I'm a biochemist by trade so I'm by no means an expert, but I do understand the effect of using the smaller etching process, different materials, and other things like that. Nick, you of course understand fully and could explain it a lot better than I could. My comments are based on that and on the reading I've done over the last 1 1/2 years about the differences between 65nm & 45nm cpus. Avcomware, I think your request is fair enough. Here's an article from last year:http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3137Somewhere in the middle, page 4 I believe, they present data between the QX6850 and the QX9650. Ideal comparison, same clock, same FSB. To me it looks like around 5-10% general improvement. I see the same results elsewhere. I have not conducted controlled experiments on my own. The data already out there just looks conclusive.Not a big difference, but better nonetheless.I promise now I'll shut up.-jk

Hi JK and Nick.Thank you for the additional info.To JK. The results that you have pointed out are very much in line with what I was able to see during my own testing / benchmarking. Let me make sure we ALL understand that MSFS is Not taking advantage of the additional instructions built into Penryn. where some of the games listed at the site may/If that assumption is correct / a fact then at best, you can get is about 5% increase in some benchmarks, that, I believe, is not the best representation of MSFS, if that is true we are left with "nil" to about "2%". I would not consider these tests / benchmarks to have repeatability, accuracy to 100%. Including an error factor of an additional 2% we can say that it may be -2 to +4, which basically says that we are lucky if we get about 4% increase, at best.Now let's look the practical end of the argument. Someone gets a system that is $200.00 less expensive, the goal is to get the best performance for a fixed amount of money. Which system should / would one get, the less expensive, and over clock it to achieve the same performance, or the more expensive?I will tell you this, for a fact. I've run the my own MSFS bench, under very controlled with repeatable results, myself, and did not see a difference to justify the additional expense, assuming that your goal is the best bang for the buck.To Nick. It is / was not my intention to argue or dispute JK's statement. I wanted to see if when I ran my test I missed something. It looks like I did not. I do not post / say anything unless I have first hand knowledge about it.As far as Transistors, Switching times, Delays etc. I worked with Pico seconds the days that no one could really measure them properly, you may know the ECL technology, and my first Processor was 4004.As far as this particular die is concerned, I am sure you know better than most, and this is not a the best protected secret in the Industry, and I will not dispute it, it's capable of more, but it does not deliver. I am sure you know why. TV

I agree (I'm used to the hostility, but boy are you in for it now!). These 5% bumps in performance are meaningless. Even 10%, Even 50%. FSX needs 5X, 10X to make it purr. I went from FS9 on a P4 at 2.8Ghz (meaninglessly O/C'd to 3.2) to the Q6600 at 3.6Ghz. That was about a 10X (1000%) performance increase. FS9 was finally transformed. Now, I see folk chasing 10% bumps by risking outright fire damage to their systems and . . . well, know better. A 30% performance increase (a generous provision) may occur for the current gen Nehalem system over a 65nm build. I want to keep my old Q66, so a fresh build is ~ $1500 - $2000. The default airplanes already cruise at ~ max sliders in FSX. A Q6600 at 3.6/8800GT/4G on Vista 64 about has FSX under control. So all the "upgrade" nets a user is some more traffic for the default airplanes and an extra notch of AG the heavies (PMDG/LVLD).The scenery salespeople would insist that FS is entirely about looking out the window. I understand their enthusiasm (and financial interest) in this element of FS, but I disagree. There is a lot more to FS. Lots of us are primarily interested in the aviation aspect of FS. It's really hard to even call this a game. For $1500, that 30% lookin'-out-the-window scenery bump is not hard to skip.However if I still had an Athlon/Opteron, this may just be the right time. This is Great technology. It's simply a matter of where a builder/user is in an upgrade sequence.

