Im ready to build my new system and have a few questions.The CPU's in question are: Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz, Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz, or the i7 940 @ 2.931) Would I see much difference from the Q9550 vs the Q9650 to justify the extra money? Which one would OC better?2) I havent seen anybody post about the i7 940 here as of yet so how or does anybody know yet how the Q9650 would compare to the i7940? These 2 can be had for almost the same price. Im not in the market for an Extreme version but am willing to pay for the next best. What do you guys (gals) think and what other options would be equally as good?

>Im ready to build my new system and have a few questions.>>The CPU's in question are: Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz, Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz,>or the i7 940 @ 2.93>>1) Would I see much difference from the Q9550 vs the Q9650 to>justify the extra money? Which one would OC better?>>>2) I havent seen anybody post about the i7 940 here as of yet>so how or does anybody know yet how the Q9650 would compare to>the i7940? These 2 can be had for almost the same price. >>Im not in the market for an Extreme version but am willing to>pay for the next best. What do you guys (gals) think and what>other options would be equally as good? I think you will find the i7 940 will be much better than the Q96 or Q95. I am sure someone else will chime in. Don't let anyone tell you the i7 920 and 940 can't be OC. If you want I will give you a link to a video that shows you how simple it is.

Hi. Go to this site http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-c...965/page11.html and check out the comparisons between the 920, 940, 965 (overclocked and stock), 9650, and others. Quite a few different tests done and analyzed. I'm getting ready to purchase an i7 940 in a few days. Just bought the Asus P6T Deluxe motherboard today. Also, GTX 280. BTW, I had almost decided to get a Q9650 myself.Alphahawk, I'd like to check out that video, too. ThanksJeff

I have no experience of the Q9650 or the Q9550, being an AMD man myself, but after reading a computer magazine review here in the UK, I'd say if you can afford it right now, go down the Core i7 route, bearing in mind the RAM and Motherboards for this route will be quite expensive for a while.The magazine reviewed the Core i7 920 @ 2.66GHZ, which they managed to overclock to 4.1GHz by raising the QPI on the motherboard from 133 to 205MHz, plus the usual voltage tweaks to get it stable. The score of 6.218 seconds running WPrime on this overclocked CPU was the second fastest in the world at the time of going to press. Motherboard used was the new MSI Eclipse, and RAM was 3Gb of Corsair DDR3 PC3-10666. They also suggested the Akasa Nero for cooling. Another recommnded motherboard was the ASUS Rampage II Extreme.Hands down, the Core i7 is beating every other processor they compare it to both at stock and overclocked speeds, and it seems like it overclocks like a small dog on heat. It's the CPU to have if you want the best.

Jeff, I ordered the P6 m/b with the Palm for OC...yes maybe over the top but I did it. I will be cooling with air only but I expect to get to a little over 3 ghz with this thing and stay safe. I have not tried to OC since I left Saudi in 2001. I must say it was more difficult then and we fried a lot of chips...LOL. But I had more disposable income then and it was no big deal....not so now. I have to be careful. All of this stuff will be sitting in my floor for a week or maybe two before I can start on it....maybe. I am having carpal tunnel done on Monday and I expect the shipment to be here on Wednesday. Reading and a few answers from NickN kind of pushed me to the i7. Not that he pushed me to buy an i7 but just reading his opinions swayed me. Here is one of his latest posts on his monster rig. http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/Ya...um=1227245381/3 Regards

The only difference between the Qs is the 9x vs the 8.5x multiplier. Otherwise, they are identical. FPS in FS increases/decreases in direct relation to the CPU's clock. In other words, the performance difference between the Qs will not be noticeable.Also, since they are identical CPUs, they will overclock identically. A 24/7 stable, non-stressed overclock will require the FSB to be increased to 400Mhz. 400 x 9 or (8.5) = 3.6Ghz (3.4Ghz) CPU speed. Interestingly a Q6600 has an identical 9x multiplier and will overclock to an identical speed, 3.Ghz. -- Clock for clock, there is no performance advantage for the 45nm Penryns over the 65nm Core2s. For a build at this moment, the Q6600 is MuCh cheaper and can provide the same FS performance as the 45nm Qs. However, it looks like the i7s WILL provide a ~ 30% clock for clock increase, but at a price. The cheapest i7 quad is ~ $300, but it doesn't stop there. The new mobos are another #300. Then there's that useless triple channel ram. Ya gotta buy 3 sticks of that more expensive, but equally useless DDR3. Now, three sticks of 1G/ea will only get cha 3Gs of total system memory. With these big addons and 64bit op systems, 3G is not enough. So a user is stuck buying 3 sticks of 2G/ea. There's another $300. That extra 2G of ram (6 vs 4) will not help FS performance. The most FSX can use under Any circumstances is 4G of physical ram (actually a bit less).That's ~ $900 for a 30% increase in clock for clock performance. At least that's better than the $1000 for the 10% (utterly subjective) clock for clock bumps we've had suggested with a chancy memory overclock.Mobos, ram and the CPUs $$$ will come down after Xmas. It really looks like the i7 will be the one to have for a new build. However the price needs to come down to current CPU/mobo/DDR2 ram levels. Right now, Intel's just picking the low hanging fruits.

