All P35s can use 2 IDE drives. I have 2 old IDE's plugged in and running on my P35 P5K-e as we speak. That is not an issue. Get cheaper ram. There's absolutely No need for anything other than a lifetime warranty and a DDR2-800 rating. With a 64 bit system 4Gs Will make a performance difference. FSX is optimized for - One - core for FPS performance and "as many cores as you can throw at it" for texture loading workloads. These mags are Not necessarily the last work on this stuff. PC pilot is simply presenting inaccurate information here. The Q6600 will go to 3.6Ghz. That's the whole point. The 8400 has the same multiplier and (therefore) will also go to 3.6Ghz. The E84 might go to 3.8, but you then - Must - ramp the mobo's FSB beyond its rated 400mhz. Consider this equation: (The E84's 200 additional Mhz = ? additional FPS) - (the Q's additional texture loading capability + a less sustainable FSB) = The Q wins. The Q at 3.6 is the smart choice.A P35/[email protected]/4G-ram/8800GT/V64 is IT until Sandy Bridge. With this system you will entirely skip the Nehalem hyperbole and see what the next-next gen has to offer. No more splurging. Do it once and be done with it 'til Sandy Bridge. P35/[email protected]/4G-ram/8800GT/V64.

>All P35s can use 2 IDE drives. I have 2 old IDE's plugged in>and running on my P35 P5K-e as we speak. That is not an issue.>Yes but after connecting my DVD burner and an additional DVD Rom there is no more place for harddrives. Well of course I could use only one optical unit and one HD. But I'm somewhat skeptical to have a DVD and a HD on the same cable. On the other hand I must admit that I have been tempted by the 7200.11 seagate. I wonder if using that instead of a IDE HD would mean any significant difference?>Get cheaper ram. There's absolutely No need for anything otherThere are no I can find. Cheapest 2 * 1 Gb pair is $58. Precisely what difference will I notice in FSX with 4 Gb instead of 2 Gb>The Q6600 will go to 3.6Ghz. That's the whole point. The 8400Can I be certain that this is going to work without problems. For example OC four cores should mean more heat than OC two.

Actually I'm running a old IDE 250 and my single optical writer on that single IDE ribbon cable. It works fine. However these modern 7200 RPM drives (Seagate -11, et all) will really make a difference. The Qs overclock just fine on the P35. However O/Cing Qs on the 6x0s are a real problem. If you stay with the P35, there will be no problem O/Cing the Q.Here's a typical PMDG 744X flight in progress. Nothing special here. I'm descending through 12 inbound to the ILS intercept for EDDF's 07R. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/190133.jpgNotice a couple of things. The bottom window is Process Explorer. The Virtual Size column is the OOM stuff. Notice I'm at 3.3Gs, which is above the 32bit op system's maximum capability even with the "3 G Switch." This is Why a 64bit system is more capable. My nice flight would have OOM'd long ago on a 32 bit system, even with the 3G switch. Now look at the WS Private column. This is the physical memory in use by Just FS. It's at 2.5Gs. A system with only 2Gs would have gone to the page file at ~ 1.5Gs. After all, the op system Must keep some ram for its own use. That means a 2G system (32 Or 64 bit) would have approximately 1/3rd of its working data in page file (on a hard drive). Here, I have the entire working data in ram. That's better. Why? Ram data can be accessed faster than HD data. The top window is task manager. Notice the total system ram load is 3.4Gs. I have simply minimized the sim to write this post, plus whatever else is up. The 64bit op system has enabled my Entire 4Gs and the system is still completely responsive. All of these capabilities are available and it's simply smart to use 'em.

>The Qs overclock just fine on the P35. However O/Cing Qs on>the 6x0s are a real problem. If you stay with the P35, there>will be no problem O/Cing the Q.>I think I will follow the advice to get a P35 mb. Here is one example that I think looks interestinghttp://www.datorbutiken.com/se/default.asp...uct=GIGEP35-DS3what do you think about it?When it comes to the CPU I'm more uncertain. I have noted that theE8400 is 45 nm 3 GHz stock and the Q6600 is 65 nm 2.5 GHz stock. Shouldn't a 45 nm penryn OC better from it's stock 3 GHz than four core 65 nm from its 2.5 GHz stock? What could this mean for the PSU requirement. I have the corsair HX520W in mind.As for RAM an additional 2 Gb can easy be added later but reinstalling the whole system on a new harddrive would mean a lot of work so I'm more prone to first get a 7200.11 HD and then later extra RAM compared to the opposite order.>Here's a typical PMDG 744X flight in progress. Nothing specialBut wasn't that PMDG 744 extremely hard on performence compared to other planes?

