I

Outstanding...thank you Jareth

Hey SamI re-digested your post again. Few things...first very well writen. thank you againThe reason I like your approach is 2 fold:1) nothing (like you said) runs FSX to its potential yet..2) the evelution begins in about a year with 45nm, DDR3 and solid state harddrives...In short any money thrown at a gaming computer, in my opinion is a tie over until we get to the hardware that can actually run FSX in its full glory. Some forums I have read are suggesting with the reduced head and leakage...6 gbts is obtainable.Finally, when I spoke to the salesmen about the integrated ram on the MB he said that was a year away..The reason I bring this up...is...for any lay person reading this...dont assume there is integrated ram on the MB just because its running VistaI learned alot...It looks like Im gonna have to build to do it right...jareth

Sam,I see your point and many thanks on helping with the math to really understand things more. My question is this: Since the 1.8 can really rock, then why not apply the same overclocking principles to a higher chip? Is there a point that the FSB or Ram limits its? Would FS not benefit even more if you could overclock a higher chip since FS is more CPU dependent?

Vista has a feature called readyboost available right now. You plug in flash drive and Vista will ask you if you want to use it as a readyboost drive. I tried it with a 1 gig flash drive and couldn

Sam your tha technological man!!Josh!!

GA, You can certainly O/C a higher chip. But keep in mind that these E 6XXX series, C2D chips are all IDENTICAL! Even the $1000 X6800 is no

You know whats sad SAM...is.... Im starting to understand you...good job...also good overclocking guide on Toms Hardware...I think they plagerized you...LOL...OK hotshot...since your heing so kind as to let us pick your brian...My next question is...is there a pysical difference in the size of the bus between a 266 and a 333 FSB...I understand you can adjust...but is one wider or more harty...I think you get my point..again.reason is long range possible re"use" of the board with the next gen chips....Tanx again jareth

