I have a CPU X6800 at the moment, but I am considering buying a QX9650. How much would I expect to gain in FSX performance by doing this?I saw a test where QX9650 was shown to be approx. 10% better, but if this only correlates to a 10% increase in FPS, then I do not think its worth it. Then again, a quad should be able to handle even more processes, so...

Michael,I personally don't think the QX9650 is worth the asking price. You might consider the Core2 Duo E8400 instead which will cost about a 1/4 of the QX9650 and still produces excellent performance in FSX.What graphics cars are you considering?

Ray,Thanks, I will take a look at the Core2 Duo E8400.I already own a 8800 Ultra, but was hoping that a good 9 range card would come out soon.

Michael,I can't imagine a 9000 series card being significantly better than the 8800 Ultra. If you do consider changing then the Radeon HD3870 x2 is excellent.

the 9 series isnt going to be anything special at all, just a rebranded 8 series. Stick with a mid range gpu for fsx, all that gpu horsepower of an ultra or 3870x2 aint gonna do any good for fsx, a blazing fast cpu is what you need. Since you already have an ultra, theres no need to upgrade, if fsxi is anything like previous generations of fs you should be set for xi with that ultra.

>... If you do consider changing then the Radeon HD3870 x2 is excellent.Don't be so sure about that, that's not the case for FSX!!!In fact all the dual GPU systems suck for FSX right now! Here are the benchmark results. Sorry, it's the German site, but I wasn't able to find the english version quickly. However, I think the language doesn't really matter, you don't need to understand any German to take a look at the charts!http://www.tomshardware.com/de/Grafikkarte...-239931-14.htmlEssence:Forget about SLI and crossfire systems for FSX. Maybe reconsider CrossfireX after some time.Explanation:Take a moment and think about the following 2 facts:1. DX10 provides more possibilities to save already calculated results for the next frames. Simply spoken: That is not so easy to handle if you just have a "relatively slow" bridge between the GPUs. (GPUs are rather loosely coupled compared to multi-CPU systems)(Take a look how an ATI-technician is cited on www.anandtech.com talking about CossfireX: "The biggest issue is DX10 has a lot more opportunities for persistent resources (resources rendered or updated in one frame and then read in subsequent frames). In DX9 we only had to handle texture render targets, which we have a good handle on in the DX10 driver. In addition to texture render targets DX10 allows an application to render to IBs and VBs using stream out from the GS or as a traditional render target. An application can also update any resource with a copy blt operation, but in DX9 copy blt operations were restricted to offscreen plains and render targets. This additional flexibility makes it harder to maximize performance without impacting quality.")2. Did somebody notice the enormous impact of DX10 over DX9 in a GPU-bound system (meaning the graphics card is the limiting factor, not the CPU)? The frame rates nearly double. Well, this effect is mainly due to the fact that FSX uses these persistent resources quite a lot in DX10. If you think of it, it really makes sense. In FSX there is usually not so much changing from frame to frame. Think of the controls and think of the far distant scenery. There is actually no need to recalculate everything, it's mainly the nearby scenery, nearby clouds, rain/snow and so on.So these persistent resources make FSX a lot faster using DX10. The strength of SLI/Crossfire would be exactly the opposite: recalculating more or less everything from frame to frame.Sure, everything depends on the game you want to play. FSX is a strange bird in this matter. But for FSX it looks like DX10 helps to keep it in the CPU-bound corner longer than expected. IMHO, for the time being consider multi-GPU systems for multi-monitor setups only. Reconsider CrossfireX systems after the drivers are stable and benchmarks are available for FSX.

Looking at those FSX tests on TomsHardware I'll take them with an enormous pinch of salt! To conclude that running at 1920*1200 a 3870X2 produces almost half the performance of a 3870 sounds ridiculous quite frankly. It can only be down to a driver issue and if that is the case it will soon be addressed.Why is the difference between the 8800 and 3870 cards not shown in other If the 8800 Ultra is so much faster than the 3870X2 why is this not borne out in other reviews?<>Why is that not the opinion of those here? If DX10 was that much better people would be flocking to it. The fact is, they're not because it isn't.If you then look at the 3DMark06 table the 3870X2 beats everything. Talk about confusing information!:-hmmm

ok you want a qx9650 and its not about 10% faster in every day performance its about 110% faster because its a 45 and it has 4 cores, but its too expensive so i suggest a qx6700 if you want the unlocked multiplier, or the q9550 or q9450 because they can be overclocked very well.oh and ati absolutey is horrible right now. their drivers have nothing and nothing at all. nvidia is the way to go. and on the 9series cards they may be a complete redo- look at the 9600 benchies- about as fast as an 8800gt 256 and it has half the shaders. the 9800gtx is unknown to what it could be the 9800gx2 is just 2 8800 gts cards strapped together.good luck

