Hi,Firstly I decided to write this post because there is a whole load of information on here, some of it I find very hard to believe.. some of it I don't.. But I am in the market for a new system and really want a good result with FSX.I have friends that have spent a lot of money on hardware and frankly have seen little to no improvement, particularly when upgrading their graphics cards.So, I decided to dump my research here, which I believe to be accurate.Number 1 - FSX is CPU INTENSIVE.. if you want to spend money on a system and get good results that's the bit that needs the money. Standard Core 2 Duos are not enough, AMD X2 processors are not enough. I've seen it, my friend has a Dual Core CPU and it's struggling, even with one of the newer 8800GT cards with 512MB.Number 2 - 4GB of RAM IS.. I repeat.. IS worth it.. Especially if you're using things like Activesky X etc.. With the larger RAM the FSX process can write larger chunks in sequence within the memory without getting into problems.. Number 3 - 4GB of RAM needs a 64 bit operating system to be fully utilised properly.Number 4 - SLI.. is a complete waste of time as far as FSX is concerned. Most benchmarks for FSX clearly show the frame rate capped at 23 TOPS.. This is not a graphics card limitation, as there is nothing between the top say 3 cards and their relative performance. SLI will not help..With this all in mind, I've decided the only feasible way to go, and acheive good results requires the following tactic:1 - 4GB of FAST.. overclockable RAM.. PC-10000 probably for added stability at speed.2 - A CPU you can overclock to silly speeds..3 - Water cooling for the CPU and possibly motherboard (I know it's not cheap but well worth it for FSX, certainly more than a second

Craig,Sounds like you've done your research. I'm not entirely sure that FSX will utilize 4GB of memory under Vista 64. I use Vista 32 and am quite happy with it.As far as the water cooling goes. With some of the current CPU offerings and those to come you can achieve a fairly high overclock on air. So, I'm not really sure that you need to go the liquid cooled route unless you plan on doing some pretty serious overclocking. You would however want to consider a good after market CPU cooler/heatsink.

Your kinda right when it comes to the 4GB.. BUT.. as I understand it.. what happens is.. FSX is capable of ADDRESSING.. 2GB.. it doesn't matter where that 2GB is.. That is like it's limit.. if you have 4GB.. then it can address that 2GB anywhere within that 4GB.. BUT.. since you have more RAM.. it's more likely it will be able to write it in one big chunk..Plus.. all the other programmes you're using will still be able to address 2GB..Does that make sense?A 32 bit OS.. will simply not support 4GB at all.. If you install 4GB of RAM on a 32bit OS.. you'll see.. your RAM.. - GFX memory.. - CPU memory.. - any other memory.. as RAM. and probably rounded down..So 64 bit it is.. really.. for 4GB of RAM.. and.. with additional software running on a multi-core CPU.. you'll get the benefit.. when using something like Activesky.. or Radar Contact.. as additional processes on the same box.Does that make sense..? I might have some of the technical detail slightly wrong here..As for AIR cooling.. totally hear you there.. but I think to get the results I want.. I'm looking at water cooling.. and it's not all that expensive.. 150.. I think should set you up.. and that's less than the cost of an additional GFX card.. or more expensive QX cpu..AND.. it's quieter.. and can be taken to your next machine.. I would plan on keeping the case.. cooling.. and PSU.. for later machines.. and simply change mobo.. cpu.. gfx and ram... See what I mean?CheersCraig

I woould go for the Intel E8500 and try it with a good quality air cooler initially. I get pretty good performance the the Core 2 Duo at 3.4 Ghz. A slightly better architecture at 4.6 Ghz on said cooler should pretty much do the job. You can always move on to water.The Raptors performance can just about be achieved by the Western Digital 750 Gb disks:http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3061&p=8

I've got the money to go for that 4.7Ghz right away.. so that's the route I think I'll take.. I was thinking.. Q6600 CPU water cooled?HDs is as I thought really.. so if you RAID two good drives.. you'll get the read performance you're looking for really.. I think I'll just stick to a good normal HD personally.. I think the Raptor is a waste..Craig

>I've got the money to go for that 4.7Ghz right away.. so>that's the route I think I'll take.. I was thinking.. Q6600>CPU water cooled?>>HDs is as I thought really.. so if you RAID two good drives..>you'll get the read performance you're looking for really.. I>think I'll just stick to a good normal HD personally.. I think>the Raptor is a waste..>>CraigYou will probably want a Penryn if you want to go to 4.7ghz. I'm not saying you couldn't get a Q6600 G0 to 4.7 ghz on water, but from the reports I've seen, a Pen will do it with less hassle. 4.7 seems like a lot! That would be great!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

Regarding power supplies...no, I don't think 1000 watts-1500 watts is necessary, unless you're going to run multiple raid arrays and SLI and all of that.If you have 2,3, even 4 physical disks, a 45nm cpu, 600 watts of quality p/s will do you with plenty to spare.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

I agree with much of what the OP wrote, but I wish he had added a point #9... a clean install of the OS and tweaking for performance. Far too many folks believe that throwing more hardware at this sim is a solution when the first place they should start is cleaning up their OS.The one point I can't agree with is the PSU. Rhett is correct... 600 Watts for a gaming machine is fine. CPU and video card power demands are lessening, and soon enough we'll all be using low power SSD's for storage.

Had thoughts pretty much the same as yours Craig, but after much research on AVSIM, it seems that throwing all the latest hardware at FSX does not make for a near perfect experience. I upgraded my rig to the specs in my signature below and FSX now runs fine for me. It's not perfect, but given the inherent software anomalies, it's acceptable until the arrival of FS XI proves to be better.Although I do suspect that most of the new success with FSX has to do with the new CLEAN install of software, rather than most of the new installed hardware.

Overclocking ram will not help system performance. Decide on your final FSB target and get DDR2-(2 x that FSB). Get 8 gigs and run Vista 64.A $250 Q6600 will go to 3.6Ghz. That's it. A $1,100 QX9650 will go to 4.2Ghz. That extra 600Mhz will cost an extra eight hundred bucks. Speed costs. How fast do you want to go?Water cooling is completely unnecessary. Good aircoolers do the job these days.The 8800GT or GTS/512 are the ones to get right now.Get an Asus P5K-E. PCI-E 2.0 will be a non-issue for the next 2 years. Your target FSB will be less than 400Mhz under Any circumstance. Either of these boards will go to 400 without even a bios tweak. Either will do Crossfire, but don't bother. 2 X ATI=1 X Nvidla these days. Raptors are obsolete. Seagate's new -11 drives have 100Mb/s transfer rates at 6ms access times. Raid 0 three, 250Mb drives and get 280Mb/s sustined xfers / 6ms access times. That's 750GB of storage for $200.OCZ PSs are cheap and good. 600 watts are plenty.Here's a summary: http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/wishli...tNumber=7162186Do a search. The details are All here in the forum . . . actually a bit more than you might ask for. Sometimes we get a bit carried away!

Craig, my FSX and NVidea 8800GT is screaming now using these settings here.http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_fsx_techtips.html