Glad it's makin' sense. Not so hard, really.There are a multitude of different physical buss sizes, but in this case, size really does NoT matter. (Bummer!) These busses are just copper traces etched onto a silicon board. Any electrical path can be called a "buss." Connecting components with these copper traces (busses) is the basis to all ICs (integrated circuits).As with any electrical component, actually smaller is better. Just to give AmaZing example of what's happening with these traces these days: Intel's C2D CPU has traces that are 65 nanometers wide. A nanometer is 5 atoms wide. I don't know what kind of atom this would be . . . maybe a middle-sized one! These kinds of dimension are entirely beyond my imagination. The next "buss" width Intel is going to is 45 nm. This will be "just" a shrink of the current C2D design. It will generate less heat and therefore be available to clock faster. Check out this video. Even the Intel folks can't believe what they are doing. Keep in mind that the Nvidia's 8800 GPU makes the C2D look like a 1960s transistor radio. http://www.podtech.net/home/technology/197...later-this-yearThis will NoT be huge though. We will see stock CPUs in the 3 ghz range . . . but we O/Cers will have already been there for a year. With the new CPU, I imagine we air-cooled, non-extreme O/Cers will have the high 3ghz range available. We are already in the mid-3 range now. This will be no big deal to us.The busses (copper traces) that are used in Mobos are HuGe compared to the internal circuitry of a CPU. Turn over a Mobo and look. You can probably see some.The speed of the buss is entirely a different matter. The speed number is describing how many times per second the electricity flowing in the buss Changes Direction. A 266 mhz buss means that the electricity flowing in the buss is changing directions 266,000,000 (266 mhz)times per second. This is just real fast AC or Alternating Current. How fast the current changes direction is called its "Frequency" (or how "frequently" does it change directions). Electrical frequency (or how fast it changes direction) is measured in Hertz (hz). A million hertz is called mega hertz (mhz). A billion hertz is called a Giga hertz (ghz). While we're at it, here's a little electrical trivia. Consider: How would an engineer represent this electrical dynamic on a piece of paper? He will use a graph. He will start on the zero line. This indicates there is no current flow (the circuit is off). When turned on, the current will start to flow one way. The engineer will draw a line up from the zero line indicating the current flow is increasing in this direction. A maximum flow will be achieved and the flow will start to slow down. This is shown by drawing a curved top, then beginning to bring the line back toward the zero line. As the flow reduces, it will finally stop all-together, just before it changes direction. This is where the line continues down through the zero line. As the current gains momentum in the opposite direction, the line continues down. Again, a peak (reversed) flow will be achieved and then begin to subside. As before, the line curves around a low point, then reverses back toward the top. Finally the current flow decreases to zero as it gets ready to change direction once again. This is a One Cycle. One Hertz. (Mr. Hertz discovered this phenomenon).As a real world example, this describes what is happening in our FSB. (Note: Here's the low-down on what that "Quad Pumped" nomenclature really means: Intel's "Quad Pumped" description is NoT the buss's frequency. Intel found a way to get a data bit on each of the 4 AC events. The 1) current increase, 2) current decrease, 3) current reverse'd increase, 4) current reverse'd decrease. AKA, "Quad Pumped." The mhz suffix is nonsense, but the principal is PFM!) This drawing represents one AC cycle and it looks like just like a "Wave." The speed at which AC changes direction will make this wave drawing longer or shorter. The distance (on the graph paper) between the start and finish of the wave's graph is called the wave's "Wave Length." This is why radio waves are called "Radio Waves" and why these waves are said to have a "wave length." The wave length (on the graph paper) has to do with how often (or frequently) the AC changes directions. This is how we get the word "Frequency."There are no WaVY things fLyiNG around! The term "wave" is taking about a graphical representation of Alternating Current doing its alternating direction thing. To give a couple of examples, the AC in your (US) house changes direction 60 times per second (60 hz). Transport airplanes use 400 hz AC for power(changes direction 400 times per second). Once the AC starts changing directions above about 50,000 times per second (50 kilohertz, aka "khz" ) -- at sufficient power -- magic begins to happen. Its called radio. AM radio starts the show at the "Frequency band" of about 500khz to 1.5mhz. Then aircraft HF radio (that airplanes use to call home from the middle of the Pacific ocean) runs from 2 to 30 mhz. Aircraft VHF nav and comm radio runs from 108 to 135mhz. Cell phones run higher . . in the 500 to 800 mhz range. We might be all impressed by these computers running at 266 mhz, but this is old hat. Airplane radios have been doing it for years. But that CPU at 3 ghz, that's gotta be amazing? Nah. All aircraft transponders run at 1.090 ghz. I had a radio altimeter problem the other day. This RA ran at 4.4 ghz. Intel, top that! So, to make a long answer even longer, you see there is really no relationship to the physical size of the buss and the frequency (aka, "speed" or how fast the electrically changes directions within that buss). They are not related.Future proofing a Mobo: The Intel 965 and the Nvidia 680i/650i chipsets are the best overclockers right now. Both will allow you to run your FSB up to 500 mhz. Intel is currently at a default 266 mhz FSB. This is their current 1066 offering. (Don't you call this mhz. You know better now!) The next step will be their 1333 offering (What FSB is this actually? How about 1333 / 4 = 333 mhz). So here we are. We currently have Mobos that will go to a FSB of 500 mhz. Intel's current offering is 266 mhz and their "next-gen" (Bearlake) will be 333 mhz. I think a current Intel 965 or Nvidia 680i / 650i chip set Mobo will do you just fine for years to come. Chose the feature set you need grab it now. You are gonna have it for a while.

Great post D17, thanks for all of your input!