The mobo looks fine. It only has one PCI-e Vcard slot, so you will be limited to only 2 monitors. If that's OK, go for it. The E8400's "45nm-ness" doesn't help. These (real world) CPU's O/Cing capabilities are All about their multipliers. In this case, the E84 and the Q66 both have a 9 multiplier. One of tricks to a stable O/C is to NoT Uber-stress the FSB. The P35 was designed to run at a 400MHz FSB. Anything above that and you are building in a shaky timber to your O/Cing structure. The Geeks (and I) run above 400Mhz all the time, but this is for the Hobby of playing-with-computers. For 100% stable, untweaked system, 400 is it. Both the E84 and the Q66 will run at 400 x 9 = 3.6Ghz. This is also the CPU's limit for the Q. But the E8400 Will go some more . . . IF you are willing to go above a 400Mhz FSB. For a non-hobbiest's 24/7 system, I'd strongly advise against it.The flight was the PMDG 744X with sliders at 100%. However I've seen > 3G ram loads and with VS closing on 4. Really though, an old P4 will run FSX with default airplanes and sliders off. Beyond that it's about: "Speed costs. How fast do you want to go." So far the bill is $10 for the Q, $50 for the ram and $X for the ops system . . . but remember NoNe of this is necessary, At All. More to your comment's point, an AMD 6400 / 2Gs / 8800GT will run FSX adequately.

>The E8400's "45nm-ness" doesn't help. These (real world) CPU's>O/Cing capabilities are All about their multipliers. In thisSure it's also about heat and here 45nm should be an advantage.And also isn't a pentyn more powerful clock for clock compared to the previous C2D?>the ram and $X for the ops system . . . but remember NoNe of>this is necessary, At All. More to your comment's point, an>AMD 6400 / 2Gs / 8800GT will run FSX adequately. Then I suppose I will be fine with a E7200? Maybe I should point out that my intention was to use FSX with addon planes and products like UTX GEX Active Sky FSGenesis mesh.

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...N82E16835109125However 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.

>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. >But I have the intention to use the stock cooler. I also think it must depend on how much you OC.>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. Right now it seems that I don't need to get it right away (I don't think my current video card is failing). So I will propably waiy until after summer. Maybe the quas penryn is more addordable then.

You have the wisdom now, goldfish. Go forth and build. May the force be with you.

Sorry to interject, but I have been running an E8400 on air, rock solid for almost 2 months now, at 4Ghz (500 x 8). Of course, it's not using the stock heatsink/fan, but the Scythe Ninja. I of course use FSX extensively but I also play COD4 and Crysis, and have not had stability issues whatsoever.Just wanted to throw that out there. ;-)______________Efrain RuizLiveDISPATCHhttp://www.livedispatch.orgCooler Master cosmos SDFI LP UT P35 T2R (3-17-2008 BIOS) | E8400 @ 4GHz (500MHz x 8) | 2 x 2GB OCZ Flex II PC9200EVGA GeForce 9800 GX2 @ 738|1845|1150Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Operating System RAID-0) | Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Flight Simulator RAID-0)Corsair CM PSU-750TX | Asus 20X DVD

I'd recommend you do a dual boot where you can boot to WinXP SP3 or Vista 64 SP1.My experience with FSX and Vista 64 SP1 was not good, about 15-20% performance hit (DX9 mode) on a 3.6Ghz QX9650 Quad core Intel Extreme CPU (with very high speed RAM). DX10 Preview helped regain some lost fps but still about 10% slower and DX10 introduced several bugs not present in DX9.I have far less problems under WinXP SP3.Vista x64 does however work very well with Visual Studio 2008.note: I do have 8GB RAM installed. Vista 64 sees and uses all of it, WinXP SP3 sees 8GB, but can only use about 3.5 GB.Hope this helps.

Best thing for me so far with V64 and FSX: no more hated OOM errors!

>I'd recommend you do a dual boot where you can boot to WinXP>SP3 or Vista 64 SP1.>Buying two OS licenses would be to expensive.>My experience with FSX and Vista 64 SP1 was not good, about>15-20% performance hit (DX9 mode) on a 3.6Ghz QX9650 Quad core>Intel Extreme CPU (with very high speed RAM). DX10 Preview>helped regain some lost fps but still about 10% slower and>DX10 introduced several bugs not present in DX9.>>I have far less problems under WinXP SP3.>That's strange since other reports the opposite experience and also a 64 bit OS should have an advantage over a 34 bit.>Vista x64 does however work very well with Visual Studio>2008.>Is that already out? Do they have free exoress edition here also?

>I'd recommend you do a dual boot where you can boot to WinXP>SP3 or Vista 64 SP1.>>My experience with FSX and Vista 64 SP1 was not good, about>15-20% performance hit (DX9 mode) on a 3.6Ghz QX9650 Quad core>Intel Extreme CPU (with very high speed RAM). DX10 Preview>helped regain some lost fps but still about 10% slower and>DX10 introduced several bugs not present in DX9.>>I have far less problems under WinXP SP3.>>Vista x64 does however work very well with Visual Studio>2008.>>note: I do have 8GB RAM installed. Vista 64 sees and uses all>of it, WinXP SP3 sees 8GB, but can only use about 3.5 GB.>>Hope this helps.>> That's surprising, can too much RAM (with a given program) be a detriment? It doesn't sound logical but given the disparity I've seen in FSX results with seemingly identical systems sice it's release, (assuming similar setup), who knows.

>My experience with FSX and Vista 64 SP1 was not good, about>15-20% performance hit (DX9 mode) on a 3.6Ghz QX9650 Quad core>Intel Extreme CPU (with very high speed RAM). A 15-20% performance hit when running FSX on Vista 64 / SP1? How?I