Vista 64 bit set up

[jfri 42]

>Any of these CPU's will need a good aftermarket CPU cooler to>O/C. With the necessary cooler, heat is not an issue with Any>of these Core2 CPUs. >>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835109125>>However if a user can only afford raw (but blurry) frames per>second, an E4300 is a better buy. FPS is based on a - single ->core's speed. Visual quality is based on the Number Of Cores>operating at that speed.>>If a user wants all that pretty GEX/UT/AS eye candy, the quad>is the answer. Texture loading capability helps the blurries>and that's what the quad does. It does Nothing to help FPS. I have discussed this with my intended reseller. They claim that a E8400 would be easier to OC than a Q6600. The suggested cooler is rather expensive. And the Q6600 is somewhat more expensive than the E8400. But there is a AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core 2.2GHz 4x1MB (L2+L3) 95W Boxed (with cpu-cooler!) Socket AM2+ for the same price as a E8400. They don't sell E4300 but the E7200 come closest at a noticable lower price than the E8400. If I would stick to the default cooler would you still recommend the quad? The reseller first told me that OC voids the warranty.Also I'm curious about how you have reached your conclusion? For example have you made an upgrade from dual core to quad core? I wonder since a flight sim magazine wrote that four cores don't make much advantage over two cores in FSX.

[Guest D17S]

The O/C procedures are identical. With either, O/Cing involves simply turning up the FSB and Vcore. It's doesn't matter what chip is sitting in the socket. However, Nvidia chipsets struggle with Intel quads.An O/C'd Q66 @ 3.6 is ~ $250 (200CPU+50cooler). A stock QX9650 at 3.0Ghz is $1100. $800 additional bucks yields a 20% lower clock, but a stock heatsink can be used. Go figure. If a user wants to maximize value, O/Cing is a Must. The AMD quads Will Not over clock. They are already "maxed out." We've seen the difference between the quads and the duals in our Avsim benchmarks. There is NO FPS difference. This is because FPS is a function of a Single Core. 50 cores Would Not increase FPS. The difference is in scenery loading or "The Fuzzies." Scenery will pop-in to higher resolution tiles Faster with the quad. That's what the other 3 cores are doing during game play. The flight sim magazine needs to come on over to the forum. We'd be glad to help them observe this important distinction between quads and duals. Overclocking will Not damage a CPU. Damage occurs because of overtemperature events. The CPU has a built-in overtemperature protection circuit. If the CPU is damaged in use, it is because this protection circuit failed. This is clearly a hardware failure that warranty would cover. However Intel will happily refuse a warranty for virtually any reason you might care to provide.

[jfri 42]

>The O/C procedures are identical. With either, O/Cing>involves simply turning up the FSB and Vcore. It's doesn't>matter what chip is sitting in the socket. However, Nvidia>chipsets struggle with Intel quads.>Yes the procedure might be the same. But there is a difference in that OC (to 3.6 GHz) the E8400 means 3.6/3=1.2 i.e 20% and the Q6600 3.6/2.4=1.5 i.e 50%. In addition to that consider that a 45 nm chip would produce more heat than a 65 nm chip and also four cores produces more heat than two. So for the quad I don't see otherwise than that I would need a more powerful and expensive cooler. >An O/C'd Q66 @ 3.6 is ~ $250 (200CPU+50cooler). A stock QX9650>at 3.0Ghz is $1100. $800 additional bucks yields a 20% lower>clock, but a stock heatsink can be used. Go figure. >My intended seller takes 990 SEK for a 7200 and 1420 SEK for 8400 and 1630 SEk for Q6600 and then 2060 SEK for Q9300. A Thermalright Ultra-120A CPU Cooler Socket 775 / 939 / AM2 cost 469 SEK. (US$ 1= 6 SEK)I must say that these coolers look a bite scary. I mean they seem so huge. Can't that lead to problem?>increase FPS. The difference is in scenery loading or "The>Fuzzies." Scenery will pop-in to higher resolution tiles>Faster with the quad. That's what the other 3 cores are doing>during game play. The flight sim magazine needs to come onDoes this not also depend much on the graphics card?>Overclocking will Not damage a CPU. Damage occurs because of>overtemperature events. The CPU has a built-in overtemperature>protection circuit. If the CPU is damaged in use, it is>because this protection circuit failed. This is clearly a>hardware failure that warranty would cover. However Intel will>happily refuse a warranty for virtually any reason you might>care to provide.Some thoughts here. First if I return a faulty CPU and claim warranty how could they tell that I have been overclocking?Might they assume OC if I buy a thirdparty cooler together with the CPU?