Your a smart man SAM...this coming from one who has passed 2 bar exams in the same week many many years ago......(and not the drinkin kind)

Thanks Packers . . . 'course a wee tip might sometimes tend to lubricate the thinking process. Ahhh, life is good. And speaking of a wild idea . . . It seems (at least possible) that if we choose carefully right now, this may be the last system that we will be running separate CPUs and GPUs. AMD's acquisition of ATI is all coming into focus.The GPGPU (General Purpose GPU) may be a reality within the next several years. The potential is a bit overwhelming. If they can pull this off, it should hit right around, at leasts my, 3 year upgrade cycle.Check it out: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37529

Hey Sam...just curious..where are you at on FSX with your fandango megaplex....I use FSX for the living world...as I find its another fun way to learn geography...but I like the sliders maxed...otherwize its no different..(and alot worse than GE or VE...) I fly to learn...I am finding....Yesturday read a forum on Niagra Falls..so I tried (agian)...topped out at 4fps with a e6300 at 2 gigs ram...(stock FPS no tweeks) I spent weeks tweekin then recently updated computers and refuse to re tweek until I see what the patch is gonna do...I priced your fandango megaplex on new egg and its still well above a grand...it may last 3 years..agreed...but it aint worth it to me unless we are maxed..where you at...if you would endulge me.....thanks again..jareth

The real driver for all this research is that it's great entertainment . . . but it also might just save a marginal computer upgrade or two over the next several years. I'm still waiting. FS9 is still my mainstay too. Personally, I'm waiting for Robson to become available. That's the onboard cache designed to speed boot and program load times. I find that load times for stuff . . . from MS Word to Megascenery (even with O&O and Raid 0s and a 5 HP motor jackscrewed into my HD!) is a real 'experience' bottleneck. Robson is not the "add a USB dongle" technology. I'm running that now. At a gig O ram+ (even with Vista) I don't see any difference. I'm also still looking for a feature set I want on a Mobo. The 680i looks good. I like the triple PCIe video slots. My imagination has not quite settled on that, but it sure will provide some options. It looks like the 8800s in SLI are just overkill, So maybe use 2 cards - spanned - over 4 monitors? My XFX tech support says YES! why spend $250 on that THtoG? Still, I have that 3rd slot for a 5th monitor. Maybe google earth and my electronic flight bag (aka, the webernet!) The 680i's primary PCIe slots are 32 bit busses, but 16 v 32 seems to be a non-issue, so far. The 680i has a lot of O/Cing headroom and it still has PATA (EIDE) support. The Intel 965 is the other contender. It O/Cs like a champ, but has NO PATA support. However, the 680i's deal killer (for me) is that the southbridge (MCP) has a Raid 0 problem. It will only allow a 120 meg/S transfer rate. I'm looking at running 3 or 4 cheapo, smallish SATAs in raid 0. These 7200 RPM SATAs (these days) are not much slower than the Raptors. I'll make it up with that 3rd (4th!?), 50%-off, coupon clipper. But the southbridge has to be able to keep up. One would think that SATA II's 3 GIG capability would be enough. The 680i has SATA II support, but its Raid 0 function is just broke. I considered raid 5, but that costs speed. We'll see. This raid 5 stuff is new to me and I haven't come to trust it, yet. My backup has always been to clone once a month (Acronis) to a single removable harddrive (well, un-plugable, anyway!). I like this because there is less to go wrong and it's simple enough for me to deal with on a once-a-decade basis (if only that were so!). If the raid fails, I coldswap, boot on the backup, fix the raid, then restore.Ram's gonna be PC6400 (DDR800). I will not be clocking the ram beyond this 800 mhz (400 mhz FSB). If it won't go to DDR800, it gets RMA'd. Here, almost anything cheaper thing will do just like any more expensive thing. All I want here is non-bad latencies.I am seriously considering the newer(ish)4 gig (2 gig each) pairs. Swapping back and forth between FS and other programs has been a real PITA with my current 1 gig. Like Robson, this might be well spent user-comfort money.Even though, the hardware is there, if I just wasn't being so picky! FSX will not run maxed out on any software configutation we have now . . . but (I would bet) that it WILL run - maxed out - on currently availble hardware configurations. FSX is a software issue, not hardware. That E4300 has the HP to do the job. It's MS that's holding up the parade. Modern CPUs have an immediate double available . . .that second core. Actually, the only hope for AnY foreseeable future is the use of multiple cores, Just upping the clock of a single core will NoT do it. The old Netburst's (P4) speed goal was 10 ghz. They hit the wall at 4. Intel gave it away for 2 years until they finally decided that AMD might just be on to something. Shorter pipes was the answer. AMD had it all along! But Intel has come back, big time, but clock speed is still not the driver.It's all about using those multiple cores, that the software.The software folks have not figured it out yet. . . but it's their holy grail. They Will figure it out.So what to buy now? FSX is still a single world and the best CPUs - even for this app - are the dual cores. Clock for clock, there is not a hugeg difference between Intel and AMD. the real value of the C2D is that it has sooo much headroom for overclocking. Any C2D (6300, 4300, whatever) will overclock beyond AnY AMD (FX you-name-it) on a $50 add-on air cooler. That's why Intel is the chip to buy. The cheapest Intel C2D will go faster (without a lot of trouble) than the most expensive AMD. We might as well get it now because any C2D will run FSX flat out. . . .or very close to it (with the proper supporting players). The breakthrough will not be a new, latest- and - greatest CPU that you do not have yet. Any current C2D will do the job. The breakthrough will be MS getting those additional cores on line.BTW, that E6300 is just potential. In single threaded apps (like FSX) that 1.8 ghz won't preform much better than an old P4 at 3.4 ghz. Ya gotta turn it up. That E6300 uses a 7 multiplier, so that FSB has to go all the way to 480 mhz to get up to it's potential of 3.4 ghz. Nvidia's 680i and Intel's 965 are you choices . . . but it gets dicey up there. A 500 mhz FSB gives you bragging rights even with the nitrogen-cooled crowd. That's too much for me. I like that E4300. With its 9 multipier, I can keep the FSB below 400 [(377mhz (FSB) x 9 (Multiplier) = 3.4 (CPU speed)]. Also, my ram is only being driven to 754 mhz (377(FSB) x 2(DDR'd) = 754 mhz]. If my DDR800 (mhz) ram won't fun at 754 mhz, well now! The hardware is here, right now. Even in a single thread mode like FSX, any moderately overclocked AMD dial core (Athlon, FX, whatever) will out-run any single core anything. Any moderately over clocked C2D will outrun any extreme-overclocked AMD anything. So get any C2D. I like the e4300, moderate DDR800 ram, and the highest 8XXX card you can afford. Enjoy the best preformace available today and wait for the software guys. You will already have the hardware.

G'day Sam,Great post & some very interesting reading. Since first seeing this earlier in the week I have been stirring the old grey matter (very difficult these days) & have started to think about an upgrade path I hadn't considered up till now.I currently still run a Socket 478 rig with AGP video & DDR ram & thought that the only way to update in the future was to replace practically all my hardware including my recently aquired Nvidia 7600GS 512Mb video card to run FSX with. Obviously this will be quite an expensive exercise however this week I have discovered that some manufacturers are making AGP Motherboards that will run the new CPU's including the Dual Core. It will also run with my King MAX 400DDR Ram. In particular ASROCK have a unit, the 775i65G that appears to possibly fit the bill. http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=775i65G&s=nI have been running my systems overclocked for as long as I can remember & have no qualms about doing so however in this case I am unsure that if I look at going down the path as described by your post how the RAM will handle this? Obviously it won't be as good as the DDR800 you have mentioned but do you think this would suffice as a reasonably priced interim upgrade? I believe that this particular motherboard allows you to clock the RAM independantly?The CPU is currently about $250.00 Australian & the motherbourd $85.00 which is pretty good for this neck of the woods. This would at least get me headed in the direction of an eventual full change over to accommodate a DX10 card sometime in the future.Thanks for any input you could give me.Regards,Ross