I now have an old Asus A8V Deluxe AGP s939 with a AMD 64 3200+ (OC 2.5 GHz) and 2 Gb PC3200 RAM and a XFX 7950GT 512M DDR3 with a 250 Gb 7200 rpm IDE drive and a 19" TFT screen and Win XP Home.From what I see there are three components that could be upgraded. Question is what and how much enhanced FS (and other games) experience could that give? The three components would be1) The CPUHere I must buy it on Tradera(eBay). I frequently see AMD 64 4000+ and AMD 64 X2 4600+ out for sale. A question here since I now can OC ny CPU from stock 2 GHz to 2.5 GHz does this mean I will be able to raise a new CPU with 2.4 GHz stock to 2.9 GHz? How much performence gain can I get from a new CPU compared to my current to 2.5 GHz OC CPU?2) The harddriveI have the impression that much of the stutter I see is because of harddrive access. What could be accomplished with a new 7200.11 SATAII seagate? Keep in mind that my mobo only supports SATAI.3) The monitorI think this component is often neglected. I have seen that I can get a 22" TFT for the same price as a powerful CPU. Since I have replaced my previous NVIDIA 6600GT with a 7950GT I should be able to increase resolution without a performence hit, right?! How about FS9 not being widescreen compatible? What is the best thing to do about it.

The best you can do is about a 20% increase in FS performance by bumping the CPU from 2.4 to 2.8. The AMDs don't O/C worth beans. 2.8 is about tops with any of those athlons. It's a darn good CPU, BYW. Intel's core2 only beats 'em by ~ 20% clock-for-clock. An Athlon X2 at 2.8 us about the same as a core2 at 2.4. So, consider a whole new intel rig will get you from your current 2.4 (= core2 @ 2.0) to a core2 quad at 3.6 for ~ $1000. If it's just $75 for the AMD upgrade, that might suffice until . . . ? Your harddrive is not an FS performance problem. However if you have an SATA port on the MoBo, go get a modern harddrive. It'll make a difference everywhere else.FS9 Will do widescreen. You just have to mod the .cfg file. Monitors are just a matter of "what ever you have to spend." Your 79 will run a 22"er just fine. Right now, I'm running 2 beautiful 40" -81 Samsungs at 1920x1080 (each!) off my 9800GTX. No FPS hit at all. Wish I could keep 'em.

>The best you can do is about a 20% increase in FS performance>by bumping the CPU from 2.4 to 2.8. The AMDs don't O/C worth>beans. 2.8 is about tops with any of those athlons. It's a>darn good CPU, BYW. Intel's core2 only beats 'em by ~ 20%Exactly which CPU do you refer to with 'darn good CPU'? My current works at 2.5 GHz and warms to 49 deg celsius during heavy gaming. When increased it to 2.6 GHz the system refused to boot and incorrectly stated that Windoes didn't start up correctly last time. At 2.55 Ghz system booted but crashes after a short time of gaming.BTW the two latest AMD 64 X2 4600+ were sold for 1225 SEK ($150)>clock-for-clock. An Athlon X2 at 2.8 us about the same as a>core2 at 2.4. >I thought the difference were much bigger>So, consider a whole new intel rig will get you from your>current 2.4 (= core2 @ 2.0) to a core2 quad at 3.6 for ~>$1000. If it's just $75 for the AMD upgrade, that might>suffice until . . . ? >Far too expensive. That's why I replaced my 6600Gt with a 77950Gt and upgraded to 2 Gb RAM.>Your harddrive is not an FS performance problem. However if>you have an SATA port on the MoBo, go get a modern harddrive.>It'll make a difference everywhere else.>Could it possible to just clone my whole current drive to new drive so don't have to reinstall everything?>FS9 Will do widescreen. You just have to mod the .cfg file.>Monitors are just a matter of "what ever you have to spend.">Your 79 will run a 22"er just fine. Right now, I'm running 2>beautiful 40" -81 Samsungs at 1920x1080 (each!) off my>9800GTX. No FPS hit at all. Wish I could keep 'em. After searching this topic I found that some people do have problems (ovale gauhes) with it while others won't have it

