I have just had a disaster with my computer system! The good news is that I had a hard drive failure three weeks ago, my dealer saved all my files and installed a new drive. I have WindowsXP and following this, the computer was running the best it had done for a long time.Then a week later, my GigaByte 939 socket, AGP motherboard failed. Trying to find a new AGP mbo was impossible so I had to sacrifice my ATI X800XL video card which had been a great performer. My dealer managed to find an ASUS A8N-E mbo with the 939 socket but with the PCI-express slot

Go for the E6400...its around/or better than perf according to Toms Charts:http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...2=465&chart=195

If you want to keep your current Ram, I would stick with a socket 939 solution, because both the newer AMD and intel mainboard almost exclusively use DDR2 Ram.As for the choice between intel and AMD: It's a tough choice. A lot of people rave about the Core2Duos, especially the E6600.Personally, I like the selection (and price) of the nVidia/AMD mainboards better, but it's really a tough call now that AMD bought ATi and noone really knows how that will impact the AMD/nVidia solutions.Bottom line is that both AMD and intel are solid performers, but the Core2Duos do offer a little bit more bang for the buck.Pat

ditto that...only thing if you're gonna overclock, go with the C2D....it overclocks better

>>Then a week later, my GigaByte 939 socket, AGP motherboard>failed. Trying to find a new AGP mbo was impossible so I had>to sacrifice my ATI X800XL video card which had been a great>performer. My dealer managed to find an ASUS A8N-E mbo with>the 939 socket but with the PCI-express slot

Agreed, Rhett. C2D is the way to go.I upped mine last October and have been "basking in the sunshine" ever since. There are many, many posts praising the C2D over any of the current AMD products. One such review suggested that "the C2D blows the AMD procs into the middle of next week"!. I hafta agree. It's as easy as pie to o/c, and stays quite cool, although I do see many folks with these massive cooling systems attached. I lock fs9 at 25, with all ATI CCC turned up full, quality, and all inside fs9 at max. That's with a number of the best scenery addons running, with 100% traffic and complex aircraft loaded.I have no blurries, no stutters and no hesitations. FS10 is also locked at 25, with most sliders fairly well up, but with Matt Fox's tweaks, and it also runs mostly stutter-free. It means that for the first time since '86 I have a sim that's actually getting to be "as real as it gets". I built a hood last week, and now need the TripleHead2Go system, plus the ButtKicker to complete it.:-)

Thanks all for your comments, they have been very helpful.Almost overwhelmingly, the advice on the two forums has been to go with the Intel Core 2 Duo chip at this time, which I did. Rhett, I could not get the Asus A8N-E mbo to work properly, maybe something wrong in the configuration. I could not get the video card or printer drivers to load, my dealer figured that Windows had probably got corrupted in all the different hardware manifestations we had been playing around with. Yet, when he installed the new Intel system, Windows fired up with no problems at all. So the 939 socket was no longer an option, nothing else was available in town with that configuration.I went for the E6400, I would have liked to have gone for the E6600 but I was up to $1400 already, and I was pretty sore at having to spend so much just because of a mbo failure. The mbo will allow for this or better upgrade in the future. Upgrades in the past have generally been in the $300 - $700 range, and previous configurations did not require a complete change-out.Performance is certainly better in FSX than with the Asus card, although only somewhat better than the performance with my defunct GigaByte card at its top performance setting (14fps). But the fps seems to hold up much better than before (sometimes this is so subjective). Surprisingly, a substantial improvement is with my own FS9 Vancouver scenery (CYVR42) in FSX, in fact frame rates for my addon are now the same as the default CYVR in FSX, whereas before they were only reaching about 6pfs with the old GigaByte card. I wonder whether the 512MB video card has contributed to this. So I must see whether I can rectify some of the flashing ground texture problems in my scenery and also redo some of the buildings which are not showing properly.NigelVancouverMy System(new):Intel Core2 Duo E6400Gigabyte GA 965G DS3 mobo Sapphire ATI Radeon X1950XT video card PCI-e 512MB2GB Transcend 800Mhz DDR2 RAMMaxtor 80GB 7200rpm hard driveMaxtor 200GB 7200rpm hard driveWestern Digital 250GB 7200rpm hard driveCreative Sound Blaster Live! with latest driversNEC FE950+ crt monitorCHProducts USB yoke and pedalsWindows XP Home edition with SP2DirectX 9.0©Cooler Master 600W power supply Five case fans

:-beerchugWelcome to the club Nigel!

