After some rsearch I have found out that the best upgrade path for me is to initially buyGigabyte GA-P35-DS3 iP35 4DDR2-DIMM 3PCI 4PCIe SATA Raid Audio GB-LANIntel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 4MB FSB1333 Boxed Corsair XMS2-6400 TWIN2X2048-6400C4 Sapphire Radeon X1950Pro 512MB DDR3 I intend to use it with my currentQTEC 550W PSULG DVD CD R/W+ combo driveAudigo soundcardExtra USB 2.0 PCI cardTwo WD 160 Gb in Raid 0One IDE HD19" Samsung TFT at 1280*1024*32Is this going to work fine? I'm primarily thinking about FS9 and some other games and are aware that it still may be insufficient for FSX. Is it maybe overkill for FS9?At second state I intend to get a new chassi and a IDE controller so I can use both my IDE HDs and a new PSU.

Fine for FS9 but for FSX I'd suggest a faster CPU and nVidia video card.E6850 2.93 GHz CPU or overclocking a Q6600 GO, or waiting a month or 2 for the new Penryns,as Phil from the FSX team indicates will help FSX.Most important go with a nVidia 8800 for FSX,if you look at Toms Hardware the ATI cards just dontperform well with FSX.

>Most important go with a nVidia 8800 for FSX,>if you look at Toms Hardware the ATI cards just dont>perform well with FSX.>Problem is I already find the price high and I have also been advised by resellers to go for another PSU.BTW what kund of PSU would be needed for your suggestion?Otherwise why should ATI be worse tham NVIDIA? Does it not depend on which ATI card we have.Finally waiting could be an option and a question here is could a new cheap AGP card significantly improve performence over my current NVIDIA 6600GT 256M DDR3 card? Upgrading for FSX still seems to be to expensive.

Actually, It looks Ok to me. The E6750 is exactly the same CPU as the E6850. It just has an 8 multiplier rather than a 9. Both will O/C to 3.6Ghz (of course, so will the quad-core Q6600!). Go with Patriot ram because it will O/C a bet better than the Corsair. You are gonna need a little extra ram speed "headroom" to get to 3.6 ghz with that 8 multiplier. Unless the brand is bad, a 550 watt PS will be OK . . . that is, as long as it will actually produce as advertised. Not all will.I like the Vcard. I'm getting this sinking feeling that our first incarnation of DX10 is going to be a big let-down. That ATI card is a top DX9 performer and Cheap. Save your dough for a real DX10 Vcard . . . that is if it ever comes along. These 8800s, are gonna get eaten alive by DX10.If you want to wait for the Penryn, it's going to be a while yet. The first Penryns will be Server chips/771 socket. They will not fit our boards. The desktop versions will be out sometime in Q1. (But Intel's IDF starts tomorrow and there Will be announcements about stuff. Stay tuned.)Generally, I'd say you've got about the best idea I've seen so far for an interim rig. This will get you entirely through FS10. However, as an expense reducing strategy, I'd go ahead and get the quad now and and just sit on those extra cores. In 12-18 months when FS11 comes out, the only additional FS11 expense you will incur is that DX10 card (when it finally shows up). You will already have the rest. Any dual core build Will Be an interim rig. With a dualie on board, you are gonna have to buy the whole thing again in 18 months for FS11. This next one is gonna NEED the quad. Once you commit to a dual-core now, the next build will be Post-Penryn. Remember, any Post-Penryn rig (12-18 months from now) will need an entirely new Mobo, CPU and DDR3 ram. Ouch. I'd suggest spending an extra $50 for the quad right now and having it done with.