I still have (and ran) a Socket 939 Asus board and 3700+ for a long time, and I built several of those "back in the day" when I still did some system building.One thing should be cleared up, not all Socket 939 AMD chips were poor overclockers. The last of the Socket 939 cpu's (San Diego core) cpu's did in fact overclock massively. I saw guys getting low to mid 3's ghz on water, and about 3 on air with those, stable as rocks. The AMD's got more out of .4 of a ghz than an Intel Core2 will on .8. However, you have a Venice core (3200+) and as Sam intimates those did not overclock quite as well and heat was a bigger consideration with them due to their larger manufacturing process.Your best options for FS as I see it, if you want to keep the same motherboard, are:1) cpu: obtain an FX57 cpu and overclock it to 2.8-3.0 ghz. This will roll through FS9 like a freight train. You may need a BIOS update to run the FX57, and also they may be difficult to find on eBay . The FX57 will blow away a 4600+ in all respects, and will in fact run with the low end Core2's if overclocked. An FX57 is the same core as the 4000+ you mention, but the FX57 is stock clocked a little faster (2.6 vs 2.4 ghz if memory serves) and with that silicon you are more likely to obtain an stable air-cooled 3.0 ghz which puts you in FS9 nirvana. 4000+'s were more common and if you are unable to locate an FX57 then a 4000+ will do...again assuming you plan to keep the Socket 939 motherboard.2) hard drive: You have an IDE drive? Your motherboard may not take a SATA drive--I honestly can't remember if my Asus A8N-E took SATA's...I think it did...I ought to open it up sometime to refresh my memory. However I am not familiar with the A8V Deluxe, which I take to be very similar (same family of boards). The stutter you are seeing may be fragmentation or some other non-hd factor. Certainly I would look to other items (cpu) to upgrade first.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

>Your best options for FS as I see it, if you want to keep the>same motherboard, are:>For the time being I have to keep my current mobo due to pure economical reasons.>1) cpu: obtain an FX57 cpu and overclock it to 2.8-3.0 ghz. >This will roll through FS9 like a freight train. You may need>a BIOS update to run the FX57, and also they may be difficultI already have the latest BIOS. Surely FX57 is difficult to find and should I find one I must expect a high price. I have seen a FX55 on tradera(ebay). But can going from 2.5 GHz (current) to 3.0 GHz + a bigger cache (FX55 or FX57) give a very significant inprovement in performence? More than 2.0 to 2.5 GHz? What about Opteron? I have seen Opteron 165 and 185 out for sale. And I saw a review saying that an Opteron 185 outperformed a FX55 it replaced.>2) hard drive: You have an IDE drive? Your motherboard may>not take a SATA drive--I honestly can't remember if my AsusYes I have an IDE drive and yes my mobo can take SATA drivesbut only support SATI 150Gb/sec.>of boards). The stutter you are seeing may be fragmentation>or some other non-hd factor. Certainly I would look to other>items (cpu) to upgrade first.>My hd suspicion is because I see the HD LED flashing at the same time I see the stutter. I have run Ultimate Defrag 2008.

Ditch that mobo and proc and get a more modern mobo/proc combo is what I would do.You can get a decent mobo/proc combo for a few hundred, far more capable mobo/proc than what you have in there right now.Things you need to take into consideration though are the fact that you will need to get new RAM if you upgrade your mobo unless you get one of the ASRock Dual mobos which have slots for both 184pin (which you have now) and 240pin which all modern ram is. RAM is cheap though you can get 2GB for $50 easy, decent quality ram from well known manufacturers. Last consideration is your vid card, is it AGP or PCI-E? The 7950GT was made in both.

