Go ahead and pop in 4 gig-O-ram. I had 4 gig for a bit and constantly saw over 2 gig in use during everyday computing. During gameplay, I Always saw over 2 gig in use. On occasion, I would see FSX (alone) using over 2 gig, with the system latched on to another gig. For sure, 3 gigs+ is actually necessary to fully fuel the system's ram-thirst. 2 gigs may be a financial sweet spot, but the system will constantly be using less than it actually wants unless (at least) 3 gig is available.With the current system's dual channel designs, ram slots have to be populated in pairs to enable dual channel mode. You want to keep this feature enabled, for sure. Here's the problem I had heard of, but had to find about, the hard way.My personal overclock'd setup had been stable for years. I use 2, one gig sticks. My memory runs reduced by 20% (5:4) because this lousy Corsair ram could not hang with my FSB O/C. For my experiment, I installed 2 more sticks of the same stuff and left the memory at de-clocked at 5:4. I began to get, totally erratic, weird lockups, bluescreens, etc. I RMA'd everything. (Don't tell, but) That wasn't it. The problem continued. I finally had to de-clock my CPU to default. Then it all settled down and I could get to some serious flying.The scuttlebutt is that 4 sticks-O-ram is harder for a system to deal with than 2. That's sure what happened to me. For this next build, I definitely want 4 gig on board. Looks like the cleanest, most bulletproof way to get 4 gigs on board is with 2, 2 gig sticks. (Nothing 'for sure' here, just something to keep in mind.)

Thanks, Sam.... Are you currently running Vista-32 or Vista-64? I'd love the extra memory capacity of Vista-64, but I'm pretty sure I'd have major driver headaches for my peripherals until it matures a bit. Which reminds me -- is there any reason not to go the OEM route for my copy of Vista? I'm sure the retail version has nicer packaging and Microsoft's wonderful customer support, but as far as I'm concerned it's ridiculously overpriced. I wonder if there's a technological reason why RAM manufacturers can't release matched 1.5GB sticks for a total of 3GB in Vista-32? I bet they'd sell like hotcakes. Most likely I'll have my n00b hands full oc'ing with 2GB, let alone the added excitement of trying to make 4GB work. But it will be interesting to try. Cheers..... Lee

I'm in Vista-32. All 32 bit op systems have a 4 gig ram limit. With 4 gig installed, my bios recognized ~ 3.5 gig. Vista recognized ~ 3.0 gig. On an occasion or 2, I saw my total ram usage at > 3.0 GB. Therefore, I don't believe Vista's 3G / ram-on-board report is a hard limit with this 32 bit operating system. Vista-32 will still out-of-memory (OOM) crash at a Virtual Memory load of 2 gig, but that's different. If you're still even a bit dizzy from that last bit, that next V-memory bit will buckle your knees. I'm still recovering. The 64 bit op systems have an 8TB (yes - 8,000GB!) ram limit. That ought to hold us for a while . . . but we've said that before.The OEM version of Vista just comes without MS tech support. It's complete in every other way. I tried to get an answer from those guys many years ago. As their system pre-supposes, I never tried again. If you haven't bought yet, consider 2, 2gig sticks. The premium over 4, 1 gig sticks is ~10% . . . and ram is at its cyclical low point right now. It's like real estate will be, in another couple of years. Right now the strategy is Sell house, Buy ram. That's what Dell did, and Micron cut them them off. No more cheap ram for Dell. But man, you can bet they had already filled up a warehouse or two.

