>>>>Was there an FSX comparison in there? If there was I didn't>>see it. So what's your point? >>>>FSX is a whole different animal. No one should ever be>making>>FSX performance predictions based on i7 performance in these>>other games. And I never said a stock 920 was 37% faster>than>>a Q6 @ 3.6GHz. What I said was it's not "side by side">>Especially in the bandwidth & latency.>>>>We're talking about FSX here, not Far Cry 2. Let's see some>>direct comparisons in FSX between a 3.6GHz Q6 on DDR2 800>vs.>>a stock 920 and a clocked 920.>>>>If people want performance in all those other games then get>>Sam's system. If you want FSX advice, don't get it from him.>>>Sorry, but this is getting old.>>>>-jk>>Tom's Hardware is the only site on the net that includes FSX>in their benchmark suite, and Tom's does not have a Core i7>review which includes FSX numbers. >>If you care to find a review which proves your assertion, feel>free to share it with us. Here's something. Not scientific, but it compares based on the same processor speed:http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5880434He compares an i7 920 with a Q9550. Both at the same clock speed.-jk

>Here's something. Not scientific, but it compares based on>the same processor speed:>>http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5880434>>He compares an i7 920 with a Q9550. Both at the same clock>speed.>>-jkNot only is it totally unscientific, we are expected to just take the person's word for it. Also later he notes a much smaller increase in FPS in a busy area, Seattle.I'm not saying i7 isn't faster than Core 2, the point is it's not > 37.5% faster at equal clocks.

>>Here's something. Not scientific, but it compares based on>>the same processor speed:>>>>http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5880434>>>>He compares an i7 920 with a Q9550. Both at the same clock>>speed.>>>>-jk>>Not only is it totally unscientific, we are expected to just>take the person's word for it. Also later he notes a much>smaller increase in FPS in a busy area, Seattle.>>I'm not saying i7 isn't faster than Core 2, the point is it's>not > 37.5% faster at equal clocks.You asked me for a comparison, I gave it to you. I qualified my example, obviously it's just one's person's opinion. I never stated it's 37% faster either-where did you see me write that it's 37% faster? If you think FSX is like the other games then you don't know FSX at all.Go right ahead and wait for Tom's Hardware review. He'll probably test the i7 system five times with FSX and get a different result each time.-jk

>You asked me for a comparison, I gave it to you. I qualified>my example, obviously it's just one's person's opinion. I>never stated it's 37% faster either-where did you see me write>that it's 37% faster? Go back to my first post on this subject. 2.66GHz->3.6GHz is a 37.5% difference. Therefore, an i7 920 would need to be greater than 37.5% faster *per clock cycle* than the Q6600 @ 3.6GHz in order for it to be faster overall. I've already stated this. >If you think FSX is like the other>games then you don't know FSX at all.>You're barking up the wrong tree.>Go right ahead and wait for Tom's Hardware review. He'll>probably test the i7 system five times with FSX and get a>different result each time.>>-jk>As I said earlier, THG is the *only* review site on the net that includes FSX in its suite of benchmarks. Given this fact it hardly makes one a THG a really excited user for citing them.

>>You asked me for a comparison, I gave it to you. I>qualified>>my example, obviously it's just one's person's opinion. I>>never stated it's 37% faster either-where did you see me>write>>that it's 37% faster? >>Go back to my first post on this subject. 2.66GHz->3.6GHz is>a 37.5% difference. Therefore, an i7 920 would need to be>greater than 37.5% faster *per clock cycle* than the Q6600 @>3.6GHz in order for it to be faster overall. I've already>stated this. >>>If you think FSX is like the other>>games then you don't know FSX at all.>>>>You're barking up the wrong tree.>>>Go right ahead and wait for Tom's Hardware review. He'll>>probably test the i7 system five times with FSX and get a>>different result each time.>>>>-jk>>>>As I said earlier, THG is the *only* review site on the net>that includes FSX in its suite of benchmarks. Given this fact>it hardly makes one a THG a really excited user for citing them. I never called you a a really excited user either. You're a jerk. Mods: Please lock this thread before it gets any worse. -jk

>I never called you a a really excited user either. You're a jerk. >>Mods: Please lock this thread before it gets any worse. >>-jk What a totally unnecessary comment. I thought this forum was for technical discussion of the best FS hardware. That's why I come here anyway.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_111c.html

>http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_111c.htmlYou showed me a graph based on FPS? You're using FPS as your benchmark? Are you sure you want to do that? My last example wasn't there to site FPS, it was there to demonstrate the operators assessment of the OVERALL SMOOTHNESS of the simulator. If you had read thru that thread you would have noticed that. That poster stated that he noticed a very marked improvement of the smoothness, something someone else here, with more knowledge of how to judge these things, has confirmed by his own testing on an i7 system.And a QX9770, although an excellent chip, having the same bandwidth/latency capability as an i7 965...as that example seems to suggest...is utter crap. -jk