>>Most important go with a nVidia 8800 for FSX,>>if you look at Toms Hardware the ATI cards just dont>>perform well with FSX.>>>Problem is I already find the price high and I have also been>advised by resellers to go for another PSU.>BTW what kund of PSU would be needed for your suggestion?>Otherwise why should ATI be worse tham NVIDIA? Does it not>depend on which ATI card we have.>Finally waiting could be an option and a question here is>could a new cheap AGP card significantly improve performence>over my current NVIDIA 6600GT 256M DDR3 card? Upgrading for>FSX still seems to be to expensive.>I use a Corsair 650HX power supply. If you want to upgrade for FSX and are short of budget, just wait a few months, right now FSX pushes even the best hardware to its limits, and the prices on current high end stuff will fall soon as the new Penryns come out.If your an overclocker, yes a 6750 or 6850 will do as both will hit the magic 3GHz, the 6750 is much harder to get higher with its lower mult and default high FSB.I returned mine it would only do 3 stable, others have had better luck.A 3 GHz Duo + 8800 makes a decent FSX system, but is quickly get slow with add on aircraft or muliti mon use

>Actually, It looks Ok to me. The E6750 is exactly the same>CPU as the E6850. It just has an 8 multiplier rather than a 9.>Both will O/C to 3.6Ghz (of course, so will the quad-core>Q6600!). Go with Patriot ram because it will O/C a bet better>than the Corsair. You are gonna need a little extra ram speed>"headroom" to get to 3.6 ghz with that 8 multiplier. >My reason for choosing Corsair RAM is that this specific memory modules are listed in the QVL for the mb and it has heatsinks.I'm weary about overclocking. I did OC my current CPU from 2 GHz (3200+) to 2.2 GHz (3500+) and didn't notice any difference in performence but once the computer didn't start and gave overclocking failure message.>Unless the brand is bad, a 550 watt PS will be OK . . . that>is, as long as it will actually produce as advertised. Not all>will.>Well I have heard that my current QTexc brand is bad and won't produce as adverised since it states peak values.>ATI card is a top DX9 performer and Cheap. Save your dough for>a real DX10 Vcard . . . that is if it ever comes along. These>8800s, are gonna get eaten alive by DX10.>And DX9 is the only thing I can get since I intend to use Win XP.If buying a 8800 for DX10 I also need to take a Vista license into the budget account.>12-18 months when FS11 comes out, the only additional FS11FS11 coming in 12-18 months? Your source for that?>Any dual core build Will Be an interim rig. With a dualie on>board, you are gonna have to buy the whole thing again in 18>months for FS11. This next one is gonna NEED the quad. >>Once you commit to a dual-core now, the next build will be>Post-Penryn. Remember, any Post-Penryn rig (12-18 months from>now) will need an entirely new Mobo, CPU and DDR3 ram. Ouch.>I'd suggest spending an extra $50 for the quad right now and>having it done with.Instead I was thinking like this. Get my suggested system and primarily use and have a FS9 with perfect performence. And also use FSX to some extent with some limitations. In 12-18 months get a more powerful DX10 Vcard and maybe Vista.Although one catch here is that I won't be able to get OEM version of Vista.

>A 3 GHz Duo + 8800 makes a decent FSX system, but is quickly>get slow with add on aircraft or muliti mon use>So even with a 8800 I would get problems in FSX? If we compare my suggested system with one that use a 8800 what does it mean? Are we talking about setting the sliders somewhat different? Or more a matter of having a useful or worthless setup?BTW I tested FSX on my current system after the SP1 and noticed a significant improvement in fps particulary with regard to autogen.And my suggested upgrade of course must be a huge improvement over my current system.

No source for the FX11 update, other than MS has been coming out with new versions of FS every 2-4 years for decades.An "Upgrade" from the X1950 to any 8800 will not provide much DX9 advantage unless you running Very big resolutions. For instance, if you are trying to drive a 42" LCD at 1920x1080, the big dog 88 is a must. However with a 19" ( even a 22') the ATI will be a fine DX9 card, forever. FS is primarily CPU dependent. In 12-18 months, your upgrade path will be to the Nehalem. It will require a new Mobo, CPU and ram. I say skip it, alltogher:http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13232 But if you have a dual, you will Have to upgrade to at least a quad core that will drop into your existing rig . . . that you could have already had for exactly the same $$$ right now! A Vcard upgrage alone will not do the job. Most likely, you'll need that too. But then it will time to trade in the X1950 for a REAL Dx10 card. With a quad and a real DX10 card, you'll be good to go until Nehalem's replacement comes along. Then (in 3+ years), pull the trigger on the next upgrade.

