Hey Mitch, I have noticed a few times you mention you have an addon for Miami. What is it? I'm not aware of any Miami scenery except the horrible MegaSceneryEarth Miami tiles I bought a while back.

Found it: Here you go....http://www.flywestwind.com/Scenery/scenery...sp?SceneryID=10Mitch

Found it: Here you go....http://www.flywestwind.com/Scenery/scenery...sp?SceneryID=10Mitch

Thanks. I didn't know it was for a VA and I didn't know you where in a VA.

Thanks. I didn't know it was for a VA and I didn't know you where in a VA.

You're welcome :)I've been flight sim'ming ....for a long...long...time...lol.:)Just new to modern hardware, LOL!Mitch

I have the same system you just ordered and unfortunately, you will not be able to adjust Turbo like in the video. The BIOS does not have those entries. Just enable Turbo mode. I would not worry. The i7 975 at stock is pretty fast.

----------------------------I fully agree. You can leave the 975 at stock...and get stellar performance!Totally.

Mitch, you are often referring to Nick N's advice in this thread. Can you point me to the topic that all these referals and suggestions are made regarding hardware. I know of Nick's set-up guide but would be interested to see the hardware set-up e.g. where he recommends MUshkin memory anf timings etc.. I too have a recent purchased i7 975 Extreme and am waiting for my new mobo and a few more bits to order so would like to review the suggestions prior to placing final orders.Many thanks, and keep on enjoying your new experience. Your enthusiasm is so refreshhing !

You're welcome :)I've been flight sim'ming ....for a long...long...time...lol.:)Just new to modern hardware, LOL!Mitch

LOL, me too, since the 80's :(

did some more testing: the 975 is really an amazing best. here is a benchmark showing how overclocking is essentially pointless with this new chip: http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-975-review/14The Kribi bench simulates FSX very well, as it is pure CPU-based 3d rendering.

did some more testing: the 975 is really an amazing best. here is a benchmark showing how overclocking is essentially pointless with this new chip: http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-975-review/14The Kribi bench simulates FSX very well, as it is pure CPU-based 3d rendering.

I would have to argue that if you take the time to read the entire 19 page article, they speak pretty warmly of overclocking the 975. They also speak highly of purchasing a 965 and OC'ing that to match the 975. In a lot of the tests they run you see a significant difference when the 975 is OC'd to 4.0 it just depends on the CPU/GPU dependency of the particular test...I will have to admit though, the only issue they really find with the 975 is the price but they re-iterate what Mitch has said, you will forget about it as soon as you fire up the 975.Cheers,-PaulPS, I am starting to piece together my own upgrade after reading Mitch's post(s) ;) I have my first liquid cooled GTX285 coming tomorrow to replace one of my 8800GTX cards. Then I will add the 2nd GTX285 and go for the guts, Mobo, Processor and Memory as prices drop a little bit... (I hope)

Mitch, you are often referring to Nick N's advice in this thread. Can you point me to the topic that all these referals and suggestions are made regarding hardware. I know of Nick's set-up guide but would be interested to see the hardware set-up e.g. where he recommends MUshkin memory anf timings etc.. I too have a recent purchased i7 975 Extreme and am waiting for my new mobo and a few more bits to order so would like to review the suggestions prior to placing final orders.Many thanks, and keep on enjoying your new experience. Your enthusiasm is so refreshhing !

Hi,Just do a POSTER search with Sesquashtoo in the search mask: in the MOBO, RAM, etc FORUM You will then bring up all the topics you want to browse through.Cheers!

I would have to argue that if you take the time to read the entire 19 page article, they speak pretty warmly of overclocking the 975. They also speak highly of purchasing a 965 and OC'ing that to match the 975. In a lot of the tests they run you see a significant difference when the 975 is OC'd to 4.0 it just depends on the CPU/GPU dependency of the particular test...

With other programs that depend on FPU more, yes. But I see very little difference in FSX. The biggest I could find was at YMML with the Orbx scenery. It's not worth considering that running the PC at 4.0 almost doubles your power consumption. At least I think so. I locked it at 60 fps and I get a constant 60 in the PMDG MD-11 througout the flight. It dips into the 40ies, sometimes 30, and the high twenties at big, busy airports like RJAA. When I o/c it, I have 2-3 more fps during landing, but the same 60 fps thoughout the whole flight. So what's the point in waisting energy? There might be add-ons which really need the o/c, but I don't see it yet. Intel's slowly making O/C a think of the past.

With other programs that depend on FPU more, yes. But I see very little difference in FSX. The biggest I could find was at YMML with the Orbx scenery. It's not worth considering that running the PC at 4.0 almost doubles your power consumption. At least I think so. I locked it at 60 fps and I get a constant 60 in the PMDG MD-11 througout the flight. It dips into the 40ies, sometimes 30, and the high twenties at big, busy airports like RJAA. When I o/c it, I have 2-3 more fps during landing, but the same 60 fps thoughout the whole flight. So what's the point in waisting energy? There might be add-ons which really need the o/c, but I don't see it yet. Intel's slowly making O/C a think of the past.

