setup, then the best affordable cpu for you is a X2 4800+. But that's over $200...>Will it be better than an FX chip with a>1mb L2 cache? My price break right now is around $200 so that>points to the FX55 and the X24400 as the reasonable>possibilities. Any thoughts or links to answers?>The FX55 will outperform the 4400+ in FSX. Flat-out.An FX57 would be better, but it might be hard to find an FX57 today.But you said you do things besides FSX, that might use dual-cores. So that moves the pointer back to the 4400+. Make sure your motherboard supports a 4400+ or FX55. I think you said you have an A8V which is a good motherboard, and probably would only need a bios update at most.Summary: The 4400+ will not be a gigantic step over your 3200+ in FSX. It will be better but not huge. You might consider just the cpu upgrade, which will help you some, and the X2's are indeed very cheap now. The vid card I would be less prone to do, because of DX10 situation.I too pondered the same cpu situation you face. I chose not to upgrade my fast single core, primarily because I mostly use FSX and it does not appear that a 4800+ would offer me any significant performance increase, especially in light of my nice overclockable San Diego core cpu.I'm saving $$$ for a DX10 card and/or a new rig, about a year from now. Knowing me, it will be more like 1.5 years from now. :)RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>Your 6600 could be improved by a 7600 card with 512mb memory>which would help with FSX.>The prices of those make them out of question. But what about a 6800 with DDR3 and 512M?>But it's all academic...if you plan to maybe make the switch>to FSX in a years time, once add-ons and hardware catch up,No I intend to use FSX now (parallell to FS9) at least for some flying. I have bought it and also the first addon for it (the FSgenesis).

>But really, you should probably *not* be considering a video>card upgrade at this time. DX10 is right around the corner.>But DX10 does not mean just put in a new graphics card. We also need PCI express mb and Vista OS and maybe a new PSU (from what I have heard)