>But if you have a dual, you will Have to upgrade to at least a>quad core that will drop into your existing rig . . . that youWhy at least four cores?>could have already had for exactly the same $$$ right now! A>Vcard upgrage alone will not do the job. Most likely, you'll>need that too. But then it will time to trade in the X1950 for>a REAL Dx10 card. With a quad and a real DX10 card, you'll be>good to go until Nehalem's replacement comes along. Then (in>3+ years), pull the trigger on the next upgrade. When will we be good for FSX?

1) For that interim, interim upgrade, 4 cores will be the best available for your existing MoBo. 2) We are finally, fully capable of running FS9 full blast with the Core2 CPUs (aka, Conroe/Penryn). 3) We will be finally, fully capable of running FSX full blast with the next-gen, Nethalem. 4) However by then, FSX will have been replaced with FS11 and will struggle with even Nethalem's 8 cores . . . just like FSX will always struggle with any Core2 CPU (Conroe/Penryn). 6) And so it has always gone (as always, imHo)

Take a look at Toms Hardware VGA charts for FSX...link belowHe rates a 8800 at 22 fps, a ATI x1950 at 15, but once you use a complex aircraft or fly in a complex area like NYC, you'll get half those rates at worst.Thats why even Phil from MS suggests the next round of CPUs and GPUs as the help needed for FSX.I have a Quad at 3.2 with a 8800, it runs most areas at 25fps using stock planes, 3rd party planes take it down to 17. I cant run 3 monitors like I do with FS9 at all.That why I say a 3Ghz duo CPU with a 8800/320 is about the min system that allows you to enjoy the game fully.http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_200...2=722&chart=293

>Take a look at Toms Hardware VGA charts for FSX...link below>That chart lists the 256M version of 1950PRO. My suggestion was the 512M version and I have heard that 512M is of big help in FSX. But one thing that caught my eye here was that even a NVIDIA 7600GT was rated clearly above 1950PRO.>He rates a 8800 at 22 fps, a ATI x1950 at 15, but once you use>a complex aircraft or fly in a complex area like NYC, you'll>get half those rates at worst.>If I should use DSX I intend to use addon planes and UTX ASX FEX + FSGeneisis mesh so it seems that I still has to forget about FSX.

>>I like the Vcard. I'm getting this sinking feeling that our>first incarnation of DX10 is going to be a big let-down. That>ATI card is a top DX9 performer and Cheap. Save your dough for>a real DX10 Vcard . . . that is if it ever comes along. These>8800s, are gonna get eaten alive by DX10.>All of the signs I'm getting point to the 8800 cards going down in history as "nice, but like the first version of most things, not the best...".Last I heard, the nVidia "G92" card is supposed to be released November-ish. Has this changed? I expect the G92 series to be quite an improvement on the 1st-gen (8800) DX10 cards, particularly in the area of geometry shader performance. (I hope...).RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

The G92 has become completely rumor bound. The most prominent web-wibble is that it will actually be an 8700, but that chip is already in the notebooks. Nvidia has this one really clamped down tight. At this point, all we can do is wait and hope for the best. In any case, I really can't see spending any serious, permanent Vcard $$s on any 88. They're a great DX9 card, but that's gonna be about it.

>2) We are finally, fully capable of running FS9 full blast>with the Core2 CPUs (aka, Conroe/Penryn). But I think I have heard that FS9 don't use multiple cores so dual core is for no help in FS9.