Ok I'm not interested in FSX, DirectX 10, or Windows Vista. I want to build a new PC optimised for FS9 on Windows XP. I fly addons like PMDG 747 and like lots of traffic.I've been thinking along the lines of:SLI motherboard;2X Nvidia 512MB 9750GT's (not in SLI mode);Between 2 to 4GB Ram (WinXP can't use more than 4GB);SATA2 for WinXP;SATA2 for FS9;Maybe a SATA2 for FS9 scenery?Maybe a SATA2 for WinXP swap?Minimum of 4 dispalys, idealy with 3D on 3 of them. - Processor -1) I understand that FS9 does not use (physical) dual core technology, but people talk of it as being "processor intensive". Do I really need to get a dual core processor to make the best of FS9 on WinXP? - Graphics cards -2) The last time I shopped around for graphics cards (about 18 months ago) I concluded that Nvidia cards were better for FS9 because of their better multi monitor support compared to ATI, is this still the case?3) However it seems that the 1950XT is more sexy than the 7950GT and consistently outperforms it... interested in peoples thoughts on this?- Displays -4) I'm planning on 1280X960 resolution. I'd prefer 5 displays with 2D panels on 2 of them. I believe I could do this using a Matrox DualHead2Go (but it doesn't support ####x960, ####x1024 at 60Hz will be the closest). - Harddrives -5) I want scenery and textures to load fast and minimise stutters, but I'm not convinced that RAID would help for the FS9 or WinXP swap drives though?6) Also, I'm not sure if I would want the FS9 scenery to be on an NCQ drive because I assume that the scenery data is sequential (on a properly defragmented dirve)?Any oppinions are most welcome.

>Ok I'm not interested in FSX, DirectX 10, or Windows Vista. I>want to build a new PC optimised for FS9 on Windows XP. I fly>addons like PMDG 747 and like lots of traffic.>Then you need as much cpu power as you can afford.2 gb of memory is fine. 4 gb would be fine too but not really as much bang for buck as 2 gb.>- Processor ->1) I understand that FS9 does not use (physical) dual core>technology, but people talk of it as being "processor>intensive". Do I really need to get a dual core processor to>make the best of FS9 on WinXP? >The fast dual-core cpu's (Core2Duo), even on one core, are faster than the fastest single-core cpu out there.So you might as well get one of those.A Core2Duo E6600, for example, will beat an FX57 (which one of the fastest single core cpu's).RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Processor - I can't say enough about my E6600, it cost me $316 and will blow the doors off the x6800 @ stock speeds (x6800 has more headroom for oc though) I don't know if your into overclocking or not but the value of doing so is undeniable and it is extremely safe if you do your reading. FS9 loves CPU clock, I am thinking about doing a comparison in frames @ stock of 2.4ghz vs 3.1ghz vs 3.8ghz with everyhting else untouched....the results and differences in overall frame rate in EXTREME scenery situations is amazing.Graphics - I'm partial to nvidia only because they have never done me wrong. On the bench or in game my experience has always been great. Sorry this doesn't help much but I'm a little closed minded when it comes to the video category.Displays - What monitor do you have that has a native of ####x960? Just curious if that is the reason you would prefer that resolution.HD's - I don't think my Raid array does much for me vs a single 10k raptor and I don't think having the files on multiple SaTA's will give you any better frame rate or overall performance advantage... and I don't know what I can honestly upgrade or change to improve performance. I hear my HD searching when playing FS but there are no stutters. I think that 2gb of quality high speed ddr2 will help null any perceived difference. I can only speak on what is working for me, I consider my system to be on the upper end of the spectrum, but having run it @ the same level (Searching for a stability base) that most mid range systems are at today, I've seen what changes directly affect FS9 performance.Hopefully any part of this will help you! With my Setup at a conservative 3.15GHZ, I run every single FS9 slider maxed at a res of 3840x1024 over 3 19" Dells using TH2go, I run all PMDG products, Wilco A320, Level-D, Flight1 Super80, Flight1 727 into Cloud9 LAX with my FPS locked at 20, and my frames will never hit 18.9.

Nice setup. I'd say that either a Core2Duo or an AMD FX processor are the best for FS9. A RAID can help with loading times, but I'd say that it won't be a huge speed booster.2GB will be plenty for now. There is absolutely no use for 4GB.Right now, I would blindly get a X1950XT and would prefer it over any nVidia board with the exception of the 8800. ATI's price-performance ratio right now seems to be much better and the driver are much more stable and mature.Just dedicate a partition exclusively for FS9 on a seperate HDD other than the OS install. 70GB should be more than enough.Good luck!Pat

>There is absolutely no use for 4GB.Truer words never spoken!

