Cya- Can you run one of your test with ActiveSky 6.5 if you have this add on. Thanks,Frank

Yeah, max all first in any city and give us the rundown.

No disrespect folks but i to am waiting on the right machine to go out and buy and i have the cash flow to get the best set up out there.but i do have a question about these test that are performed on computers like 3dmarks and other software that do the same , are these numbers really accurate on what your system can do.I mean FSX to should be the new test for a system because of all the reading im doing FSX is bringing computers to its knee's.When i hear you get a frame rate of 178 through 3dmarks, and you can only muster up maybe 20- 25- 30 fps in FSX, no direspect but if you can get that 178 fps in FSX or even half , no a third id be happy.So im wondering so what that you can get 178 through 3dmarks, to me that is not the test.right now FSX is testing all systems to the max, to me that should be the benchmark and not 3dmarks.i to am looking for the results from the top post new rig.Please folks im not tring to make anybody mad , im just really wanting to get this right and hopefully get the right equiptment.because to be honest this is the first time that i had a problem of not nowing what to get because it seems nobody knows.Thanks................Gentleman........Robert

Benchmark programs are worthless as a gauge to how games will play. They are mostly used as bragging rights for xtremesystems builders to one-up each other with who has the faster pc. I recently bought an 8800gts to replace my 7900gt and got an improvement of 9% in my 3dmark05 score. When i ran game benchmarks i saw a 65% increase in FEAR and call of duty 2. This also works vice vera. For example you could be seeing an incredible 20k score in 3dmark05 and fsx would still run like a pig because it's cpu bound.Any core2 processor with 2gb of high end 800+mhz ram and a higher end video card will be fine for games. If you want to be able to run the dx10 version of fsx when it comes out you will need an 8800 card with vista. If you plan on sticking with windows xp and directx9 for the time being then i would buy a 7950gt for $279 and save your money for later when all the directx 10 games are out.

Of course, all of us don't really care as much about benching with 3DMark or Aquamark or whatever, vs. benching with FS.We are interested in benching it with FS.So yes posting FSX results is far better than any synthetic bench.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Robert,You are right. These bench marks means nothing for FSX. Ultimately performance in FSX is what really matters.The Q is..how do you compare FSX? There is no standard settings in FSX nor a particular place and sequence of flight that you do to discuss "Par" values. Thats why you have so many Posts on "I get 25FPS" and "I get 3FPS" and all the bickering thats going on. Folks are talking past each other. Apples and oranges.Using 3DMarks and other standard benchmark is useful from the point of evaluating any tweaks you do. What was the bench mark before you applied a tweak or driver install vs what was the benchmark after you applied them. IF you setup RAID 0 with a single controller vs dual controllers... If the bench mark value is higher after a tweak, it may not translate to anything higher in FSX, but atleast it would not be worse. This is particulaly true when you are building a new machine. This is a hardware forum. Where building and tweakings are discussed. I know some people are comfortable with a warm and fuzzy discussion of how nice things are without quantifying what that nice is. We post HDTach numbers here... when we were considering RAID 0 vs non RAID 0. Raptor vs non Raptors etc.. It was these numbers that gave a sense of understanding when there is a higher performance "Per se". After that we check if there is anything that translates to FSim. But make no mistake, if something is worse in such benchmark, don't for a min assume it would work favorably in FSim. That ain't going to happen. If you get a xxxx score in 2DMark bench mark with a particular diver and (xxxx - 50) FPS in the same bench after a driver update or a new video card. You can be reasonably sure the (xxxs - 50) is not going to be better in FSX/FS9. Another reason, say you have the same setup (hardware wise) with another person and you have 20% less in the bench mark. You get an immediate feedback as to you not having setup your system in a condition in which you can without any additional purchase. Its a health indicator of sorts. This is how I figured out..that my RAID setup was not right. I didnt know anything about single RAID controller vs dual raid controller till I compared HDtach benchmark. when I saw my numbers were low inspite of similar hardware, I dug in and found out. I modified my setup and got the numbers high. I can be darned sure, it did not make my FSim any worse (if not better). Posting FSX FPS would not have helped me any.If you just want a warm and fuzzy feelgood response..OK.. like the man said, get a core 2 duo and be happy. ;)This is not a bragging thing. There is a pattern in the madness.;)Manny