>If you want to keep your current Ram, I would stick with a>socket 939 solution, because both the newer AMD and intel>mainboard almost exclusively use DDR2 Ram.But the problem is now that 939s aren't made anymore and many other DIY's out there are trying to extend the life of their 939 system, you are almost certainly going to overpay for a 939 upgrade chip.I'm assuming the original poster is going to want a replacement chip that runs at least as fast as the 2.2GHz he had before. (In FSX, dual-core doesn't get you that big of a boost on its own)At 2.2 GHz, you can get a dual-core socket AM2 processor for $109 Retail:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103053... but for 939, you are probaby going to have to go OEM, and even then its going to cost you $159:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103741And if you want to go faster than that, the situation gets even more bleak. While you can get a 2.4GHz dual-core for just $129 retail:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103749... you are going to have a hard time finding even an OEM 2.4 939 chip. On Newegg, it looks like an Opteron would be the best option at $269:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103582Sure, the Opteron at 2.4Ghz will be a bit faster than a 2.4 X2 because of the extra cache, but twice the price faster? I doubt it. (I think you may need registered memory for an Opteron, so I'm not sure that's a viable option anyway) You can try EBay, but it doesn't look like you are going to get much better than about $250 for a 2.4Ghz DC 939 there either (and you don't have the security of Newegg either).Bottom line, by the time you pay the extra money to stay with 939, it might end up making more sense to just go ahead and get a new MB and memory.

Paul, One thing about locking frames in FSX. Unlike FS9 which handles locked frames fine, You'll notice if you are in an area with less fps than your locked value, You will actually lose significant performance by locking! For example if you lock your frames at 25 and the area your in you are only getting 15 FPS, try unlocking them. I bet you'll see them jump up in the neighborhood of 20-22. Some claim, they get stutters if they unlock. I haven't seen this, and also do not experience any blurry issues. Based on your specs, I don't think you will either with your E6600 and X1950XTX card. (I have an E6700 and X1950XTX Crossfires. - Currently in non xfire mode pending ATI releasing version 7 series drivers, that work reliably with these cards. Right now I'm using 6.12).

Surprisingly, a substantial improvement is with my own FS9 Vancouver scenery (CYVR42) in FSX, in fact frame rates for my addon are now the same as the default CYVR in FSX, whereas before they were only reaching about 6pfs with the old GigaByte card. I wonder whether the 512MB video card has contributed to this. So I must see whether I can rectify some of the flashing ground texture problems in my scenery and also redo some of the buildings which are not showing properly.Nigel, I think what you are experiencing with the flashing ground textures, is the round earth texture problem, that all the 3rd party scenery designers are reporting, preventing ports of their scenery addons to FSX. Not sure exactly whether it's actually a bug, or just a design difference between the sims, the flat earth in FS9 vs the round earth in FSX, but according to Phil at Aces, it's something they can't do anything about at this time, without causing other problems, so don't expect this fixed in SP1. He does say new scenery can be designed using the SDK. I guess only time will tell if the designers can work with it.

Hi TomThx for your comments;I have done a bit of trial and error study, the parking areas are actually EOD flat plates with textures on them, another simmer did some helpful testing on them (this is a very supportive community) and found that the panels sometimes appeared as objects following him around when flying!I have started modifying CYVR, I have eliminated these parking areas and that problem has disappeared, and I will re-create the parking lots later by other means. The control tower, constructed with EOD was not showing the glass textures, I have rebuilt it in NovaSim and it is looking better than before; I am feeling optimistic that I can resurrect CYVR for FSX and I am really surprised and pleased at the improvement in fps that has taken place.cheersNigel