> I think you will find the i7 940 will be much better than the>Q96 or Q95. I am sure someone else will chime in. Don't let>anyone tell you the i7 920 and 940 can't be OC. If you want I>will give you a link to a video that shows you how simple it>is.Alphahawk3, I would like to see that OC video! Thanks!Jim

Jeff, I thought I posted that link...to late at night I guess. Oh well here it is http://www.viddler.com/explore/HardOCP/videos/20/ seems simple to me...Sometimes I wonder about this hobby of flight simming and is it just about getting the most out of the program that keeps us buying and tweaking or do we really want the best performance we can get....of course we all do but what if MS came out with a version that gave us all we wanted on just about any reasonable PC...LOL I guess we would not be needing this forum....LOL. I am chomping at the bit to get mine up and running and as I have not done a build in many years.....hope it all goes well. Regards

>The only difference between the Qs is the 9x vs the 8.5x>multiplier. Otherwise, they are identical. FPS in FS>increases/decreases in direct relation to the CPU's clock. In>other words, the performance difference between the Qs will>not be noticeable.>>Also, since they are identical CPUs, they will overclock>identically. A 24/7 stable, non-stressed overclock will>require the FSB to be increased to 400Mhz. 400 x 9 or (8.5) =>3.6Ghz (3.4Ghz) CPU speed. Interestingly a Q6600 has an>identical 9x multiplier and will overclock to an identical>speed, 3.Ghz. -- Clock for clock, there is no performance>advantage for the 45nm Penryns over the 65nm Core2s. For a>build at this moment, the Q6600 is MuCh cheaper and can>provide the same FS performance as the 45nm Qs.>>However, it looks like the i7s WILL provide a ~ 30% clock for>clock increase, but at a price. The cheapest i7 quad is ~>$300, but it doesn't stop there. The new mobos are another>#300. Then there's that useless triple channel ram. Ya gotta>buy 3 sticks of that more expensive, but equally useless DDR3.>>>Now, three sticks of 1G/ea will only get cha 3Gs of total>system memory. With these big addons and 64bit op systems, 3G>is not enough. So a user is stuck buying 3 sticks of 2G/ea.>There's another $300. That extra 2G of ram (6 vs 4) will not>help FS performance. The most FSX can use under Any>circumstances is 4G of physical ram (actually a bit less).>>That's ~ $900 for a 30% increase in clock for clock>performance. At least that's better than the $1000 for the 10%>(utterly subjective) clock for clock bumps we've had suggested>with a chancy memory overclock.>>Mobos, ram and the CPUs $$$ will come down after Xmas. It>really looks like the i7 will be the one to have for a new>build. However the price needs to come down to current>CPU/mobo/DDR2 ram levels. Right now, Intel's just picking the>low hanging fruits.There so much wrong with what you just said. I'll only address a couple things:The 45nm Penryns have been shown to be around 10% faster clock-for-clock than the 65nm Kentsfields. Go do your research.The C1 stepping Q9550 is nowhere NEAR as good a cpu as an E0 Q9650. Not even close. I have a Q9650. Let me see ANY Q6600 or Q9550 run 4.2 GHZ at 1.3 vcore and under 65 deg C full load ON AIR!There's two of your arguments busted right there.-jk

Its time to leave the wilderness and enter the promised landi7940 will clock just finedont mess with 920Good 3x2GB (6gigs) OCZ 1333 CAS 7 and 1600 CAS 8 memory is dirt cheap compared to 2x2GB (4gigs) product for prior DDR3 systems and rebates are a'flyinit was the easiest clock I ever set upand dont let any overblown opinions sway youJust do it

Nick, You seem to be busier than probably when you were working for Boeing...I think that is right.....LOL. Now should I really RMA the 920?I read a lot of stuff on here but when you speak I tend to listen a little closer. Heck of a discussion you had going on in that other thread...whew. I will go to either the 940 or the 965 chip next year but I want to fly this winter. I have added and extra dollar here and there til I topped out my budget and from all I can gather I will be blown away coming off a P4 3ghz and when I do get the funds my m/b and all else will be paid for and I will be ready to go. As I may have mentioned to you somewhere along the way I do 95% of my flying in the winter....golf....fish in spring.....summer....fall. Besides Raytheon retirement is not that great...LOL. So do you really think the 920 is not that good? Regards

Nick, Why not mess with the 920? From what I have been reading it can OC very well. Will the difference from the 920 to the 940 be worth it? Also if I want to stay with XP 32 bit will I still need the 6 GB of ram? If I do go with the 940 will my 750w PC Power & Cooling PSU be able to handle it?Sorry for what may be stupid questions but Im still learning the ropes with this stuff. It helps ALOT if you are a tech nut with FS. I must admit that this learning process is equally fun, for me at least maybe not for others.I am going to run this on the Asus P6T Deluxe MOBO.

>At least that's better than the $1000 for the 10%>(utterly subjective) clock for clock bumps we've had suggested>with a chancy memory overclock.>You keep on and keep on don't you. You challenge the experts with little remarks like that. You're not qualified to make that remark.-jk

The 750 PSU will be more than enoughIm going to make this real simple for everyoneyou can save about 100 bucks by going 3x1GB which is fine if that is the limit you wish to place on the purchase and do keep in mind when you do wish to eventually upgrade the OS later you will be buying memory AGAIN so the savings is right out the door as you will pay more for more memory or replacements than you would to buy it all now. Even if running 6GB you will still have access to 4 with the 32bit OS, 3.2GB useful to FSX. With 3GB you will be just over 2GB useful to FSX so you are limiting yourself with a 3x1GB purchase even if you can not use all 6 right now.but DO make sure its the lowest CAS memory you can buy at the speed you wish to purchaseI understand budgets but when you consider that for every 100MHz faster you can run that 940 over the 920 you are getting more for your money in FSX than you ever would with a QX9770 So if you can spend a bit more do yourself a favor and dont nickle and dime your way into the upgrade. Do it right and be happy for a long time.The choice is up to the buyer.

Hi JK.>The 45nm Penryns have been shown to be around 10% faster clock-for-clock than the 65nm Kentsfields. Go do your research.