Lee,>VIDEO PERFORMANCE. One thing I keep forgetting to ask you: >since you're running an 8800GTS, and Cameron's running a>7900GTO, are there noticeable visual differences between the>two? (I'm talking about a subjective evaluation, not>benchmarks.) Until we reach a state of DX10 nirvana, is a>cheaper nVidia card about as good as an 8800, as far as FSX is>concerned? No difference really. I thought I'd be able to use the higher AA / AF capabilities of the 8800, but when combined with spanned display output mode the whole show turns to a stuttery mess when panning an outside view with more than a handful of clouds. I'm back to using in-game AA / AF as a result, hence the no visual difference.If I had my time again, I would have bought an 8600 512M card to tide me through the initial DX10 introduction, then buy a second gen DX10 card if it turned out to really help FSX. The trouble with video cards I have found is that many speak of great FSX performance boosts after upgrading, yet I have never seen more than 5% boost in FPS upgrading from GF3 to 9800 pro to 6800 GT to X800XT to 7900 to 8800, so I tend to take such claims with the largest grain of salt possible!>COOLING. While I know the Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme is>the current "king of the hill" among CPU coolers, I've also>seen great reviews of the Arctic Cooler 7 Pro you're using. >Would I be crazy to start off with the Arctic Cooler 7 Pro,>and then switch to something else if I can't get the cooling>performance I need? At around $35, my AC7P provides a good balance of quiet and economical cooling performance at high OCs using stock voltage. At 3.2GHz stock voltage, mine idles at around 30C and under Orthos load at 47C and around 1200RPM fan speed. If I nudge my vcore up past 1.4V, which is what I need to get to 3.4GHz, the fan noise becomes slightly noticable (above 2000 RPM) and the temps climb into the late 50's / early 60's, which is still OK really. At 3.5GHz, I need 1.45V and that's when the CPU fan peaks at a very noticable 2700 RPM and the temps hover in the mid-late 60's under max load. When running FSX at 3.5GHz, which is a lesser load than max, the fan runs at about 2200RPM and around 60C, which is OK in my book. My CPU will run at 3.6GHz, but I need 1.57V to get there and, as you can imagine, the CPU fan peaks under the slightest of loads and with a descent load the temps climb into the 70's (which is still within CPU max t-junction BTW).Anyway, to sum up my waffle above, it's a great and silent cooler for mid - mid/high overclocking, but if you want to push your system right to the edge there are better, albeit bigger and more expensive, options out there.Gary

My first ever double post!Gary

Gary.... well you just saved me about $270 on the cost of a video card. If you take a look at the other thread in this forum about Seadog's build, he found a deal at Newegg on an 8600GT for around $100. (It's a 256MB model. In looking at the various 8600's on Newegg, you literally double your cost if you go from a GDDR2 to a GDDR3 (if both have 512mb). How important is RAM speed vs. total memory capacity for FSX? (I'm using 1680x1050 on an aging Radeon 9600XT now, and it's actually not bad with most of the graphic sliders at about two-thirds of the way up.) Anyway, after reading a positive review on Hardocp (which includes FSX performance tests), I've decided to go with a 256MB GeForce 8600GT, factory overclocked by XFX. (You can see the review of this model on the front page of Hardocp. Regrettably, they didn't compare any 512MB models with their equivalent 256MB counterparts.) After the SP2/DX10 release I plan to upgrade to a more capable card, at which time the 8600GT will go into a non-gaming machine or possibly as a second video card for multi-monitor FSX setup. COOLING. I was about to get an AC7P when I noticed the new Thermalright Ultima-90 had just hit the market. Anandtech claims it performs within a couple degrees of the Ultra-120 Extreme, which is good enough for me. It's much smaller and lighter than the "monster" cooling towers, and cost me $46. I'm pairing it with two 120mm 1600rpm Scythe S-Flex SFF21F fans, so it should get decent airflow. ;-) I've now got all my components purchased, except for the CPU. If I go for the E6850 I'll have to wait for about 10 days before I can purchase it -- which will be sheer agony! :-) :-) Thanks again for all the help and great info you've given me....- Lee

Lee,You have chosen wisely (of course I will say that, as I helped steer you that way :-lol). I think you will be very happy with the resultant performance, especially if you can get that E6850 up to 3.6GHz or beyond.Gary

Haven't bought the CPU yet, Hummm . . . It's a gamble. Here's how it lays out: 1) Games are (marginally) using only dual cores, right now. The dual core can get a +10% increased O/C over a quad. Therefore, the quad looses to the dual by 10%, right now. 2) But, the quad will double (+100%) the CPU horsepower applied to gameplay in the 'not too distant future.' The dual core will loose to the quad by 50%, in the 'not too distant future,' So when is this 'not to distant future?' We don't know. What we do know is that software engineers are working toward bringing this capability to NoW . . . furiously! For instance, the vEry smart guys at Crytech are running demos of Farcry with all 4 cores fully engaged. This is not just for loading levels and/or scenery, nor is it Penryn specific. Fry Cry has a release date . . . November 2007 . . . that's 3 months. So what will Aces do in SP2 (or SP3) to optimize multiple core support? You can bet it's one of their primary goals. There's a hardware double just waiting for smart software engineers to figure out. It's the biggest bump in performance ANY software has available right now. Crytech's got it, now. Aces have some very smart guys too.Is it a gamble? Not so much.

