Ray;Thanks for your time and comments.I have a couplr of questions, I hope you do not mind, if so I certianly understand.You mentioned "FSB of 1333MHz", my question is the definition of "FSB".The second question is, that I went to the Alienware site and followed you lead (agian thank you), but ended up was confussed. What I read (please keep in mind I am way behind you guys) was that ATI (I think it was called "crossfire") had a card that would support DX10. My question is dose not NVIDIA have a card that also is DX10. I am not brand favorite between the two as over the years I have had both. In your opionion whould you pick on over the other.The last thing I want to mention is agian, Thanks, time is time you dont get it back and I hope to be able to help back somehow. Thank you.Mark.OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 2.00 GB of RAM GeForce 7800GS 256 MB w/ DDR3 running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a,GeForce FX 5200 128MB 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel.

Hi Mark,FSB is Front Side Bus. It's the speed at which data is transferred from the CPU. My previous PC had a FSB speed of 800MHz. The new one is 1333MHz. That means data is moving 66% faster on my new system compared to my old and is one reason a 3GHz CPU today is a lot faster than a 3GHz CPU of five years ago."Crossfire" is a system where two graphics cards can be linked and their combined power can really boost frame rates. Some games benefit more than others. I don;t think FS benefits too much from this but there is some benefit. Crossfire is the term used by ATI for their Radeon range of cards.nVidia also has a similar system but their's is called SLI. Can't remember what it stands for (Google will!) but again it's debatable whether buying two expensive cards is worth the extra frame rates.Both ATI's 3870 X2 and nVidia 8800 series support DX10. But the amount of DX10 visuals in FSX is not as great as ACES originally planned. You also need Vista to see DX10. Many people report slower frame rates running FS under Vista than XP. A DX10 compatible card can still be used in FS9 but you'll use DX9.If you would prefer a nVidia DX10 card then the 8800GTX offers the best price/performance.I'll give you a shout when my lawn needs cutting if you want to help me. :7

Ray;I am not sure my riding mower will make to the UK one one tank of gas, I may need a re-fueling, LOL.OK, I got you info to the best that my limited base allows. I am to understand (thus any thing is my problem) that the SLI and quad core with the FSB you mentioned as the way to look at a future purchase. Agian many thanks,PS, Maybe less $ to hire a Lawn Service from UK. Of course I would have to figure the exange rate to EURO$. Thank you.Mark.OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 2.00 GB of RAM GeForce 7800GS 256 MB w/ DDR3 running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a,GeForce FX 5200 128MB 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel.

Hi Mark,<>Hmmm, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. as far as SLI is concerned I wouldn't go for that if FS is your only 'game'. The cost is out of all proportion to the benefits.As to quad or dual core for FSX that is not clear cut. If you have plenty of money then the QX9650 is the way to go but most people can't or won't pay those prices.The Q6600 will overclock quite a bit as will the E8400. I would still go for a E8400 as they run cooler. Either processor is good.As you have nVidia graphics now I would stick with a single 8800Ultra or 8800GTX.Come back once you have the proposed system as we can advise before you buy.

Just thought I would throw in my two cents as your system is pretty similar to the one I just put together. I agree with Ray on just about everything. I would point out however, that the 8800GTS (512mb) is a great card for 19x12 res. I'm running it on a Samsung 245BW with all sliders to the right and I see frame rates (FS9) averaging in the 50's in all but the most demanding scenery areas. Even then, I don't see anything less than the thirties. I lock my rates at 45 FPS. Unlocked, I've peaked at about 100 FPS but, that was with FSGenesis mesh and default textures. I have zero stuttering and crisp scenery with no blurries. I'm using the typical add-ons; FSGenesis, GEPro, Activesky with hi res clouds, RC4, and the like. I also use WOAI and GA-Traffic set to 100%. As an example, I took a flight from KBOS to KORL in my PMDG 737 and saw rates of 30+ at takeoff (Grimshaws Logan airport) and locked at my 45 FPS throughout the remainder of the trip. I'm using both of the HDs mentioned here and they are both great. The seagate you want is the 500GB 7200.11 model. It's quieter than the 7200.10. I like the Raptor for FS9. It finds and loads textures faster than a standard 7200 rpm drive though the Seagate is close competition. I would discourage partitioning however, as each partition created will be slower than the previous partition on the drive. A better alternative, IMHO, is a program like Ultimate Defrag. This program will allow you to place your FS files on the fastest part of the drive and arrange them in a manner that will allow the fastest performance possible. Oh, and the combination of the Maximus Formula and the E8400 is fantastic. I'm running mine at at 3.4 GHz 24/7 and bump to 3.6 when I need the extra power. Even at 3.6, it seems to beg for more!I bought my system through this company: http://www.avadirect.com/Far more bang for the buck compared to Alienware, Dell, or the other big names. You'll have a lot more control over the components and configuration as well. Their customer support, both pre and post sale, are second to none. A Three year warranty and free lifetime tech support are standard too. Check out their site and then give them a call. They will answer all your questions without complaint. I just can't say enough about my experience with them. Anyhow, I just wanted to give you another perspective. Hope it helps.Best Regards,JeffI just realized you already purchased your components so I guess you don't need the company I mentioned. Oh well, maybe someone else will find it helpful.

