hi Nick,thanks for taking the time to post that info. great stuff. have you done any testing with the i7 and the AMD/ATI 4800 series cards? thanks in advance for any info. happy flyin, FM

Hi Nick,Would you consider running an evaluation of dual channel memory v. triple channel in the context of FSX? If I recall correctly, most reviews do not rate triple over double. That being the case for FSX too, I may be more inclined to wait for a cheaper i7 platform with just dual channel.ThanksSimon

>>No difference in perf between the 940 and 965 clocked except>multipler and the ability to work things a bit more>controlled>Nick, if I understand correctly are you saying that except for the initial 2.9GHz. vs 3.2GHz. difference between the 940 and 965 that I'm wasting my money going with the 965 if I don't plan on overclocking or am I misunderstanding you? Trying to make a final decision between the two in the next couple of days.Thanks,

Hi Simon,Here is an evaluation with dual channel and an i7 965 showing that FSX gets better results with an QX9770.http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_111a.htmlHowever I don't know how serious this eval is when I see that 1280x1024 is called a "high" resolution for FSX!:--)

Hi David,Thanks, not exactly the most encouraging review. I'll look forward to more news from Nick.RegardsSimon

Here's another. http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1665/1/i...t_it/index.htmlI've been seeing these results consistently in reviews. It appears that dual channel's plenty. They're suggesting that builders only populate 2 slots and this will cause the platform to run in dual channel. Will it do dat? If so, that might be something to consider. 3Gs is not enough for these pushing-the-edge 32bit addons and programs we're getting lately. However, while 6Gs (the other choice) certainly can be helpful to a user that needs to run 2 big 32bit programs simultaneously, that 6G loadout (x$$$) is Not useful for running a single XL 32bit program (like FSX + big bird). This triple channel setup might just be a revenue event. Remember when the "Memory Divider" stopped dividing? We O/Cers were forced to pony-up and buy ram at a minimum rating of 2x the FSB. Now we have to buy 3 (instead of 2) sticks of the darn stuff at a minimum rating of DDR3-1333. Consider: Each 100Mhz of ram speed will decrease latency by 2ns (at most) and the difference between 70ns and 45ns memory latency has generated only subjective real world results. Memory speed/latency (and now transfer bandwidth) has never been an especially helpful performance enhancer. Hummm.

>hi Nick,>>thanks for taking the time to post that info. great stuff.>have you done any testing with the i7 and the AMD/ATI 4800>series cards? thanks in advance for any info.I am not using ATi with FSX. The cards simply do not cut it in FSX for best performance under all flight conditions. They are better suited for other games.

>Hi Nick,>Would you consider running an evaluation of dual channel>memory v. triple channel in the context of FSX? If I recall>correctly, most reviews do not rate triple over double. That>being the case for FSX too, I may be more inclined to wait for>a cheaper i7 platform with just dual channel.Then I highly suggest you wait for Intel to drop pricing on their better quads such as the 9650 and go that route instead and plan on clocking it as high as you can. Use what ever extra you save to buy better memory and a video card for that.The bottom line is you are removing part of a primary reason for perf with the platform and that would be like buying a 8 cylinder car and removing fuel injectors. It makes absolutely no sense to remove or alter the performance design aspect Intel provided the platform.Do not nickel and dime your way into an upgrade. I understand budgets however one thing I would hope people on this board have learned by now is that if one tries to go cheap they will HIT WALLS in ability and be locked into a cycle/routine of spending for upgrades and after all is said and done they could have purchased the right components to begin with and spent less money over the haul, and, had a much more enjoyable sim experience in the process.That holds true for any platform decision, not just i7There is difference between buying 'fluff' and buying smart. Fluff is the multiplier although there is in fact a use for that pinpoint control and it is not needed unless one is tied into high clocking and needs that access to hit numbers they can not without pinpoint control. Motherboards that some claim are 'fluff' come with better power regulation and filtering, just to mention 2 very important areas, and the cost associated with the perks is not a market -conspiracy- to sell as some here would suggest. Those products when teamed up with the right memory allow a user a much greater range of stability and use.And if you buy OEM you do get what you pay for. A locked BIOS and stuck with little or no upgrade options.and yes, SimHQ made some very poor judgment mistakes in setup and in evaluation of the platform.

