hey all. i posted a few days ago about a new rig for a broke college student, i have decided to build it for FSX. and since then all i have been doing is research and reading these forums on what to get. mainly i have been contemplating what CPU to build around on. and to keep the price down, i have decided to try to build my self. but the thing is that i know how to use computers well, and i know the components, but as far as building is concerned, installing a new graphics card is about as much experience as i have. would i be able to build it by myself? and i have read that what CPU to get is some what based on what type of flying you do and also others things and games you plan on playing on the PC. the only thing i am concerned about with this PC is FSX performance, i wont be doing any multi media stuff or playing other games on it, just FSX. and as to the type of flying that i do in FSX, i only fly airliners, and only use payware add-ons for aircraft. i will mainly be flying the PMDG MD-11/ 744 and LD767. and i will most likely be flying into large cities and airports, KORD, JFK, ect. on my current rig, with the PMDG 744 in fs9, i would be lucky to get 15 fps sitting on the tarmac and 20 fps in cruise. and coming in to land was a slideshow. the CPU's that i have been considering are, the E8600, or the i7920. possibly even the Q9550. i dont know how to OC, but if i got some help i would be willing to do a little OC on the cpu. the screen i will be using is 16.5 inches wide and 9.5 inches in height, and those are the measurements of the actual viewing surface.thanks alot for any help, i really appreciate it. this is all sort of overwhelming for me as i always had pre built PCs from dell.adam

Here's about the best FS value available today. https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedW...aspx?ID=7159746Overclock this Q to 3.6 and this'll run the PMDG stuff as well as any, plus keep the scenery loaded. A dual will get another 10% clock increase, but 20 to 22 FPS is meaningless. Giving up 50% horsepower (2 cores) for 2 FPS is ahhh, contraindicated.

After more readings, now im starting to consider getting the Q9550. Would this be any good for me? ThanksAdam

The Q9550 has a 8.5 multi. To get 3.6, the FSB has to go to ~ 425Mhz. That's beyond the P35's (et al) rated 400Mhz. It costs $300.The Q6600 has a 9.0 multi. To get 3.6, the FSB has to go to ~ 400Mhz. That's exactly the P35's (et al) rated 400Mhz. It costs $175.There will be no decipherable performance difference between these 2 CPUs running at 3.6 . . . .except the Q9 will be - Less - stable because of the higher FSB. The Q9 will use less power . . . that will only be discernible in installations of 1000s of CPUs, like a server farm. It will also run cooler, but modern air coolers handle the Q6 heat without a problem. The only real challenge is to deal with all the brow-beating one will certainly endure for using what Intel desperately needs us to believe is an old-gen part.

Why not go with a Phenom or the i7Cores? I myself am just learning all the OC stuff, I am just worried about zapping a CPU while trying to set it up!

im worried about the same thing with OC. its so overwhelming deciding what to pick. to go quad core or not to go? some people say yes, others say no. decisions decisions ahhhhh!adam

If I wanted to sneak up on it, I'd buy an i7/920, 2x2 sticks of DDR3-1600 ram (Yes, - 2 - sticks) and a GTX260. Then I'd just run it. No overclock at all. The i7 platform's 3 channel ram is pure hype (for this gen's stuff). That 3rd stick (5th and 6th G) Cannot be used by FS and will provide No performance improvement. That 920 will preform about the same as a Q9550 at ~ 3.0 (or a Q6600 at 3.0 for that matter). Why the i7, then? First, there's no tweaking to do. Just run it stock ( . . . . for now anyway!) There's nothing like having the hardware at your feet to inspire real learning. That little ol' 920 will overclock to 3.8Ghz when you are ready. Now ThaT will be the same as any current Q at ~ 4.2Ghz. The current Q6s or Q9s won't go there (for 300 clams). That's your target, but not off-the-bat. Sneak up on it.