Hi all,I am seeking advise on PC hardware. It's been a few years since my last update, and it's time to do something about it.These are the things still unclear to me. Responses are greatly appreciated :). I am only seeking advise to run FSX, nothing else matters for this machine!1. Dual Core or Quad Core?The E-series Dual Core CPUs are very powerful. But then again, so are the Quads. It's a bit unclear to me, if FSX will benefit from having more than two cores in the CPU. I remember at one time there was even discussion here, if the extra 2 cores in Quad would actually be a bad thing to have. That they only assist when multiple smaller programs are run in the side (such as the ActiveSky and the likes). But to the actual FSX performance Quad gives no extra boost.At the moment I have a couple of nice offers on E8750 and Q6600. I am not sure what to buy.2. ATI or Nvidia?According to Tom's HW tests in FSX, the Nvidia cards are superior in FSX. The new ATI 4870 sucks big time in their graphs. At the same time I hear that Tom's has made their tests with inferior old drivers, and that the situation Now is a whole lot different than it was at the time of those tests.What display adapter would you recommend? Are the new ATIs really on par with the Nvidia offerings, now that they have newer drivers? If anyone has tried both newer gen manufacturer cards on their same machine, then that kind of information is very valuable (in FSX of course).3. Older / lower level GPUs and the fact that FSX is CPU BOUND.Some of the cheapest offers I have looked at, offer cards such as Nvidia 9600Gt, or Nvidia 8500Gt as the graphics card. Then, looking at Tom's HW performance graphs, it's immediately clear that a great adapter like the 8800GT can achieve FPS above 30FPS, while the 8500GT achieves a lousy 11FPS. So a difference of 200% there.Is it really so that the GPU speed affects FSX frame rate results this much? I always thought that as long as your GPU is relatively new, and fast enough to handle the basic newer stuff, then you will much more benefit from getting a really fast CPU than to put money in the GPU side. According to the graphs I am talking about, it isn't so at all (well, it still is CPU bound, but the GPU seems to make a huge difference anyway!).4. What OS to choose for optimal FSX performance?5. How much memory is Enough for FSX?6. Does the Motherboard play any significant role (if you forget significant overclocking) in getting a good performance from the CPU, GPU and the memory?Thanks!rgds,Tero

Gosh, I'm not sure what to recommend with newer CPU's coming around the corner.If you HAD to buy now, I would plan on overclocking for sure.Using a Thermalright cooler or a OCZ Vendetta:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835109125http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/cool...ta_2_cpu_coolerGo with either a Q6600 overclocked to 3.4 - 3.6 GHzOR An E8500 overclocked to the 4.0 GHz rangeFor the motherboard, go with the X48 chipset, like this one:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813136054ETC...RAM, 4GB of whatever, Corsair, OCZ, Mushkin, etcVideo card: I personally would go with the GTX260 or maybe if you can find the older 8800GTXOS: Vista x64 to use all the RAM.Some others will chime in, cause I don't know what's up and coming...

Thanks Ryan,Actually I have one tempting offer right now.E8400, 8800GTX 786MB / 384bit, 4x DDR2 RAM, 2x 500gt HDD.Is that GPU the one you mentioned as the "older type"? In Tom's HW the E8400 doesn't compare to good on the Q6600. I wonder if I should skip the duals altogether..That would be around 450-500EUR.Tero

Hi teroThe E8400 setup you mention would rock FSX. It is similar to what I am running.Personally I went for a dual--you get no-brainer 3.8-4.0 ghz overclocks which is great for FSX. If need be I can always drop a quad in there at some point, but I have had no need so far. In 2 years, for FS11, I'll probably rebuild anyway to a quad or whatever FS11 wants, after I let everyone else test FS11 for me first.The 8800GTX is an oldie but goodie--just be sure your case is long enough to handle it--and can be had for cheap now too. I think the Tom's article on the 4870 is not as valuable as it could be given the driver immaturity at the time, and also the way Tom's tests FS. I would rely on the testing of real true FS users like you find around here over Tom's.Do not even mess with the 8500, 9300, etc. cards. The lower number cards (7300GS, 8500GT, etc. etc.) are nVidia's lower-line cards. If you look at Phil Taylor (of Microsoft) blog, you will find an entry from several months ago about the way nVidia pigeon-holes their video cards and it speaks directly to what you get and what you do not get with the low end, mid-line, and high-line cards.The low-range cards will indeed hamstring FSX especially if you pair them with a fast cpu and chipset. Why hamstring an otherwise fast setup?RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Thank you, Rhett! Excellent information.Can you tell me what kind of measurements the case should have to accommodate the 8800GTX?cheers,Tero

