Intel Core i7 920 (2.67 GHZ i think)GIGABYTE EX58-UD5 MotherboardRam OCZ 6GB DDR31000GB HD split into 3 at 200/200/600 with 600GB belonging to only FS.GTX 260 896MBWindows Vista Ultimate 64 bitsPower Supply 500WOK so yes this new system improved a lot but tell me if it's just me or you think my system is under performing:I was in VC of PMDG MD-11 parked at Cloud 9 EHAM gate while preparing for flight to TNCMFPS when looking outside was good when not looking at many planed and buildings. Over 30I have FS9 set everything to MAX and clouds coverage is maximum. USE ASA, FE and GE Pro. 100 percent traffic of AI TrafficWhen i was in VC and looking at planes and terminals. FPS drop to like to 15-17? Isn't this too low?? When i fly high no problem i get 50 fps. i limit it there cos unlimited fps get me sound stutter and when i tried, i reached maximum of around 70 only? Is my PC still under-performing or am i just thinking too much. I just thinking it should be a bit better???Please advise. Just landed now with PA320 at FSDT KJFJ and FPS was around 22. When parked and on external view with other planes and terminal around 15-22.I don't know i just get the feeling my PC isn't performing anywhere near it should. Feels like it could perform a lot better.Hope to hear from you soon. Like this if i fly PMDG 747 VC out of JFK i guess FPS could be a problem.Please suggest any improvement if anyone can.I am just confused cos this is my friend's PC and he reported this! Looks like he's having a blast!

P5K deluxeC2Q Q6600 @ 3GHz2Go of PC6400 DDR2GeForce 8800 GTS w 640Mo DDR3350 Go Sata drivewin vista 32bitsWhat I get isFS9 all maxed out with full AI traffic :- 130 & up fps flying high- 75 fps at major cities (flying low or on ground)- 60 fps at big payware airports (paris CDG)FSX all maxed out except normal atogen, and 50% traffic :- 30 fps flying high- 21 fps at major cities (flying low or on ground)- 4 - 10 fps at big payware airports :(

ThanksBest WishesSwadeep

id get a bigger power supply and use them 2 200gig HD as a raid 0. and overclock your i7. what resolution do you play at? for fs2004 that seems very bad imo.and did you assume buying a more expenisve i7 chip would be better.

I play at 1920 * 1200. This is FS9 btw that's why I am confused. Can more power supply help?If this was FSX wudnt complain at all :)

I play at 1920 * 1200. This is FS9 btw that's why I am confused. Can more power supply help?If this was FSX wudnt complain at all :)

To be honest with your system you need to go to FSX. System constraints and so many add-ons are the only reason alot of FS9ers are not using FSX. You have all the equipment and Harddrive capacity and it is time for you to move up. I don't think you would have these problems with FSX.Carl Perry FS9 user

I wouldn't say your machine is underperforming. I just tested the same situation, terminal at EHAM (Cloud9), MD-11 VC, I have no AI (only flying online), ASA clouds (many of them) looking around - 23fps. (see hardware in sig)Since i7 is running at 2,67Ghz, and since FS9 is very much CPU dependable, just like FSX, you are getting reasonable FPS for your setup. Notice I have a weaker GPU than yourself, so if I had GTX260, I would probably be looking at up to 30fps or about.With FS9/FSX, its all about the real muscle, the clock speed. 2nd is the GPU and what it can pull - GPU is more for rendition and better GPU, more AA/AF with less FPS drop can you achieve.For overclocking you will need stronger PSU, the 500w one won't cut it. With decent cooling you will get some pretty decent results.

To be honest with your system you need to go to FSX. System constraints and so many add-ons are the only reason alot of FS9ers are not using FSX. You have all the equipment and Harddrive capacity and it is time for you to move up. I don't think you would have these problems with FSX.Carl Perry FS9 user

This is very much wrong. What's holding back everyone is the fact that hardware is going other directions that FSX has been coded. FSX, like its predecessor, FS9, has always been overdependable on CPU. CPUs went up to 3,3 Ghz, and that's it, for now. No matter how many cores you throw at it, it will run the very much same FPS as it does with one-cored CPU.For any real advance in FSX FPS we are going to need either another structure, or many MANY more Ghz.Oh try loading anything similar to FSX - MD-11 VC + AI + UT + many clouds + addon airport like EHAM - oh you will be looking at much less than 15fps, I can bet on that.

Swadeep,Looks like someone 'sold' you a Cadillac and then put a 4 cylinder engine in it (and told you not to drive it over 65 MPH or it would cancel the warranty). You can EASILY overclock to 3.8 Ghz or more (with a good CPU cooler-no liquid cooling needed). i7 can take it. OC it is almost a law.A suggestion for a PSU: Corsair 850 TX, 850 Watt, for $135.00.Chuck BNapamuleI have a P4, 3.2 Ghz, 1 Gig Ram, Radeon X1300 AGP, and have FS9 locked at 24 FPS and it STAYS there. I don't have AI, or massive clouds, but I get by.

I would overclock the CPU if I were you. I have mine running stable @3.6 its it runs FS9 w/ no problems w/ multiple add-ons and PMDG aircraft. FSX is another story, it runs well but not nearly as smooth, especially at busy payware airports like in FS9.