Thanks Jeff for the input. Whats the difference between the Seagate 7200 rpm and the Western Digital SE16 7200? I have already purchased everything, but it's not too late to exchange the HD's as the system has not been assembled yet. In fact, I haven't even taken the stuff out of the packages.You bring up an interesting point on the partitioning. I was wondering after Ray's post about how the drive patitioned the inner and outer ring. For example 500 GB is partitioned into two 250Gb partitiones. Is one of the 250 gb partitiones on the beginning of the outer ring to the half way in, and the other partition from the half way point to the inner ring. If thats the case then the outer ring partition will load quicker than when accessing the info on the inner ring partition, I guess? In that case I better put FXS on the outer ring partition and FS9 on the inner partition, since I am assuming I will probably use FS9 less.Just when I thought I had it all figured out, I may need to reconsider this HD setup before I have it built.One other thing Jeff, since you have experience with this Mobo and over clocking, could I ask you in the future about the settings you used to get it to 3.4 and 3.6? While I think about it also, did your mobo recognize the RAM at 1066 automatically or did you have to mess with the voltages?Thanks,Sean

>Thanks Jeff for the input. Whats the difference between the>Seagate 7200 rpm and the Western Digital SE16 7200? I have>already purchased everything, but it's not too late to>exchange the HD's as the system has not been assembled yet. In>fact, I haven't even taken the stuff out of the packages.I haven't used the drive to which you refer so I wouldn't be able to compare the two fairly. I have never had a problem with my past WD drives though. The Seagate is the newest of the bigger drives (500+ Gb), runs quite, has NCQ (optimizes reads and writes), a 32Mb cache compared to 16 for most HDs, and has speeds near if not quite equal to the Raptor drives.>You bring up an interesting point on the partitioning. I was>wondering after Ray's post about how the drive patitioned the>inner and outer ring. For example 500 GB is partitioned into>two 250Gb partitiones. Is one of the 250 gb partitiones on the>beginning of the outer ring to the half way in, and the other>partition from the half way point to the inner ring. If thats>the case then the outer ring partition will load quicker than>when accessing the info on the inner ring partition, I guess?>In that case I better put FXS on the outer ring partition and>FS9 on the inner partition, since I am assuming I will>probably use FS9 less.Yep, you got it. That's how it works. You really don't need partitioning. In my experience, it just doesn't provide any real benefit short of, maybe, reducing defrag times. Using Ultimate defrag, my FS and OS files sit on the outer (faster) parts of the drive, in alphabetical order, and the stuff I don't use too often is automatically archived to the inner tracks. Everything is fast and I don't have to worry about which HD partition has what programs and files on it. >Just when I thought I had it all figured out, I may need to>reconsider this HD setup before I have it built.>>One other thing Jeff, since you have experience with this Mobo>and over clocking, could I ask you in the future about the>settings you used to get it to 3.4 and 3.6? While I think>about it also, did your mobo recognize the RAM at 1066>automatically or did you have to mess with the voltages?>Thanks,>>SeanI am by no means an expert in overclocking. I just want to be absolutely clear on this. Having said that, I have done extensive research on the subject but, would not attempt it without this motherboard. The AI Suite software provided with the MB allows novices like you and me to safely overclock without blowing stuff up. I have had only one occasion where the OC failed. I just rebooted and was given the option to go into the BIOS to adjust my settings or to boot with default options. I used the default and booted right up to the desktop. As I write this, I'm at 3.6GHz with a VCore of 1.35v, DRAM at 2.02v, and my highest temp is my NorthBridge at 44C. All my other temps are in the low to mid 30's. Under FS load, my NB goes up to about 54c. My system temp stays at about 40c. For the record, this is with a 400MHz FSB and a multiplier of 9. You'll see 3.4GHz with about 380x9. Using the ASUS software, I just set the FSB I want and the software takes care of the voltages and all that other stuff for me. This really is "Overclocking for Dummies" type software. I suppose some will say not to use software for this but, it has yet to fail me. I haven't had a single issue that can't be attributed to operator error. The only place where I have heard of issues is with the ASUS EZ Flash utility. You'll probably want to do some research on the best way to flash your BIOS. I'm using the 0907 BIOS and have had no problems with it.As for the memory, there is a setting in the BIOS to make it recognize the 1066 speed. I think that's all there is to that. I really haven't started to delve into my memory settings yet. I know I'm running at looser timings than I want to but, at the same time, everything is running flawlessly so I've had no need to fix something that isn't yet broken. I'll probably get the itch to start tinkering with it in the future. Let me know how you make out with your memory settings, ok?I'm happy to help out when I can Sean. Feel free to ask if you have more questions. I hope things go smooth with your build.Regards,Jeff

BTW Sean, did you already purchase the EVGA card? I mention it only because all of the 8800 series card are produced by the same factory so there is no difference between the same card of different companies. I chose the BFG OC'd version because BFG offers a lifetime warranty in the US. Just a thought.Jeff