You've probably already seen this: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746This will get you 90% of the FS performance available at any price. Any additional cost is chasing that last 10%. Here's what you'll get: Just as a 'for instance,' here's a setup to make comparisons:This is [email protected]/4G-Ram@800Mhz/9800GTX+/42" monitor at 19x10 - in windowed mode - . Two other 19" monitors are running with other FSX windows (CDU's, etc) and email clients, flightaware web pages, etc.nHancer 8xS AA, 16AF, etc. (I think it's the AA 8xS, but something here is helping clean-up the Vcockpit).FSX setting tabs setup:Graphics: Frame target unlimited, Res, 19x10x32. Trilinear/AA off. Global Tex 100%. Lens Flare/Adv Anim on.Aircraft: Vcockpit. Hi-res on. Exterior Settings, all on.Weather: 60mi clouds. Scenery: Left side (These are all Vcard related except water). All sliders 100% except water at 2xLow and ground shadows off. Right side (These are all CPU related. Play with these for FPS dial-in). Scenery Complex 100%, AG 25%, GS off, SE 100%.Traffic (These are all CPU related. Play with these for FPS dial-in): All Off.Installed scenery: UTX/GEX/FSG scenerys.From the Vcockpit.Running an LAX approach starting at ~ 5000ft, through rollout. fully coupled approach/autoland with both 744 and the MD11.744: 15 - 20FPS. Flyable, but a little choppy.MD11: 15 - 20FPS. Flyable, but completely smooth, AND Autogen can be increased to 100% And It Stays Smooth!During the beta, I initially noticed the MD seemed to run smoother. I really missed autogen on approach, but the 744 had always choked with anything above 25% autogen (even that was pushing it). With the MD, I was able to shove AG full right and the MD just kept on truckin'. It is sooo cool to see 3D stuff whizzing by on approach. Just to play, I got it down on the LA deck with AG at 100% and terrorized some neighborhoods at 50 feet. The little houses were flying by, smoooothly. The 744 was a slideshow.I'm not a programmer, but something very different (vs the 744) is going on with this MD11's code. I can almost run my default airplane settings setup with this 'big-dog' airplane. With a good addon traffic program, even a little traffic is possible.As you know, the MD11 runs BeTTer than the 744. Definitively better.

Rhett,Do you think 365W will be enough from the PSU to run the 8800GTX (+ two HDDs and an E8400)?Thanks!rgds,Tero

Almost certainly not enough juice, but try this PSU calculator:http://www.thermaltake.outervision.com/A Google search will find you some more calculators, if you don't trust Thermaltake!TimPS: And do a little pre-reading on the difference between quad- and single-rail PSUs. Not all quad rails are suitable, because some of them divide the available Amperes between all four rails, which can be a problem for a power-hog like the 8800GTX: you can be better off with a good single rail PSU. I have a single-rail Corsair 750W unit which is a bit of a brute (no nice modular cables) but it does give good Amps (upto 60 of them) wherever you need them.

>Thank you, Rhett! Excellent information.>>Can you tell me what kind of measurements the case should have>to accommodate the 8800GTX?>>cheers,>>TeroThe BFG 8800GTX is about 12-13 inches long. There might be slight variations in length between different brands (eVGA, etc.) but in your case, where the cards go, make sure you have at least 13-14 inches down there. With a lot of cases, the drive cage can get in the way. Also with some motherboards, DIMM slots or capacitors can be obstructions.I made sure and purchased a LONG case, the Silverstone TJ09, because I knew it would be plenty well long enough to handle the 8800GTX. If you have a mid-tower or heaven forbid something smaller, you may have some problems.My old case, which I still use with my ASX rig, is a Coolermaster Praetorian (a mid tower ATX case). On a lark I tested the 8800GTX fitment in it. The card and board fit, but it pressed up against the drive cage. Probably for peace of mind I would have gotten out the dremel tool and worked on the drive cage, but luckily I had the new case and didn't need to.Like a lot of high-end vid cards, the 8800GTX will also get over onto the adjoining slot, so I made sure I had enough room there for adequate air flow.I do not know how long the 280GTX or the 4870 cards are, I haven't been paying much attention to vid cards lately. I doubt they are that long though.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Hi all,I just bought a used 8800GTX 768MB (384bit), I got a real bargain.So that side is taken care of.Now I am thinking of the CPUs, and have decided to go for the Q9550 Quad core from Intel. Why? Simply because it's only a 100e or so more expensive than the Q6600 (currently, probably a bit more after Intel cuts the Q6600 prices next week). But according to pure CPU benchmarks it delivers a whopping 30% more calculation power than the Q6600. So that's an important aspect thinking about FSX.So the hunt continues for the Motherboard (which chipset is fast?), RAMs and the PSU. I'll then buy a couple of SATA disks to the rack and that's it. Tero

Hi all,I ordered the new stuff yesterday.- Q9550 - Asus P5Q Pro - Kingston VR 2x 2GB (kit) DDR2 800 - WD640GB AALS - Antec Sonata III (- Palit nvidia 8800GTX 768MB 384-bit)I took the Q9550, against the advise from Sam, because the Q9550 will run cooler than the Q6600. The case I am putting everything into(Sonata3) will probably have some issues with the temps (unable to install front cooler due to the 8800GTX being so long), so I figured I'd take the CPU that runs a bit cooler. And I specifically wanted a smaller case, hence the Sonata3.Will report here later, how it runs, once I get all the parts, and get it up and running with Vista64.Thank You to everyone who helped! :)rgds,Tero

Ya mean we don't get pizza? Nuts!

Sam,Why should it mean ya ain't getting Pizza? :DTero

Hi all,Got the HW installed, Vista64, FSX with SP1 and SP2, and naturally my beloved Level-D 767 and the new PMDG MD-11.This new machine just absolutely Rocks! The sim experience is totally and drastically different when you get absolutely smooth performance, and the sliders are nowhere near where they were with my old machine.I haven't overclocked the CPU yet, because I'm still having honeymoon with the rig :).Tero