Thanks very much everyone for your reply.1. Will my POWER supply of 500W allow me to OC without a problem and no heating problem?2. Yes I am mainly concerned about FS9. Can anyone please point me to how i can OC? I searched on google long time ago and there was just too many and i wasn't sure and basically got confused.ThanksBest WishesSwadeep

Thanks very much everyone for your reply.1. Will my POWER supply of 500W allow me to OC without a problem and no heating problem?2. Yes I am mainly concerned about FS9. Can anyone please point me to how i can OC? I searched on google long time ago and there was just too many and i wasn't sure and basically got confused.ThanksBest WishesSwadeep

I'd recommend a better PSU just to be sure, but 500W should be enough. However you will be running things close to its limits, so if you ever think about upgrading to SLI or whatnot, you'd better upgrade the PSU as well.You will need pretty good cooling to squeeze 3,6 or 3,8Ghz out of the 920. Anything over 3,8Ghz will require watercooling and with WC 4Ghz+ seems to be very probable, especially with D0 stepping 920s currently on the market. Do a search on overclocking the i7s, there are a lot of guides out there.Do overclock though, running the 920 at stock is just silly ;)

I'd recommend a better PSU just to be sure, but 500W should be enough. However you will be running things close to its limits, so if you ever think about upgrading to SLI or whatnot, you'd better upgrade the PSU as well.You will need pretty good cooling to squeeze 3,6 or 3,8Ghz out of the 920. Anything over 3,8Ghz will require watercooling and with WC 4Ghz+ seems to be very probable, especially with D0 stepping 920s currently on the market. Do a search on overclocking the i7s, there are a lot of guides out there.Do overclock though, running the 920 at stock is just silly ;)

I just spent like 700-800 Pounds for this system so don't wanna icnrease more costs :(But if you say 500W is enough for overclock i guess i can try. I don't wanan go SLI though cos i'd have to get another GFX card.Will i see a huge improvement in FPS by OC or just a tiny tad??

I just spent like 700-800 Pounds for this system so don't wanna icnrease more costs :(But if you say 500W is enough for overclock i guess i can try. I don't wanan go SLI though cos i'd have to get another GFX card.Will i see a huge improvement in FPS by OC or just a tiny tad??

Fair enough, you should be ok with 500W. Define "huge". By going from 2,66 to 3,4Ghz on my older Q9450, I got various performance gains depending on the specific areas I flew in (@1600x1200, 8AA, 16AF). Some were pretty impressive - for example I went from average 12 to average 20fps at FSDT's KORD, 100% gain at sim-wing's LEMD (from 14fps to 28fps) and so on. However, at your resolution, which is pretty extreme for FS9, I don't think the increase is going to be all that dramatic, but your frames will definitely increase somewhat.

Fair enough, you should be ok with 500W. Define "huge". By going from 2,66 to 3,4Ghz on my older Q9450, I got various performance gains depending on the specific areas I flew in (@1600x1200, 8AA, 16AF). Some were pretty impressive - for example I went from average 12 to average 20fps at FSDT's KORD, 100% gain at sim-wing's LEMD (from 14fps to 28fps) and so on. However, at your resolution, which is pretty extreme for FS9, I don't think the increase is going to be all that dramatic, but your frames will definitely increase somewhat.

Well to be honest if i can gain like you did i guess i will be quite happy!! But yes as my monitor screen is 1920 * 1200 i fly at that. So monitor resolution affects FPS? Should i fly at lower resolution. Will it help with frames??

Well to be honest if i can gain like you did i guess i will be quite happy!! But yes as my monitor screen is 1920 * 1200 i fly at that. So monitor resolution affects FPS? Should i fly at lower resolution. Will it help with frames??

Most games are affected by the resolution in one way or another. Usually, there is an inverse relationship between the frames and resolution, in other words, the higher the res, the lower the frames. I'm not all that sure how FS9 behaves these days, but from some testing I've done years ago, there was a significant difference in performance between going from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200. I'm fairly certain it holds true for any other resolution variations, only differing in the severity of impact.Personally, I wouldn't drop the res. Apps should be run in the native resolution of your monitor, once you start fiddling around with running things at lower resolutions, things will start looking pixelated and the overall image quality will just look poor, no matter how much AA or AF you throw at it. Alas, yes, with all other things held constant, flying at lower resolution will help with frames. At 1900x1200 I think both the CPU and the gfx card start becoming the limiting factors. Again... search around, I'm sure people have done in-depth testing on this.Nevertheless, remember that FS9 is highly CPU dependent. Your best bet is to try to overclock your 920, that will give you the biggest performance boost. You should be safe up to 3.6-3.8Ghz without investing in any sort of sophisticated cooling solutions (assuming you already have a decent air cooler that is), especially given your mobo, which is a pretty decent overclocker.

Most games are affected by the resolution in one way or another. Usually, there is an inverse relationship between the frames and resolution, in other words, the higher the res, the lower the frames. I'm not all that sure how FS9 behaves these days, but from some testing I've done years ago, there was a significant difference in performance between going from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200. I'm fairly certain it holds true for any other resolution variations, only differing in the severity of impact.Personally, I wouldn't drop the res. Apps should be run in the native resolution of your monitor, once you start fiddling around with running things at lower resolutions, things will start looking pixelated and the overall image quality will just look poor, no matter how much AA or AF you throw at it. Alas, yes, with all other things held constant, flying at lower resolution will help with frames. At 1900x1200 I think both the CPU and the gfx card start becoming the limiting factors. Again... search around, I'm sure people have done in-depth testing on this.Nevertheless, remember that FS9 is highly CPU dependent. Your best bet is to try to overclock your 920, that will give you the biggest performance boost. You should be safe up to 3.6-3.8Ghz without investing in any sort of sophisticated cooling solutions (assuming you already have a decent air cooler that is), especially given your mobo, which is a pretty decent overclocker.

ok thanks to much sir!!! really appreciate your input. i guess best bet is to try OC first and see. If i managed to do it successfully will report the result :)thanks so much..hope OC helps!!i do have another monitor at 1600*1200 something like that. maybe i shud go back to that monitor!!