Gary, So if my choices turn out to be unwise, it's alright if I put the blame on you? ;-) Seriously, I'm very grateful for your advice and I'm encouraged by the overclocking potential that others have reported with this board and the E6X50 CPUs. I am happy with my choices so far, although the big one -- the CPU -- is still giving me fits. I'm not sure whether to make a smaller CPU investment now (and overclock a CPU similar to Cameron's, THEN wait until Penryn and the SP2/DX10 patch are out) and make the "big" CPU investment later, after seeing actual performance results in SP2. Phil Taylor has blogged favorably about the FSX potential of Penryn/Wolfdale/Yorkfield. On the other hand, E6850 prices seen to be dropping fairly rapidly, and are now under $280 for the retail version. Can you imagine having such a powerful processor at such a (relatively) inexpensive price, even a year ago?! Decisions, decisions..... At least I have a whole week to make up my mind! :-) Thanks again.... - Lee

Sam, the CPU choice in today's market is indeed a gamble, and for me it's turning out to be tougher than I had expected. 1) We can guess at FSX's potential for using quad-cores, but as you say it's a HUGE question-mark right now. SP1 has already given us some multi-core performance gains, and it's anybody's guess whether significant gains are still possible without massively reprogramming the FSX code. I had some very interesting conversations with ACES staff about multi-cores at last year's AVSIM Conference, and I think it's safe to say that everyone is sailing in uncharted waters when it comes to multi-core performance gains. If I recall correctly, ACES actually brought in some "gurus" from Intel to assist with the multi-core aspects of SP1. You're absolutely correct that multi-core enhancement is one of ACES' primary goals -- but I believe that (1) the "perfection" of multi-core support may be iterative over a relatively long period of time, and (2) the multi-core issue will eventually reach the point of diminishing returns. (Are 32 cores better than 4?) Where we are in this spectrum, I'm not sure that anyone really knows. I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine that the next big leap forward in multi-core support may not arrive until FS11 hits the shelves. 2) I'm not really interested in any other "games" besides FSX. (No offense to anyone else who is.) For me to justify an investment in quad-core technology right now, I'd have to be convinced that it will actually produce noticeable performance results within the SP2/DX10 time frame. I haven't (yet) seen any evidence that this is going to happen. I agree with you that ACES have some very smart guys. They were remarkably up-front about the challenges and potential benefits of multi-core technology. I suspect that a large part of the equation is whether SP2 can meet its stated DX10 objectives, AND ALSO provide significant additional gains in quad-core performance. Doing both may be a tall order, even for ACES. As a business proposition, would they be better off making quad-core support a selling point of FS11? As I mention in my reply to Gary (above), I've got a week to mull over my choice of CPU. Do I make my "big" CPU investment now, or do I go with a less-expensive (but highly overclockable) CPU at the moment, and make my "big" investment after I see what SP2/DX10 brings? Not an easy decision, and I'm still mulling it over. Thanks much for all your help and advice. - Lee