If I had to preface this with one over-arcing statement, it would be to say that you are already near the higher end of Socket 939 single-core (FS9) performance, and with that in mind, no cpu you upgrade to will deliver a whole lot more than what you've got already.But, if it can be done cheaply (say, $30-40) then it might be worth it to play around with.>>I already have the latest BIOS. Surely FX57 is difficult to>find and should I find one I must expect a high price.The FX57 was the fastest single-core cpu ever produced (beats any single core Intel ever made), and so it may have some residual value on the market because of that. ??If you can't find an FX57, I would look for a 4000+. It is an FX57 clocked 200 mhz slower. Be sure to bid on the Socket 939 version of the 4000+. AMD later made another 4000+ for the AM2 socket, but this is not the same cpu. A Socket 939 4000+ is simply a FX57 clocked down...same wafer, same San Diego core.> I have>seen a FX55 on tradera(ebay). But can going from 2.5 GHz>(current) to 3.0 GHz + a bigger cache (FX55 or FX57) give a>very significant inprovement in performence? More than 2.0 to>2.5 GHz? What you have right now is a Venice core, and the 3700+, 4000+, FX55 and FX57 are all San Diego cores. San Diego is a faster architecture, and a lower nm manufacturing process chip. Clock for clock they run faster and cooler.Any San Diego at 2.5 ghz will be a little faster than a Venice at the same clock speed. However, the difference is not great in terms of real world apps performance. You are looking at the latter end of the AMD single cores and you are already fairly close to their high end anyway. Venice cores were no slouches, they just ran a bit hotter. You are at best only going to see a small increase in performance, in my experience.The San Diego chips will overclock higher and cooler than what you have. As I said, that will translate into a small increase in FS performance. However, it may be worth xx $ to you, depending on what you can find for sale at some price.>What about Opteron? I have seen Opteron 165 and 185 out for>sale. And I saw a review saying that an Opteron 185>outperformed a FX55 it replaced.>Opty's I did not mess with much back then. I know a guy that ran a 165? overclocked and he always claimed it was as fast as the FX57's, and I never saw anything that made me think otherwise. I just had an aversion to putting server cpu's into a gamer PC that I built. :) No question the Opterons were solid cpu's. That is another option for you, if you can find one cheap.Not sure about the Opteron 185 and your motherboard. You may want to research that one. Again, I do not have experience with Opterons to any great degree.hope this rambling has been of some assistanceRhettFS 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

*I thought the difference were much biggerNope*Could it possible to just clone my whole current drive to new drive so don't have to reinstall everything?Yep*After searching this topic I found that some people do have problems (ovale gauhes) with it while others won't have itThat happens to any 2D in WS. Some are just more sensitive to it.*Yes I have an IDE drive and yes my mobo can take SATA drivesbut only support SATI 150Gb/sec.It's 1.5Gb/sec (aka 187MB/sec). Modern haddrives can only transfer at ~ 100MB/sec, so a mobo's capacity to handle up to 187MB/s is plenty.Here's the cost for a whole new rig with a quad at 3.6Ghz.http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746

>If you can't find an FX57, I would look for a 4000+. It is an>FX57 clocked 200 mhz slower. Be sure to bid on the Socket 939>version of the 4000+. AMD later made another 4000+ for the>AM2 socket, but this is not the same cpu. A Socket 939 4000+>is simply a FX57 clocked down...same wafer, same San Diego>core.>Actually it's 400 MHz slower. And there is an 4000+ on auction now and with you can have CPU cooler made for a AMD X2 CPU. And I suppose I will need a better cooler than my current 3200+ stock coller?>Opty's I did not mess with much back then. I know a guy that>ran a 165? overclocked and he always claimed it was as fast as>the FX57's, and I never saw anything that made me think>otherwise. I just had an aversion to putting server cpu's>into a gamer PC that I built. :) No question the Opterons>were solid cpu's. That is another option for you, if you can>find one cheap.>>Not sure about the Opteron 185 and your motherboard. You mayYes my mobo can take Opteron 185 but the last one I saw on tradera were not sold cheaply. On the other hand since it's a dual core I might find some use for FSX also, or?

>*Could it possible to just clone my whole current drive to new>drive so don't have to reinstall everything?>>Yep>Do I need a commercial software or can freeware do the job?>*Yes I have an IDE drive and yes my mobo can take SATA drives>but only support SATI 150Gb/sec.>>It's 1.5Gb/sec (aka 187MB/sec). Modern haddrives can only>transfer at ~ 100MB/sec, so a mobo's capacity to handle up to>187MB/s is plenty.>Is this not average values? Could it not be the case that since some tops are cut the average transfer rate will suffer compared to SATA 2?

*Do I need a commercial software or can freeware do the job?Some versions of vista can do this. Might be freeware around. Otherwise Norton or Acronis will work.* Is this not average values? Could it not be the case that since some tops are cut the average transfer rate will suffer compared to SATA 2?No. SATA buss capacity is an absolute (SATA 1 @ 187MB/s). HD transfer speed maximums are also an absolute (Modern HDs @ ~ 100MB/s. This will vary by ~ 10MB/s by mfg). SATA II has a capacity of 375MB/s. There are no existing consumer HDs that can use this. However I have a 3 drive raid 0 that transfers at ~ 280MB/s. If you're going there, SATA II is a - Requirement - . But don't bother. I can tell the difference, but no one else could (Who woulda thought?).