[Guest SpeedBird192]

I've seen many reviews of Vista x64 RTM vs. Vista x64 SP1, for some strange reason RTM performs better with CPU operations over SP1. Seeing as FSX is very CPU demanding perhaps that is why I saw a drop in FSX performance when upgrade Vista x64 to SP1?As far as "how" there are many reasons "how".1. Vista x64 Ultimate loads more "running" services that WinXP2. 64bit execution is slower when 32bit code is being executed on it, same as why 16bit code is faster -- just less data to process3. Code compatibility layers (some for security reasons) consume more CPU cyclesIf Vista x64 would permit the loading of just those components one needs to run FSX, then I'm sure the results would be different, but in all the cases I've run into, FSX is slower on a Vista x64 PC.There was some talk that Windows 7 would permit "Unix like" installs and/or dynamic loads to incorporate just the features you want -- almost like a Hardware profile, but includes software/services also. This would permit specific OS load to a specific game if the user so desired. But I also heard that this concept was dropped from Windows 7 :( Sadly the demo I saw of Windows 7 was once again another "so what" -- trying to emulate iPhone type interface, wish Microsoft would put more forward thinking into their OS's rather than copy Apple.

[Guest djt01]

>I've seen many reviews of Vista x64 RTM vs. Vista x64 SP1,>for some strange reason RTM performs better with CPU>operations over SP1. I

[Guest D17S]

The "ratio of increase" is irrelevant. Either the CPU will run at a specified clock, or it will not. A Q6600 will run at 3.6Ghz.The E7200 is the best dual by far. It has a 9.5 multiplier and will O/C to 9.5 x 400 = 3.8Ghz. The E8400 will go to 4Ghz, but costs 43% more. (BTW, these costs are about 25% over US prices.)The Q6600 is the best quad by far. It has a 9 multiplier and will go to 9 x 400 = 3.6Ghz. The Q9300 has a 7.5 multiplier and will go to 7.5 x 400 = 3Ghz . . . and costs 25% more. The 45nm Penryn provides No performace benefit over the 65nm Core2. BTW, trying to "tweak-down" a CPU cooler to save $7 is just asking for trouble. You need a Thermalright Ultra 120 (or equivalent). These big air-coolers are necessary and work just fine. I've had Thermalright coolers mounted-up on my CPUs forever. No problems. Scenery loading rates cause the fuzzies and this is a CPU function. Aces (FS devs) have tweaked the program to allow multi-cores to help with this scenery loading function. The Vcard can only process what it gets from the CPU. FS is NoT a modern First Person Shooter. FS uses the CPU to generate frame content where modern FPSs depend more on the Vcard. In FS, the Vcard is (essentially) just a flow-through conduit. It really doesn't do much. That's why we are seeing these new $600 GTX280 Vcards Make No Difference in FS.Warranty? For instance, did you see the the delivery guy drop your bubble-wrapped, double-boxed CPU package on a grassy lawn as he was walking to your front door? Or (for instance), have you - ever- touched any of your computer's components without a grounding strap on your wrist? If your CPU - ever - requires warranty replacement, you Must advise Intel of these occurrences. Rest assured that Intel will happily reject your warranty claim for virtually any reason you might care to provide.RTM vs SP1? It certainly Is possible that that Vista SP1 is running more background services beyond XP or Vista RTM. It might be burning an additional 1% of one core's Flight sim potential. This may be an unarguable fact. However it becomes difficult to propose this has any meaningful - even decipherable - impact on FS performance. From a user's POV, Vista 64/SP1 seems to running FSX(9) A-OK.