---------------------------------------------------I agree! I got the exact same results as you...a yield of only about 2-3 FPS at 4.2 GHz. Not worth putting any out-of-spec stress on the system, or specifically the CPU. I'd rather keep the chip for as long as I have had my still-humming Pentium 4 3.4GHz. I'm now running at 27-26-26-26 bin speed in Turbo Mode, and easily maintain 30 FPS throughout most scenery scenarios in FSX. Most satisfied with that! With Turbo, the CPU reaches 3.6 GHz when load demand needs it, and happily, totally within its specified norm. My take, is that Intel designed and built one heck of an efficient CPU design in the Core-i7 and it is its efficiency that drives great FPS, and not so much the GHz number's game. Just my opinion.

Help me out with any misconceptions here. I can get the same experience you guys are getting on your 975 by overclocking a 920 to the same frequency level? If I can't, why not? My understand is the only differences are unlocked multiplier and faster quickpath on the 975. In raising Bclk to get the overclock there is more heat to deal with compared with raising the multipler, but not detremental to FSX performance? And QPI rises with blck anyway?ThanksSimon

It is not quite true that the 920 and the 975 will perform equally on the same frequency. The high-end chips are not just chips with unlocked multiplier, they are also the best performing chips in the post-production tests. In layman's terms, when you buy a 975, you buy a chip that has passed all of these tests with flying colours and has been tested to run perfectly at higher frequencies. When you buy a 920, you buy a chip that passed standard tests for its class.A 920 is a chip which by definition Intel considers only fit enough to run at 2.6 GHz. You may get lucky and get a very good chip which performs excellently at higher frequencies. Intel usually supplies the better lots to the retail channel, and the standard stuff to Dell, HP & Co (one reason why you never want to buy a prebuilt off-the-shelf system). But even so, a bit of luck is involved. Finally, the 975 is the first chip which dynamically adjusts the performance of each core according to load. I am not absolutely clear yet what the difference to the 920 is in that respect, but it is remarkable how smooth my 975 runs at stock speeds, how little difference o/c makes, how cool it stays even under load. Even though every o/c website out there and every other post in this forum, tries to tell us that the high-end processors are a marketing gimmick and a ripoff, I can't help but think that Intel is providing value for money after all. I have a 920 system o/c to 4 GHz to compare my 975 to, and the 920@GHz doesn't run nearly as smooth, and has lower fps than my 975 at stock. It's a bit pointless to compare systems though in terms of 2-5 fps diifference, these could come from anywhere. I am sure it is possible to have a 920 run equal to a 975, no doubt. But you are burning up to 300W on 4GHz, while my 975 does the same at 140W - so in the long run (and my PC is on 24h), the 975 might be even cheaper to run.

It is not quite true that the 920 and the 975 will perform equally on the same frequency. The high-end chips are not just chips with unlocked multiplier, they are also the best performing chips in the post-production tests. In layman's terms, when you buy a 975, you buy a chip that has passed all of these tests with flying colours and has been tested to run perfectly at higher frequencies. When you buy a 920, you buy a chip that passed standard tests for its class.A 920 is a chip which by definition Intel considers only fit enough to run at 2.6 GHz. You may get lucky and get a very good chip which performs excellently at higher frequencies. Intel usually supplies the better lots to the retail channel, and the standard stuff to Dell, HP & Co (one reason why you never want to buy a prebuilt off-the-shelf system). But even so, a bit of luck is involved. Finally, the 975 is the first chip which dynamically adjusts the performance of each core according to load. I am not absolutely clear yet what the difference to the 920 is in that respect, but it is remarkable how smooth my 975 runs at stock speeds, how little difference o/c makes, how cool it stays even under load. Even though every o/c website out there and every other post in this forum, tries to tell us that the high-end processors are a marketing gimmick and a ripoff, I can't help but think that Intel is providing value for money after all. I have a 920 system o/c to 4 GHz to compare my 975 to, and the 920@GHz doesn't run nearly as smooth, and has lower fps than my 975 at stock. It's a bit pointless to compare systems though in terms of 2-5 fps diifference, these could come from anywhere. I am sure it is possible to have a 920 run equal to a 975, no doubt. But you are burning up to 300W on 4GHz, while my 975 does the same at 140W - so in the long run (and my PC is on 24h), the 975 might be even cheaper to run.

How about comparing 975 to 960, rather than 920? How big is the price difference and potential?Thanks,Dirk.

A 920 is a chip which by definition Intel considers only fit enough to run at 2.6 GHz. You may get lucky and get a very good chip which performs excellently at higher frequencies. Intel usually supplies the better lots to the retail channel, and the standard stuff to Dell, HP & Co (one reason why you never want to buy a prebuilt off-the-shelf system). But even so, a bit of luck is involved. --------------------------------------------Now WHERE did you ever arrive at this? You have got to be kidding, right? Dell, HP, the rest...are Intel's largest distribution volume and keeps them in business, not the units on computer store shelves. If you are saying that buying a pre-built from a very reputable company is luck-of-the-draw...then I guess that I am very lucky with two new systems from Dell, my significant other with her laptop from Dell, too many persons in the office to mention that all rave about their Dell's with no downtime, the each of them. I have never had one issue on ANY component with my seven year old P4 system, and it looks like another good-to-go with the 730x! :)to infer; 'They ship 'standard' stuff ie: CPU shipments' to their bread-and-butter customers...'You made me smile...:)Back to regular scheduled programming...