>I have a CPU X6800 at the moment, but I am considering buying>a QX9650. >How much would I expect to gain in FSX performance by doing>this?>I saw a test where QX9650 was shown to be approx. 10% better,>but if this only correlates to a 10% increase in FPS, then I>do not think its worth it. Then again, a quad should be able>to handle even more processes, so...>>For me it was a case of just plain (being stupid!) wanting to get something I knew would overclock well, and wouldn't take hi end mobo and memory to make it sing. You don't do this because of raw value, as in thruput/$. I could afford to do it. I have ALWAYS historically only built machines with already depreciated parts for their premium value. This time I decided to splurge, to heck the cost. So, how do I feel today? I'm really excited about this machine. It performs wonderfully and is completely stable. It purrs at 4.3hz at spec max vCore. I'm sure if I wanted to push it a bit, it would easily do 4.6 or maybe better. I bought 8GB of very cheap Mushkin DDR2, and a $220 ASUS P5E X38 mainboard. I bought 4 250GB SATA2 drives for $69 apiece. Even WITH the QX9650, I paid a full $800 less, in 1990 dollars, than I did with my first machine, a lowly 486/33 processor, and a lowly 120MB HDD, a 4x CDrom, a 15" CRT, Windows 3.1. I think my new machine will keep me functional for many years to come.Here's the short version: "I splurged!"NoelQX9650 w/ Retail HSF|8GB Muskin PC-6400|ASUS P5E|EVGA 8800GT @700|Seagate SATA 2 x 4|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro|Vista 64--soon to be installed

You will not get any notable FPS increase in FSX going from 2 to 4 core, although texture loading and caching does improve. You will get a slight FPS increase by virtue of the increased clock (2.93GHz -> 3.00GHz), although that will be in the < 3% band. The biggest boost you will get is from the architectural improvements of penryn over conroe, somewhere in the 10-15% region. So overall, you are looking at a 15-20% FPS boost and an unquantified, but likely, improvement in smoothness and scenery loading. IMO, that ain't remotely worth the big bucks it will cost you to upgrade to this CPU.Gary

IF i buy the QX9650 i was actually planning to OC it to 4GHz. I have seen it done in an article and without additional cooling devices. This i guess would assure me of a significant FPS gain?And furthermore, will the 4 cores not help me run my additional prcocesses, like weather addons (ASX), traffic addons (MTX) and so on, more smoothly?

the only reason the qx9650 is better than the rest is because of its overclocking ability. By using say a QX6850 with a max overclock of about 3.7GHz, and a QX9650 with a clock of about 4.3GHz there is a massive difference. Some people can turn up the settings by 50% and have the same frame rates by having a higher clock on their QX9650 than any other CPU. Some people have even benchmarked their QX9650 at 5GHz on air.Jourdog

Ahhh, you did not mention your desire to OC. ;-) In my experience, FSX gives back about 2/3 of any increase you have in clock speed directly to FPS. So, with a QX9650 OCed to 4GHz, that makes a 33% clock speed increase which in turn makes a 22% average FPS increase. Note that this is before factoring in architectural and slight core speed increase gains (@ stock), which would bump the overall gain up by another 15-20%, so lets call it a (really rough) 35-40% FPS gain.BTW, you can overclock your X6800 you know!Re the extra cores, yes FSX + addons can average a 2-3 core load over a flight, so quaddage is goodness in this case. FS9 on the other hand will happily wallow in less than two cores with as many addons as you can throw at it.Gary

>>Here are the benchmark results. Sorry, it's the German site,>but I wasn't able to find the english version quickly.>However, I think the language doesn't really matter, you don't>need to understand any German to take a look at the charts!>http://www.tomshardware.com/de/Grafikkarte...-239931-14.html>I would take those bench results with a huge grain of salt, as they run contrary to benches I've seen elsewhere, and also run contrary to user reports here!Sure is odd though.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

Hey Jourdog,I have the same CPU and MB as you, and I'm having trouble understanding how to OC the thing...so many different settings not like my old unit which just went in %'s. Could you perhaps give me a tutortial or perhaps a snapshot of your Bios settings...and I'd be on my way to flightsim heaven,LOL.Thanks in advanceClayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"