[jfri 42]

>The E7200 is the best dual by far. It has a 9.5 multiplier and>will O/C to 9.5 x 400 = 3.8Ghz. The E8400 will go to 4Ghz, but>costs 43% more. (BTW, these costs are about 25% over US>prices.)>Well if I take a E7200 instead of E8400 I will save about 500 SEKwhich could be spent somewhere else. This gives a number of option1) Take E8400 + More cache than E7200 2) Take E7200 and a third party cooler3) Take E7200 and 4 Gb RAM instead of 2 Gb4) Take Q6600 with the stock coolerHow well will these configs handle FSX?>45nm Penryn provides No performace benefit over the 65nm>Core2. >But wasn't penryn a little bit more than just a shrink in chipsize?>BTW, trying to "tweak-down" a CPU cooler to save $7 is just>asking for trouble. You need a Thermalright Ultra 120 (or>equivalent). These big air-coolers are necessary and work just>fine. I've had Thermalright coolers mounted-up on my CPUs>forever. No problems. >Do you also mount a fan on it? And it's about $90 save to use a stock cooler. Also if you OC a Q6600 to 3.6 GHz what does that mean for the PSU requirement. I had the corsair modular 520W in mind.>occurrences. Rest assured that Intel will happily reject your>warranty claim for virtually any reason you might care to>provide.>But of course I will not go directly to Intel but to the store where I bought it.

[Guest D17S]

Onboard cache is not a game-play factor. It's a technically accurate effect, but a Real World irrelevancy. Go with the quad under any circumstances. Save your $$ and get the Thermalright when you can. The Penryn handled specifically selected benchmarks better than the Core2. Again, it a technically accurate effect, but a Real World irrelevancy. The Penryn "tock" was meant to use the same Core2 architecture with a smaller circuit trace (45nm). That was its purpose. Now that 45nm is stabilized (by all the Penryn Guinea pigs), a new architecture will be initiated, Nehalem. This will Still be basically a Core2, only with an onboard memory controller. These are significant technical gambles that Intel is taking in equally little steps. They aren't called Intel for nothin'! The required CPU cooler cost's whatever the market will bear. If a user wants performance for a significantly reduced cost, an additional $90 can be spent on a CPU cooler. Alternatively, a builder can spend an additional $800 on Intel's 3.2Ghz part that will run on that ($800) stock cooler. Builder's choice.Bump the PS to 600 watts under any circumstances. 520 is on the low edge.

[jfri 42]

>Bump the PS to 600 watts under any circumstances. 520 is on>the low edge.520 is on the low edge if I OC a Q6600 to 3.6 GHz but otherwise I'm fairly safe with 520W according tohttp://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

[Guest D17S]

Gonna want one of these super-duper Vcards someday? $100 for the 1st, then $150 for second (of anything) = $250. However $150 only spent once = $150. Point being $150 is less than $250. Do NoT skimp on power. Troubleshooting power problems is like chasing ghosts.

[Guest D17S]

Know this might be a bit out of logistical range, but for the US folks, this is all it takes: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_...duct_id=0283289It's the Q6600 for $180. That's just too hard to pass up.

[jfri 42]

>Gonna want one of these super-duper Vcards someday? $100 forNo why would I? I mean from what I read in this forum there is no point in getting more than a 8800 for FSX. People who do so see no difference in FSX performence or maybe there is more to the story?>$250. Do NoT skimp on power. Troubleshooting power problems is>like chasing ghosts. It might actually be such ghosts I'm chasing right now when trying to figure out all weird problems I encounter with my current system.But true is that an OC Q6600 to 3.6 GHz would take me rather close (but not over) to the limit according the powercalculator. And there is an equal 620W version of this corsair at an additional cost about $50.

[hawkhero 11]

OK I have my new computer. It has a Q9300 cpu with a water cooler, EVGA 780i mb, and OCZ 8mb of ram. I got FSX runnig at 20fps over JFK with very dence senerey. You guys are talking about overclocking, were is a good place to start to learn? (web site) Thanks,Greg