WOW! Who knew that a few questions would cause such a stir. Thanks to everybody for all the info! I am upgrading from a Pentium D 805 that I OC'd to 3.5, my VC is a 8600 GT SSC w/256mb, 2 gigs ram cheap ram. After reading all this and saving and waiting for Nehalem and considering I enjoy the heavies as well as a great GA flight my new system will contain the following:i7 940 CPUASUS P6T deluxe MOBO750w PC Power and Cooling PSU(3 x 2)6 GB of Triple Channel OCZ DDR3 1333 CAS 7 RamEVGA GTX 260 w/896mb DDR3 ramcost: around 1500.00Flyin into KSEA in my LDS 767 and having sliders set as to not replicate the surface of the moon without bumping my head off the glare shield at 10 FPS..... Priceless!As for you Nick.... bring on Europe!Thanks All!

Great choice. That'll be - easily - a 10X (1000%) performance increase. It'll get you through 'til 40 (yes, Forty) cores become the norm . . . and cheap. But ya gotta O/C that thing to achieve its full value. Let us know how it goes.

Quad 45nm processor have about 820 million processors. Kentsfield processors have about 582 million transistors.Of course SSE4 and a few other additions will not serve FSX. As for new on die instructions that do have an impact, Intel

>WOW! Who knew that a few questions would cause such a stir.>Thanks to everybody for all the info! I am upgrading from a>Pentium D 805 that I OC'd to 3.5, my VC is a 8600 GT SSC>w/256mb, 2 gigs ram cheap ram. After reading all this and>saving and waiting for Nehalem and considering I enjoy the>heavies as well as a great GA flight my new system will>contain the following:>>i7 940 CPU>ASUS P6T deluxe MOBO>750w PC Power and Cooling PSU>(3 x 2)6 GB of Triple Channel OCZ DDR3 1333 CAS 7 Ram>EVGA GTX 260 w/896mb DDR3 ram>>cost: around 1500.00>>>Flyin into KSEA in my LDS 767 and having sliders set as to not>replicate the surface of the moon without bumping my head off>the glare shield at 10 FPS..... Priceless!>>As for you Nick.... bring on Europe!>>Thanks All!>I am with you...who would have thought all of this would have gone on. I am upgrading from an old system myself...P4 3ghz. No matter what I did I was going to improve...a lot. Nick did convince me to take at look at my memory so I will RMA the 3 gig and go with 6 gig. His logic is good about not having to throw away 3 gigs.....done that before and it is no fun.....when I do upgrade the OS or processor. That takes me over my budget and I will have to stick with the 920....there is no money left. I think I will be very happy with it and down the road maybe can drop a better processor in and not get stuck like I was with this DEll. They make the darn things so you can't even drop another m/b in it ...but I knew that and swore never again. Such is life. Hope you get great flying out of your system. Regards

Same to you as well! I would have gone with the 920 as well but a few things worked out in my way for a change which has allowed me the 940. I wont have all the parts till after Christmas but will post my experience with it, not to mention also I will be bugging the crap out of Nick N to help me clock her just right.

you should not have any problem with clocking.. The PalmOC feature is pretty handy on that board and clocking that proc is not a 'tweaking process' like it has been in the past, its pretty strait forward.

After 3 years of waiting, I'm finally ready to upgrade, and after reading Nicks response about the i7.... maybe, i'll be able to run and enjoy this sim like I use to with FS9.I wondering one thing. I'm really not an o/c type, but I just might become one, can someone tell the advantages/disadvantages of liquid cooling compared to air.I'm trying to get this upgrade to be the right choice, the wife will not let me upgrade again for a few years.Thank you for your time and consideration.Regards,ed

You don't need liquid cooling. Too much hassle, too expensive, and you won't get much from it over the better air coolers like the OCZ Vendetta2 and Thermalright Ultra 120 extreme. Just make sure to get the i7 series (socket 1366) mounting bracket-it's different than the socket 775 bracket. And get a good thermal paste, not a cheapo one.-jk