>Do not nickel and dime your way into an upgrade. I understand>budgets however one thing I would hope people on this board>have learned by now is that if one tries to go cheap they will>be locked into a cycle/routine of spending for upgrades and>after all is said and done they could have purchased the right>components to begin with and spent less money over the haul,>and, had a much more enjoyable sim experience in the process.>Also, if you end up upgrading your video card or what have you later, those parts may end up the in the recycle garbage can. There's enough e-waste around (unless you subscribe to freecycle.org or are able to sell it on ebay).

>Then I highly suggest you wait for Intel to drop pricing on>their better quads such as the 9650 Intel will not drop the price if we "want-it", which is the case, so dont expect them to fire sale anything of value.al

>Nick, what kind of cooling for the CPU would you go with? Is>the stock good or should it be replaced?>Just a follow up on thisAs posted below I am using the new Thermaright 120 Extreme 1366 however the socket 7 120 is the same heatsink. One can simply buy the 1366 backplate conversion bracket and use the 120 they may already own.

>>>>No difference in perf between the 940 and 965 clocked except>>multipler and the ability to work things a bit more>>controlled>>>>Nick, if I understand correctly are you saying that except for>the initial 2.9GHz. vs 3.2GHz. difference between the 940 and>965 >that I'm wasting my money going with the 965 if I don't plan>on overclocking or am I misunderstanding you? Trying to make>a final decision between the two in the next couple of days.>Thats an expensive 270MHz You would need to make that call. The 965 would be the easier processor to clock and you could make a simple multiplier change on the stock heatsink and gain another 300-400MHz on the 965 giving you a 570-670MHz gain over the 940 unclocked. Then again you could do some clocking with the 940 and probably match that on the factory HSF, perhaps a bit less.+270MHz with i7 is a better gain than +270MHz with Intel Q however whether or not that gain is worth 500 bucks to you and not clock, you have to decideThe reason for the preimuim price with ANY extreme Intel processor is not the perf[/], its the multiplier availability

>>Then I highly suggest you wait for Intel to drop pricing on>>their better quads such as the 9650 >>>Intel will not drop the price if we "want-it", which is the>case, so dont expect them to fire sale anything of value.>>alWhich is another reason why I said not to nickle and dime into a systemEven if they do drop cost, by the time one adds up a decent DDR2 proc, motherboard, memory and VC they will probably find they could spend a few hundred more and get into a decent i7 system with room to grow. With DDR2 one is stuck, dead in the water

>>You would need to make that call. The 965 would be the easier>processor to clock and you could make a simple multiplier>change on the stock heatsink and gain another 300-400MHz on>the 965 giving you a 570-670MHz gain over the 940 unclocked.>Then again you could do some clocking with the 940 and>probably match that on the factory HSF, perhaps a bit less.>Thanks, Nick. I guess I'll go ahead and get the 965 simply for the fact that "if" I decide to OC then it would be easier to do. Also, since now OC is a possibility is there any downside to installing 1600 RAM now even if I don't OC instead of the 1333 which I was going to get? In other words, can I just throw it in there or will I still have to make some adjustments for it to be usable? I realize it wouldn't be using its full potential without OC, but would be available later if needed. Or can I moderately OC using 1333?Sorry for all the questions (hopefully they'll be useful for others,too), but I'm new to the OC stuff and have been reading a lot on the procedure for the i7 now that you've got me interested.

It really depends on how much playing you intend to doThe way I look at it is why limit yourself especially if you are going to throw down the money on the extreme.You can work that 1600 memory and its timing manually in the BIOS and have options as you may learn and grow with the system. I will probably be moving to 1866 and higher when its released.If you really want to get the best you can out of that or the 940 processor then you do need to install a HSF that is better than the one that comes with the procThey are kinda scarce at retailers today but I think by next week they will be out there in numbers but dont waste time when you seen them posted. The Thermalright 120 Extreme 1366 model comes with the fan and will handle the 920/940/965 up through 4GHzThose who already have the Thermalright 120 can simply order the 1366 conversion mount kit from Thermalright as it is the same heatsink just a different backplate/mounti7 is a bit different than Q however the principle of why a user may want the extreme over the other versions is the same...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=46302&page=i7 does not impose the same restrictions and limitations as Q for memory options... your not changing FSB (although you can) to make the proc deliver the goods. Clocking the 920/940 is a different process than the 965 but the 965 can be clocked the same way too... its about options, not performanceYou really do have more options to play with on the extreme but clock-per=clock its not any faster/slower than the 940The only reason one would forgo 1600 and just get 1333 is becasue they have decide with all certainty "I am not going to ever clock this processor"