>The Q is..how do you compare FSX? There is no standard>settings in FSX nor a particular place and sequence of flight>that you do to discuss "Par" values. Thats why you have so>many Posts on "I get 25FPS" and "I get 3FPS" and all the>bickering thats going on. Folks are talking past each other.>Apples and oranges.>Remember that thread we had, before FSX came out, where we proposed setting up some pre-defined configs in FSX, for bench purposes?That would kinda come in handy a lot of times I think.For sure it would put the quietus on the apples and oranges fps comparisons.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

OK..even if you do that... where do you go from there?Say you and I have the same system and you get 25FPS and I get 20FPS. Now what?With these bench marks like HDTach and 3DMark, Aquamark3 etc...it breaks it down to a reasonable component. It compares Video, hardisk and the CPU seperately too. So you can do something with the narrowed results. Thats your objective right? to be able to do something with those numbers to change the situation.Once you have the Hardware tuned to the best it can be, Then you focus on the Sim and its cfg files. They are not mutually exclusive.But if you put it all one glob and then take the measurement at the highest level, yes you get a reading. But you can't go anywhere with that reading. Except maybe show off?:)Manny

Hey guys, just a quick update so you don't think I have forgotten about the results.I tried to build the computer on Saturday and found out the ASUS striker extreme motherboards ATX 12V connector is covered by the cooling tubing that asus have designed on the board, what they did not think about is what happens if the thick connectors required on the 900W Tagan PSU is too big to fit into this small gap they created. So basically I had to wait until Monday to get an ATX 12V extension adaptor wire which won't arrive until Tuesday.Theres a word of warning, watch out for this stupid design flaw on the Striker Extreme and the oversized wires on some PSU's as they may not have been universally designed with each other in mind.Also, I decided I had better have a TrackIR 4 Pro to go with this beast as well so can't wait for that now.I will be back soon :)Merry Christmas!

Looking forward to a Report!! And some benches!!Have Fun!!

I can't believe the difference in frame rates with this new machine. Flying through Las Vegas now is sooo smooth. :) You see any benefits with that quad core on any apps or games? Either way you are set for the future.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | Super Talent DDR2 800 @ 893Mhz | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 575/900 | Seagate 2x 320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW

>I can't believe the difference in frame rates with this new>machine. Flying through Las Vegas now is sooo smooth. :) You>see any benefits with that quad core on any apps or games?>Either way you are set for the future.>________________________________________________________________________________________________>>Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz>| Super Talent DDR2 800 @ 893Mhz | >Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 575/900 | Seagate 2x 320GB>SATA RAID-0 | >OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BWHow much faster is an 8800GTS as compared to a 7900 GT right now? I am going to upgrade to a E6600 with 2 Gigs of RAM, so I was curious.thanks, Joe

More than twice as fast. There is no comparing the two. I swapped a 7900gt for this 8800 card. I got maybe 2 or 3 fps in fsx with it over the 7900gt but the visuals are much nicer because i can run such high levels of AA and AF. I also don't get any blurries in fsx now and much less blurries in fs9 although fs9 is just a lost cause when it comes to blurries. You will love the new machine as long as you do 2 or 3 tweaks from the fsx performance guide, and o/c your chip to its potential. Even not overclocked i was still getting low to mid 20's fps in the cities with most sliders 3/4 to full. I pretty much get high 20's to low 30's in every major city now except for new york where i get low 20's on average with the usual sputter to the high teens. In the burbs and the bush I'm 50+ fps now.

Well AA / AF max or off makes no difference for me with FSX on a 7900 GTO, as with FS9. FS anything remains a true CPU bound application, so as long as you have a medium to high GPU, everything will be good. I certainly would not upgrade from a 7900gt/gs to an 8800 just for this title. Gary

>Well AA / AF max or off makes no difference for me with FSX>on a 7900 GTO, as with FS9. FS anything remains a true CPU>bound application, so as long as you have a medium to high>GPU, everything will be good. I certainly would not upgrade>from a 7900gt/gs to an 8800 just for this title. >>Gary>Agreed. If you dont play many other games that actually can take advantage of the 8800 or dont plan on upgrading to vista in the next few months then i say hold off on the 8800. Nvidia's driver support for these cards is abysmal anyway. An 8800 card that was designed to run in vista and still no vista driver for them a month after the OS was released to businesses and system builders. PATHETIC. They say that the driver will be ready by january but so far all we have on that is their word which at this point isnt worth much. Seems like nvidia is suffering from the same thing lately that many other companies are suffering from including MS and Aces: poor management decisions and lack of communication with the developers.