Hi Guys, I'm not qualified to voice an opinion either, however, I'm gonna.I used a friends QX6600 until I got my QX9650.....I just call em as I see em, the 9650 is far superior for MY uses in FS. I'm presently running it at 3.76 with a v core of 1.22......and have NO problems what so ever. Best damned MB and CPU combo I've ever had. Asus Maximus extreme MB and QX9650 chip. Works for me on air with Zalman cooler. Just my .02 cents worth from an unqualified user, Best to allClay http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Hi "Drac".Long time since I've had the pleasure to be on the same thread. I do not think that anyone disputes the QX9650 is faster than Q6600. You are now comparing a $999.00 processor with a $180.00. It just seems that people will say something, that really has nothing to do with OP tread, just to confuse the situation, for some reasons that I fail to understand. The original question is / was: "The CPU's in question are: Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz, Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz, or the i7 940 @ 2.93.........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?"Someone else had mentioned that:"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."Someone else decided that they know better and take this out of context, and posted:"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!"Totally outside the original intent of this OP. The MAIN points 3.0Ghz / Performance. Someone was trying to help save someone's money, and get basically the same performance, another gets in to bring it to 4.2 GHz. Why??I just happened to have run some tests along the same lines and I wanted to make sure that people understand the Facts, as they relate to the original OP, and wanted to make sure I did not miss anything when I did my Benchmarks, and questioned it. Here is the point, again, the clock / clock, one vs. the other the Q9650, $549.00 @ 3GHz vs 6600 @2.4, for $180.00 over clocked to 3 GHz then try to compare. But the main issue really is "What is the most efficient/ cost wise, for someone on the minimum budget to build?" Not some cats that have more money than they know what to do with.By the way, how is the Twin throttle, I sent you a while back, working? I got a note here that you are one of the people that I sent Free hardware to, except to pay for my shipping costs to them, that I never got paid for? ;) Is this the same person? I sure hope this stops, it's getting more and more confusing for people as it goes on. TV

>Hi "Drac".>Long time since I've had the pleasure to be on the same>thread. I do not think that anyone disputes the QX9650 is>faster than Q6600. You are now comparing a $999.00 processor>with a $180.00. It just seems that people will say something,>that really has nothing to do with OP tread, just to confuse>the situation, for some reasons that I fail to understand.>> The original question is / was:> "The CPU's in question are: Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz, Q9550 @ 2.83>GHz, or the i7 940 @ >2.93....>.....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?">>Someone else had mentioned that:>"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.">Someone else decided that they know better and take this out>of context, and posted:>"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!">>Totally outside the original intent of this OP. >> The MAIN points 3.0Ghz / Performance. >>Someone was trying to help save someone's money, and get>basically the same performance, another gets in to bring it to>4.2 GHz. Why??>>I just happened to have run some tests along the same lines>and I wanted to make sure that people understand the Facts, as>they relate to the original OP, and wanted to make sure I did>not miss anything when I did my Benchmarks, and questioned it.>>>Here is the point, again, the clock / clock, one vs. the other>the Q9650, $549.00 @ 3GHz vs 6600 @2.4, for $180.00 over>clocked to 3 GHz then try to compare. But the main issue>really is "What is the most efficient/ cost wise, for someone>on the minimum budget to build?" Not some cats that have more>money than they know what to do with.>>By the way, how is the Twin throttle, I sent you a while back,>working? I got a note here that you are one of the people that>I sent Free hardware to, except to pay for my shipping costs>to them, that I never got paid for? ;)> Is this the same person? >>I sure hope this stops, it's getting more and more confusing>for people as it goes on. TV>Nice job. It would have stopped, but people like you and Sam just keep adding fuel to the fire.:-newburnYou want to challenge me? Fine. I'm not an expert. You want to challenge Phil Taylor and Nick? Good luck! I'll just sit back and watch you both get your arguments shredded to pieces. It'll be fun! I tried to go back and address the OPs question and apologize for hijacking his thread (if you want to call disputing shoddy advice 'hijacking').If you want a quality FSX system it won't come cheap, not yet. @ OP: once again I apologize. I really hope you get yourself a good system set up and a satisfying FSX experience. :-lol -jk

I'll challenge you booyah! My Sempron will own your i7! BOOOYAAHH!LOL!