>The fast dual-core cpu's (Core2Duo), even on one core, are>faster than the fastest single-core cpu out there.>And the second core can busy itself with external addons without taking anything from the main core running FS9. In fact, I don't even shut down processes before starting FS9 like I did when I had a single core CPU, because all the little festers run on the decoy core ;-). I still use FSAutostart, but only to start all my FS related programs in one go and in sequence.Gary

Go with nVidias because you can SPAN across monitors.. So if you don't use Matrox TH2Go boxes you've got much more flexibility. TH2Go are very good but are limited by their resolution options (2400x600, 3072x768 or 3840x1024)Shouldn't need to use a DualHead2Go. Use one card to provide your 2 x 2D panels and use one output of the other card connected to a TripleHead2Go for your 3-monitor outside view.Alternatively, if you don't use TH2Go you can put your outside view on 2 monitors using the SPAN mode.If not using TH2Go, depending on budget I'd use either:2 x 24" Widescreen monitors (1920x1200) for the VC/outside view and standard 2 x 20" monitors (1600x1200) for the 2D cockpit views.OR2 x 30" Widescreen monitors (1280x800) for the VC/outside view and standard 2 x 20" monitors (1600x1200) for the 2D cockpit views.(I knock back the resolution from native 2560x1600 to half resolution so as not to cripple frame rates) The larger picture more than compensates for the lack of pixels. (its still one heck of a load of pixels)RegardsJim

>Go with nVidias because you can SPAN across monitors.. So if>you don't use Matrox TH2Go boxes you've got much more>flexibility. TH2Go are very good but are limited by their>resolution options (2400x600, 3072x768 or 3840x1024)>Shouldn't need to use a DualHead2Go. Use one card to provide>your 2 x 2D panels and use one output of the other card>connected to a TripleHead2Go for your 3-monitor outside view.>Alternatively, if you don't use TH2Go you can put your outside>view on 2 monitors using the SPAN mode.>>If not using TH2Go, depending on budget I'd use either:>2 x 24" Widescreen monitors (1920x1200) for the VC/outside>view and standard 2 x 20" monitors (1600x1200) for the 2D>cockpit views.>>OR>>2 x 30" Widescreen monitors (1280x800) for the VC/outside view>and standard 2 x 20" monitors (1600x1200) for the 2D cockpit>views.>(I knock back the resolution from native 2560x1600 to half>resolution so as not to cripple frame rates) The larger>picture more than compensates for the lack of pixels. (its>still one heck of a load of pixels)>>>Regards>>Jim

Thanks for all your replies.I should mention that I'd be happy with the system if I can get *no less* than a smooth 25 FPS below about 2000ft with PMDG 747 on final to Heathrow and heavy AI traffic.- Processor ->The fast dual-core cpu's (Core2Duo), even on one core, are faster than the fastest single-core cpu out there.>So you might as well get one of those.Ok, I can pick up an E6600 for about

>Thanks for all your replies.>>I should mention that I'd be happy with the system if I can>get *no less* than a smooth 25 FPS below about 2000ft with>PMDG 747 on final to Heathrow and heavy AI traffic.>>Then you need the most cpu you can afford. That being an E6600 it would appear.>However is there a single core (or any other older processor)>for about half the price of the E6600 who's performane for its>price might make it a contender Well there is, but I would not go that route, because it's yesterdays technology. I could configure a 4000+ or FX57 to run FS9 with 25+ fps and PDMG 747 and heavy AI traffic into heathrow. My present cpu which left the market at $80 USD can fairly well do that. However, the FX57, if still available, is not half the price of an E6600, and the 4000+'s (the Socket 939 ones), while cheap enough, are exceedingly rare these days if you can still find them new.Both of those fast single core cpu's can sit on full boat PCIx-16 boards. But an E6600 even using just one of its cores will give you more framerate than a 4000+ or FX57. That's the critical factor.>Hang on, wouldn't the addons have to be coded to take>advantage of the dual core? I think he's referring to setting affinity. >>Is everyone agreed that for FS9 it is better to have a 512MB>version of a graphics card than the 256MB version even if the>256MB version has a sligtly higher GPU and/or memory clock (eg>570MHz v 610MHz and 1.4GHz v 1.6GHz).Yes that is fact. It's not even something can be agreed or disagreed on, it can only be believed or disbelieved. Vid ram is king. It is simple fact that slower card with more ram is better for FS than a faster card with less ram.>>Something I'm confused about... I've seen 7800GT's more>expensive than 7900GT's and 7950GT's. So which of these series>7 cards is the best value? >I like my 7800GT, which was top-tier when it came out, but it was quickly superceded by the 7900 series. In FS2004, my 7800GT rig with fast single core is wonderful. It even handles FSX well enough to make me have no need to upgrade.I didn't realize you could still buy a 7800GT. I thought eVGA, for example, quite selling them some months ago. Can't comment on "best value" but I would say it would be a 7900 series, and definitely NOT a 7600 or 7300. Avoid those unless you just want a budget card to tide you over until you get a next-gen DX10 card. But since we're talking FS9 that's a non-issue.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

