Time For A New System

[Guest simjunkie]

Very interesting to hear what you say here, I'm currently using a Q6600 @ 3.4 GHz and a 8800GT and normally I would have stayed with this system until the next version of FS but now after the sad news about ACES I thought of maybe getting a new system already to be able to run FSX as good as possible when it comes to performance even though you're using high settings. I'm rather pleased with my current system but surely it could be better.I've been thinking about upgrading to a i7 920 (which I would of course try to o/c as well) and maybe also replace my 8800GT with a new gfx card like a GTX285/295. I know a 295 might be overkill for FSX since it won't make much use of dual GPUs but I'm thinking if I upgrade now it would be great to be able to stay with this new system even when/if we see a new FS version which if that happens hopefully will make use of multiple GPUs. However what makes me hesitate is if the performance boost in FSX will be worth the money compared to my current system.I started another thread about this earlier today and someone said I wouldn't see much difference which caught me with a bit of surprise since I've read lots of good stuff about i7 from a FSX perspective. But what you say here is that you've noticed a real difference switching to an i7 from first a Q6600 and then on to a Q9650?Thanks in advance for any input because I would really like to get a computer that will be able to run FSX SMOOTHLY using high settings and I'm willing to pay for it but of course I don't want to throw my money away for nothing...

All I can say is please read here and the other sim forums about FSX and i7, learn how to clock that i7 because you will need to, don't get the GTX295, get the GTX285 instead (but on a 24" + size monitor), and know that FSX will still not be 100% perfect with the i7, or any HW right now. This is all about tuning to get the best we can.But FSX with addons like UTX, GEX, FEX, aircraft, mesh, AI, etc. really shines and gets rid of that ugly mustard-colored default scenery and flat terrain. The more addons you put on it the more it drags down that Q6600/DDR2 system and the more the i7 will improve things. Since FSX is here to stay might as well make it look & perform it's best.-jk

[Guest simjunkie]

Cheers guys for all the input. Unfortunately money is a bit of an issue, being a student and all that, so a Q9550 or an i7 are out of the window, the Q9550 is

[WebMaximus 372]

All I can say is please read here and the other sim forums about FSX and i7, learn how to clock that i7 because you will need to, don't get the GTX295, get the GTX285 instead (but on a 24" + size monitor), and know that FSX will still not be 100% perfect with the i7, or any HW right now. This is all about tuning to get the best we can.But FSX with addons like UTX, GEX, FEX, aircraft, mesh, AI, etc. really shines and gets rid of that ugly mustard-colored default scenery and flat terrain. The more addons you put on it the more it drags down that Q6600/DDR2 system and the more the i7 will improve things. Since FSX is here to stay might as well make it look & perform it's best.-jk

I did read lots of stuff both here on AVSIM and elsewhere and mostly everyone running FSX on an i7 seem very happy with it's performance and what it does for FSX. Reason I went a bit doubtful was someone told me I would hardly see no difference at all compared to what HW I'm running today.Would be great to find some FSX benchmarks where both a setup similar to my present one and the one I'm thinking of upgrading to are compared to see some actual figures. Good to hear though what you saying about the difference will be bigger the more addons you're using, I have all of those you mention and some others as well.Will do some more reading in the forums before I decide if I should go for a new system or sit back with what I've already got.Another question on the HW setup, I've noticed many i7 users use 3 2GB memory sticks - is there a special reason for so many choosing 3 sticks instead of 2 or 4 sticks?Thanks for your input!

[Guest CyberNerd952]

SimJunkie, no harshness taken, I understand what your saying and believe me if I could Iwould get an i7 system. Thanks for your advice anyway.Adam

[Guest JimBrown]

Another question on the HW setup, I've noticed many i7 users use 3 2GB memory sticks - is there a special reason for so many choosing 3 sticks instead of 2 or 4 sticks?

The i7 and the MB's that it fits are designed for "triple channel" memory. While 2 or 4 sticks can be run on them, they perform best with 3 sticks, specifically designated for use with the i7.Most users with i7's are using a 64bit OS. For best results with a 64bit OS and FSX, 6gb is optimum. 3gb (3 x 1gb) is just not quite enough.Regards,...jim

[Guest D17S]

True nuff, the i7 is designed with a triple channel memory system that can use ram in increments of 3 sticks. Its propose is to provide additional data throughput, if the memory can use it. However current memory is not even fully using the data throughput that dual channel provides with our last generation. For instance (drawing an analogy to hard drive tech), SATA II provides a data highway (the SATAii buss) that can accommodate 375MB/sec. However modern SATAII drive's max out at ~ 120MB/s. The SATA's buss capacity of 375 does not help these drives a bit. Actually the old ATA 150 would still provide plenty of "bandwidth" . . . and so it is with this new triple channel ram tech. It's a solution that does not yet have a problem to solve. Installing 2 sticks in an i7 will run the board in dual channel. This dual channel mode will fully utilize the bandwidth capacity of any ram available. Intel's implicit declaration that we must buy 3 sticks O ram at a time is disingenuous. If a builder is on a budget, 2 sticks (2x2) will provide identical performance as a 3 stick install in FS.

[Guest simjunkie]

The i7 and the MB's that it fits are designed for "triple channel" memory. While 2 or 4 sticks can be run on them, they perform best with 3 sticks, specifically designated for use with the i7.Most users with i7's are using a 64bit OS. For best results with a 64bit OS and FSX, 6gb is optimum. 3gb (3 x 1gb) is just not quite enough.Regards,...jim

Agreed. I've seen my total system memory usage during flights in big cities go up past 3.5Gb. So 3Gb is just not enough.And might as well get the 6Gb kit because it's still very affordable.-jk

[WebMaximus 372]

OK, thanks for your input guys! If I decide to go for this upgrade I will get 2x3 GB RAM since I'm running Vista Ultimate 64bit so my computer will make use of it even though FSX itself won't ever be able to use more than 4 GB max as I've understood it but considering Vista itself use up a pretty large bit of the memory itself I guess 6 GB is a good investment to make sure FSX always gets what it wants and can use.My biggest question right now is if I should go for a 940 or a 920 and say almost half of the money, what are your experience between these two versions of the i7 - is the 940 worth the extra money beeing a lot easier to push up to about 4 GHz or is the 920 almost as easy?

[Guest simjunkie]

OK, thanks for your input guys! If I decide to go for this upgrade I will get 2x3 GB RAM since I'm running Vista Ultimate 64bit so my computer will make use of it even though FSX itself won't ever be able to use more than 4 GB max as I've understood it but considering Vista itself use up a pretty large bit of the memory itself I guess 6 GB is a good investment to make sure FSX always gets what it wants and can use.My biggest question right now is if I should go for a 940 or a 920 and say almost half of the money, what are your experience between these two versions of the i7 - is the 940 worth the extra money beeing a lot easier to push up to about 4 GHz or is the 920 almost as easy?

The 940 is said to clock easier than the 920 but I have the 965 so I can't comment on the 920 or 940. I've seen lots of 920s @ 4GHz on xtremesystems.org forums and others too. However with the 940 you might have more memory multipliers (could be wrong about that). There apparently is a "luck-of-the-draw" situation with the integrated memory controller (IMC) on ALL core i7s. Some have IMC's that allow higher Bclocks than others. Here is the article:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...doc.aspx?i=3502So reaching 4GHz is not a sure thing with the 920 or 940. But like I said there are a lot of cpus running that fast.-jk