Hi guys, I wonder if anyone can help me, I'm currently looking at building a new pc, Just to use with flight sims, FSX, Falcon, Blackshark are going to be the main ones, Could you let me know if the following specs will work, I've been using fsx since release but abit fed up only getting 15FPS with everything turned off if i'm lucky. Means I cant even look at the amazing PMDG Aircraft due to fps issues. Anyway here it isAMD Phenom 9950 Black edition,8GB OCZ Reaper memory,MSI K9A2 Neo F Motherboard,Samsung spinpoint F1 1TB hard disk,8800GTX 768mb Graphics card.Vista 64Should I be able to run FSX, with ASG at medium or high settings on this machine and still get a usable FPS, hoping for 30ish with PMDG 747 or MD11 installed. If not has anyone got any ideas what to change.CheersCowboy10uk

LOL 8Gb of RAM? :D

I believe you would be better off with Nvidia G force 8800GTS 512 MB versus the 8800GTX 768. Also when I added memory over 4 gig, there was no significant change in FPS. I can get 30 plus fps with the sliders set to 75% Blackie

Here's an Intel rig, if your interested. Don't know much about AMD, 'cept they lag Intel. This quad will go to 3.6Ghz. Anything above 4G ram won't be used, and an 88/9800GT (they are identical) will provide the same performance in FS as the 8800GTX. http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746At 3.6Ghz, this is within 10% of anything at any price for FS. Hard to go wrong for the price.

>Here's an Intel rig, if your interested. Don't know much>about AMD, 'cept they lag Intel. This quad will go to 3.6Ghz.>Anything above 4G ram won't be used, and an 88/9800GT (they>are identical) will provide the same performance in FS as the>8800GTX. >>http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746>>At 3.6Ghz, this is within 10% of anything at any price for FS.>Hard to go wrong for the price. > Not True! The 8800GTX/Ultra is the best card for FSX next to the 280GTX (if the drivers for the 280GTX improve). Don't waste your money on the 88/9800GT and they will NOT provide the same performance!And the Q6600 is a dud, especially now that the E0 stepping Q9550 is available. The Q6600 is old news now and a waste of money, it's that simple. Don't waste your money buying "cheap" parts. That "10%" that Sam is talking about is not that simple. You'll be dissappointed with those cheap parts and you'll end up spending more money to replace them with REAL FSX hardware.And I'd like to see the core i7 up against the Q6600. 10%? Yeah right, more like 30%!-jk P.S. The newer batches of the Q6600 can be real duds. 3.2-3.4GHz tops. They just don't get to 3.6 like they used to. Another reason to avoid the Q6600.

Meh I'd just wait a little bit for the new CPU's to come out...I think you'll be able to get a Nehalem quad for around 300 ish...4GB of DDR3 RAM will do fine.

Still not true. The 512 MB 8800GTS is faster than either the 8800GT or the 8800GTX 768MB. If this were not so one of them would be in my machine instead of setting on the shelf.If you want to play Doom, Quake or shooter type games, install the 8800GTX or 8800GT . If you want to primarily fly FSX, get the 8800GTS and you will get noticeably better frame rates.Blackie

>>Still not true. The 512 MB 8800GTS is faster than either the>8800GT or the 8800GTX 768MB. If this were not so one of them>would be in my machine instead of setting on the shelf.>>If you want to play Doom, Quake or shooter type games,>install the 8800GTX or 8800GT . If you want to primarily fly>FSX, get the 8800GTS and you will get noticeably better frame>rates.>>BlackieYes it is true. 8800GTX/Ultra or GTX280. Period. I'm not talking about other games, just FSX. With other games it's different but for FSX there's no argument. And I've had many cards and nothing beets the Ultra I have now.Phil Taylor, who helped develop FSX and the service packs, will even tell you what I just did. -jk

One more thing. Using the FPS counter to measure performance is WORTHLESS. Nick has shown that to be true over and over. -jk

In FS, dollars spent does not equal performance. Beyond the [email protected]/88GT/4G@800 the discussion looses its empirical basis and any claim of +10% (FPS/texture-loading/clarity/etc) improvements becomes the owner's subjective opinion. Could be, but only those with a very keen eye can tell. Whatever it is, it isn't much. Buyer beware.

It's not "buyer beware". It's "You get what you pay for". You don't miss what you don't have. $$$FSX isn't measured in FPS. Everyone has to get away from that mindset. Listen to the experts, that's what I do. I know a couple of guys here I listen to that know more about FSX and computer HW than everyone else in the community COMBINED.A 3.6GHz Q6600, 800MHz DDR2, 8800GT: Won't cut it with the addons it takes to make FSX look right. Throw in a >22" high res monitor and it's even worse. I know because that's what I used to have (well, I had the G92 8800GTS overclocked). I didn't mind spending money on those parts because that's how I learned. -jk

An i7 like that would clock nicely on the right board and with the right DDR3 RAM (>1600, CAS 7 or lower) that would really be nice. I'd still wait for these parts to mature a little and maybe prices to come down on DDR3.-jk

>One more thing. Using the FPS counter to measure performance>is WORTHLESS. Nick has shown that to be true over and over. >>>-jk>Link please and thanx.

>>One more thing. Using the FPS counter to measure>performance>>is WORTHLESS. Nick has shown that to be true over and over.>>>>>>>-jk>>>>Link please and thanx.>Test1: Battle of the DDRsThat thread is on the next page of these forums. Posted 11/8/08. I can't post the link but if you read through that to Nick's first response there, you'll see what he says. And he's been saying it like that for a long time. -jk

Here's a post from Phil Taylor's weblog:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...-fps-costs.aspx-jk