I also noticed Phil's reference to the Penryn . . . but I don't see it. The Penryn is just an optimized Core2. We can expect a 10% clock for clock improvement. It will also have the new SSE4 instruction set. Any gamer use of this new instruction set is a ways off. The Penryn is using smaller, 45nm circuitry that might allow increased clocks. But still, 20% is about it. There are no breakthroughs here. Conroe was the "Tick" and Penryn is the "Tock" of Intel's "Tick-Tock" CPU strategy. Penryn's breakthrough is in its materials technology. Penryn is just a materials "dry run" for Nehalem, Intel's next "Tick." Performance wise, Penryn is just an tweaked Core2. The Q6600/GO is going to 3.6 vs a Penryn quad (maybe) at 4.0. If the FPS increase is linear with CPU clocks, we go from 36FPS to 40FPS. Further, this (irrelevant?) FPS improvement will not be free. The 4.0Ghz capable Penryn will cost more than a 3.6Ghz capable Kentsfield.My argument suggests a total cost of ownership approach to maintaining a non-FS specific, general purpose box over a 3-4 year period. The main goal is to reduce CPU upgrade costs. Let's say I want to spend $200 for a placeholder CPU now, then $400 for a top dog a year from now. That top dog really cost me $600, because I have to throw the placeholder away. The only way I can save my original investment is to spend another $800 on enough bits and pieces to make a second box. So now my 'economical' CPU decision ends up costing me 1400 bucks rather than a single $300 for a simple Q6600 in the first place. I have 2 systems, but I have no (real) use for the second one. Is this a bargain? It's certainly no bargain, but it could make sense if there is a $1100 need for a second box (I'm out $1400 when I could have just spent $300, right?). The state-of-technology is that there will be Nothing significant until the Nehalem in Q3-4/08. That's at least a year away . . . and it will be an entirely new CPU. Info is soooo sketchy, but it seems we might expect a significant increase in CPU horsepower. However, it will be a NeW socket, require an entire new Mobo, and probably new memory. But consider: the Nehalem will go through the same cycle as the Core2. It will launch and a year later it will have a material based, non-event like the Core2/Penryn is about to have now. It will shrink to 32nm . . . and provide a materials dry-run for Sandycreek(?) It will be the same Nehalem core, but with final optimizing tweaks. That will be in early 2010. That's the (next) upgrade moment, IMO. Between now and then, increases in performance experienced by the happy Q6600 owner will have been realized by software engineers further optimizing software to catch up with technology the savvy buyer Already Had, just waiting to be accessed. The Horsepower increases that will have been occurring with the Penryn and the Nehalem will have gone unused too . . . that is, until multicore software catches up. Software will be the major performance driver over the next 3-4 years . . . but only for quad core owners. That's why waiting for those hardware performance tweaks does not make sense. They too, will be useless till the software catches up. The goal of a buyer might be to forgo the 'chase-me' game Intel wants us to play. The Q6600/GO at 3.6Ghz, right now, provides 3 years of growing room for multicore software to catch up. The E6X50s do NoT. Dual cores will be fully utilized sooner. Quad cores later. However, if one buys a dual core now, the additional cost of a quad core upgrade will become a necessary option before the next upgrade moment (Nehalem's optimize / shrink to 32nm). So, we can maintain a single system with a one-time expense of $300 now for a Q6600, or a $200 (dual core) + $400 (big dog quad)= $600 for the next 3-4 years. As you can see, I like option #1. Less muss and fuss. I'm done with computer guru-ing for 3-4 years. Whew, what a relief. It's cheaper overall. Further, it will make my next mandatory upgrade cheaper because . . . There's all kinds of stuff going on with Nehalem. This will not just be a new CPU. Intel is going in an entirely different direction. Hypertransport type buss, Fusion, General Purpose GPU type CPU. Will the CPU even exist as we know with Nehalem? We don't know. As it seems, neither does Intel. I do NoT want to be needing to upgrading right then. Let the dust settle. My Q6600 quad cores will be coming into full, common play through this period. In other words, my capacity will just then, be (finally) utilized and a real need for an upgrade rationally necessary. Good timing . . . . ahhhh, so the foggy crystal ball seems to forecast.

Lee,No matter what you buy now, it will eventually become outdated. Sam makes some excellent points above for going quad core based on the way overall games and systems are heading. I however tend to optimise my purchase decisions for FS, and my bet is that while SP2 may bring a few more multi-core optimisations to FSX, that it won't be until FSXI that any significant gains will be made in this area. That means you'll likely get a good two to three years mileage from a fast dual core with FSX.Looking at this another way, it is only since SP1 that multi-core has made a difference in FSX and FS9 still could not care less. For FSX it has mostly been on the texture loading front and gives barely 5-10% FPS gain. Therefore if two years ago you were faced with the purchase option of a fast single core or a slower (at the same price point) new fangled dual core, for FS the fast single core would not have been a wasted purchase by any stretch.One final point is that buying a CPU is not like getting married :-lol. If something significantly better comes along in near future, whether it be better multi-core support in FSX that yields notable performance gains, or Intel / AMD pull a rabbit out of a hat and give us a revolutionary faster CPU, then there is nothing stopping you ebaying the "old" dual or quad core and moving into the new generation for a couple of hundred changeover. This is one of the main reasons that I recently put in an E4300 @ 3.2GHz in my son's new system rather than give him my "old" E6400 @ 3.5GHz and have me upgrade to a quaddie of barely faster clock speed at this time. Both of our CPUs do just fine in the FS9 and FSX of now, but if FSX SP2 DX10 turns out to be a major FPS booster with even more cores, or if a new gen CPU comes out that gives a similar major FPS boost, then that $200 I saved now and whatever I get for my "old" hardware to be replaced will go towards that next upgrade.Gary