>>And the second core can busy itself with external addons>without taking anything from the main core running FS9.>>Hang on, wouldn't the addons have to be coded to take>advantage of the dual core? The only sort of addon software I>might use would be for online flying. In fact I'm not sure if>WinXP takes advantage of dual core either... maybe there's>support in SP2? I appreciate what people are saying about the>superior performance of the E6600, but I don't want to spend>money on excess performance.>The addons don't have to be coded to take advantage of dual core, as the OS (even XP) will run it on the least utilised core anyway. The point is that FS can get its one CPU worth of processing time all the time while other tasks are automatically entertained by the other core, thus giving an overall smoother experience. An example is when I run FSBuild with FS running. When I had a single core AMD CPU, If I wanted to build a flight plan (especially a long distance one) any time this century, I had to minimise FS so that FSBuild got enough CPU time to do its job. With my C2D, I don't have to minimise or pause anything, as they can both run concurrently at full power.Edit: And to illustrate my point, take a look a the task manager graph below with FS running mostly on the first core (left graph) and FSBuild creating a flight plan on the second core over the last 20 seconds. My FPS in FS9 remain constant while all this is going on. If I set the affinity of both FS9 and FSBuild to the same core to simulate single core operation, the flight plan building takes about 10x longer and my FPS in FS9 is all over the place and a very stuttery experience.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166697.jpgWhilst this is a small example, there are many different things that will steal CPU cycles away from FS on a single core processor, especially if you are running multimonitors and do lots of other things while flight simming. In addition to running FS, I generally have FSBuild, Activesky6, ServerInfo and Squawkbox 3 (when online), TrackIR, and my VA's ACARS program all running. I also have a couple of web browsers open and a remote desktop connection to my work computer active. And if my antivirus program starts a system scan while all this is happenning, no problem - both cores sort it all out between themselves. In short, I get a much smoother FS experience with dual core than I ever did with single core, even though none of the programs I use are optimised for dual core utilisation. It's the load balancing effort of the OS that does it.And for your desire not to spend too much on excess performance, believe me there isn't a processor out there that I haven't been able to bog down into low FPS in FS. In fact, my C2D is the first CPU that I haven't been able to pull into single digit FPS, and even with its mighty CPU grunt at 3.5GHz I can still pull it into the low teens in FS9 at times. So, don't ever think you can have to much processor for FS (well at least up to FSX anyway - FSXI may surprise us ;-)).Gary

Gary, does this same cpu usage that you get with FSBuild and FS, also correspond to ActiveSky and FS?The reason I ask is because with my single core I get noticeable hitches in my FS when the wx is updating. If ActiveSky behaves like FSBuild does with a dual-core, then I have good things to look forward to whenever I decide to go with multiple cores.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

I won't say there are no hitches with AS updating the weather in FS, as it is actually passing data into FS and changing your skyscape accordingly and therefore must tie up FS to some degree, but it is much less than what you'd experience with single core. There are options within AS to lessen its impact on FS in such cases, but by default I believe it throttles anyway so changing this to disable throttling will likely only make it worse. You can watch this throttling in action by refreshing your AS weather and alternating between FS maximised and minimised (use windowed mode for this). When FS is maximised, you will see the download speed drops drastically and the stations are updated at a much slower pace. With dual core, it doesn't matter whether FS is maximised or minimised as AS runs at full performance all the time.So yes, you will see a noticable improvement in AS / FS interaction when you do upgrade.Edit: I've attached another graph, this time showing FS9 running on the first core and AS starting up, downloading weather, send it to FS9 then resetting AI traffic when it has finished. The whole process takes about 25 seconds and shows FS reacting briefly on AS startup as the weather is cleared then again when the AI is reset. In between and afterwards, FPS remained the same (40FPS @ CYVR) and I could switch views and pan smoothly throughout. It was a much bumpier affair on my single core AMD that I had. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166712.jpgGary

- Motherboard -Ok so I need a chipset that supports full 16X PCIe in non-SLI mode, and in fact this support is more important to me than whether it's an intel or AMD board. So what's the best chipset? Any particular boards come to mind (ideally for less than 150)? So far I quite fancy the nForce4 chipset (e.g. "Nvidia nForce4 SLI X16" board) because the nForce500 and nForce600 chipsets are only capable of supporting non-SLI dual 16X PCIe if the processor FSB is at least 1333MHz(I think I've got that right???); and I'm not going to spend more than the cost of an Intel E6600 at 1066MHz FSB (about

The motherboard I recommend is the ASUS P5N32-SLihttp://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?ASU-P5N32ERegardsJim