>>I never called you a a really excited user either. You're a jerk. >>>>Mods: Please lock this thread before it gets any worse. >>>>-jk >>What a totally unnecessary comment. >>I thought this forum was for technical discussion of the best>FS hardware. >>That's why I come here anyway.Did I call you a "a really excited user"? Did I ever post that an unclocked 920 i7 was 37% faster than a clocked Q6600 as you keep suggesting? You're twisting my comments around and firing back at me. That's why I called you a jerk. I think you're having fun with this as Sam is. Fine. I've been unintentionally playing right into it. Guess some people get bored just flying around.-jk

MaxIm not going to get into a discussion about i7 compares here however Simhq is not testing that right and in the past I have found their test to be utterly flawed as wellI see solid technical problems with the tests they ran in that writeup Forums and hardware websites are close to useless right now for gain of such information in direct compare to what simmers are after in FSX. As a tech you of all people know that a new platform will also present a set of 'wild card' variables on different chipset registers and BIOS releases with different video cards and drivers.The only person(s) qualified to make comments about i7 are those who own, clock and run it in FSX under their typical settings conditions. And even then, if they are not running FSX right their comments can be quite off.I can confirme that a clocked DDR3 2000+ system on 4GHz does not compare even close to i7 clocked the same on 2/3rd the memory speed due to quickpath with latency in the mid 20's on the right memoryj/k... that was quite uncalled for and quite off base. A tech discussion will have many sides to it. There is a difference between a confirmed amateur trying to impress with 1/2 tech and 1/2 BS written to look like they are an expert and someone who has an opinion formed by what they may read elsewhere and referenced as such

>>http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_111c.html>>You showed me a graph based on FPS? You're using FPS as your>benchmark? Are you sure you want to do that? What runs smoother:FSX at 12 FPS, or FSX at 20 FPS?>My last example>wasn't there to site FPS, it was there to demonstrate the>operators assessment of the OVERALL SMOOTHNESS of the>simulator.Let me know when the benchmarking industry starts using Overall Smoothness Per Second (OSPS)

>Did I call you a "a really excited user"?No. Did I say you did? I certainly didn't use quotation marks around the phrase. >Did I ever post that an unclocked>920 i7 was 37% faster than a clocked Q6600 as you keep>suggesting?No, and neither did I.I'm not sure how to explain this to you in a manner that you will understand. Perhaps someone else could try, as your only apparent interest in conversing with me is to incite some sort of flamewar. I'll pass on that.

>Max>>>Im not going to get into a discussion about i7 compares here>however Simhq is not testing that right and in the past I have>found their test to be utterly flawed as well>>I see solid technical problems with the tests they ran in that>writeup >>Forums and hardware websites are close to useless right now>for gain of such information in direct compare to what simmers>are after in FSX. >>As a tech you of all people know that a new platform will also>present a set of 'wild card' variables on different chipset>registers and BIOS releases with different video cards and>drivers.>>The only person(s) qualified to make comments about i7 are>those who own, clock and run it in FSX under their typical>settings conditions. And even then, if they are not running>FSX right their comments can be quite off.>>>I can confirme that a clocked DDR3 2000+ system on 4GHz does>not compare even close to i7 clocked the same on 2/3rd the>memory speed due to quickpath with latency in the mid 20's on>the right memory>>>>>j/k... that was quite uncalled for and quite off base. A tech>discussion will have many sides to it. There is a difference>between a confirmed amateur trying to impress with 1/2 tech>and 1/2 BS written to look like they are an expert and someone>who has an opinion formed by what they may read elsewhere and>referenced as such>Nick,it seems you're reading a lot more into my posting of the link than I had intended. As you'll note, I offered no analysis at the time, merely provided a link to the only known Core i7 review with FSX numbers. Certainly not the best review I've ever read, but we've all got to work with what we're given.Were I in posession of a shiny new Core i7 system I'd be more than happy to provide a much more thorough analysis than SimHQ has done, or Tom's is likely to do, but I'm sticking with my Wolfdale @ 4GHz until Westmere at least.

>>Did I call you a "a really excited user"?>>No. Did I say you did? I certainly didn't use quotation>marks around the phrase. >>>Did I ever post that an unclocked>>920 i7 was 37% faster than a clocked Q6600 as you keep>>suggesting?>>No, and neither did I.>>I'm not sure how to explain this to you in a manner that you>will understand. Perhaps someone else could try, as your only>apparent interest in conversing with me is to incite some sort>of flamewar. >>I'll pass on that.>>>No, of course I don't want to start any war. What I want to do is take a deep breath and a few steps back. This goes for both you and Avcomware: Things got out of control and I took a few of your comments too personally. I'll apologize for that. I've spent way too much here today, got all fired up, and took it out on the wrong folks as the day went on. -jk

Hey Guys, please read my thread on Qx9650 Extreme & ASUS Masimus Formula BIOS....Information on overclocking is needed...I've lost my specs.....see thread ---- thanks, Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"