Try Aerosoft or UK2000 Heathrow (EGLL) with UT2 or MyTrafficX at anything over 80% and see if you can get more than 20 fps everywhere on the airport.I have a Core i7-975 water cooled and overclocked to 4.50 GHz, with 6Gb of DDR3 memory at 2000 MHz 8-8-8-24, and an overclocked water-cooled GTX285, running Win7 64 RC. But frame rates at EGLL with anything remotely approaching reasonably traffic levels varies 12-22 fps depending which way you look. And that's in DX10 mode. In DX9 mode the frame rates are lower and EGLL stutters.Everywhere else, no problems. Even other very complex airports with max traffic.I had this system built specifically to "beat" EGLL, and it is now usable, but still only just!RegardsPete

Me too. For me, FSX will be working properly when the PMDG747X can land at the Aerosoft Heathrow in decent settings in heavy weather with the UTX night lighting effect without dipping below 30fps: ie, probably never. Mine is on air at 4.4GHz with 6Gb RAM at 1866MHz 7-6-7-18 N1 timings. It's pretty good. But the Aerosoft Heathrow with 51% traffic brings the framerate down into the mid-teens at times with the PMDG 747X. The Aerosoft Frankfurt is not much better. Perhaps it's a problem peculiar to Aerosoft: the Kai Tak scenery from FlyTampa seems to have more buildings but is much faster - 30s and 40s - and looks simply spectacular. To those who say there's no point in overclocking the 975: you could be right - if you don't use the heavy add-ons like the PMDG 747X or MD11. But in my case, the jump from 3.3GHz to 4.4GHz brings a very significant improvement. These are ROUGH figures but in broad terms in the 747X using the same pretty high settings including 51% AI airline traffic with MyTrafficX, the BNN transition over London from a LAM3A approach into 27L at Heathrow goes up from a typical 12-24fps to a typical 19-35fps in the virtual cockpit. On short finals and touchdown the fps goes up from ~9-18fps to ~15-24fps. Those differences may not sound like much, but IMHO in practice they make the difference between barely acceptable performance and a reasonably fluid, immersive experience.Tim

To those who say there's no point in overclocking the 975: you could be right - if you don't use the heavy add-ons like the PMDG 747X or MD11. But in my case, the jump from 3.3GHz to 4.4GHz brings a very significant improvement.Tim

That must be it then. I don't own any add-on airports of that sort. Aerosoft is especially bad, since most of their airports are ports from FS9 versions and don't use proper FSX dev techniques, or so I am told. I also use my own custom AI and WoAI rather than commercial AI addons, none of which delivers the goods, IMHO.

That must be it then. I don't own any add-on airports of that sort. Aerosoft is especially bad, since most of their airports are ports from FS9 versions

I not a lover of Aerosoft by any stretch of the imagination, but what you have just said is not true at all anymore, you must not have been anywhere near any new Aerosoft airports in the last 18 months or so. Aerosoft are pumping out some really good airports lately and they most definately are FSX SP2 only products, in fact many of their projects are now not been made for FS9 at all which is both a good and a bad thing.I personally do not think there will ever be a computer fast enough that will run FSX with everything maxed including the AI traffic sliders that will render FSX at 30+ frames a second at places like EGLL with 100+ aircraft on the ground, I think the problem is in the ancient code that is at the very core of FSX, its poor to say the least.

Core i7 or not, FSX with intense add-ons and scenery with custom traffic will NEVER run above 30FPS locked for a very long time. If you want good frames, lower your traffic (80% MyTraffic is rediculous and will probably be more traffic than real life) and the PC has to calculate the ATC commands and positions, aerodynamics, etc of EACH aircraft, which will kill your frame rate! Best thing to do is not go crazy and just max everything, unless your playing a game from 2002 or something. You don't need water on max, you don't need MAX autogen, you don't need MAX texture resolution or Mesh, because FSX default mesh is 10m, and its scenery is like 30cm or so. Traffic should be around 5-20 percent for cars to be realistic, boats shouldn't be above 50%. You have to be smart and be realistic! Aircraft shadows look ugly because they are not anti-aliased, and so on. I have a Phenom 9550 @ 3.00 GHz which is higher than a stock 9950 and 400 MHz over it as well (Only difference in Phenom I 9 series is clock speed and unlocked multipliers for the 9850 and 9550), so FSX is smooth sailing for me! Also with TileProxy its even better, more realistic and better looking with more frames. With TileProxy on everything above ultra high on fsx (which is really not the high IMHO) it runs very smooth with 40-60 FPS, in a cessna. 737 will run the FPS down only to about mid 30s to 40s.So the point is you don't need an i7 to get great performance, you just need a little time tweaking here and there (just bufferpools, Texture_Bandwidth_Multiplier, and AffinityMask, then you need some time to tweak settings INSIDE FSX), a good fast dual core or good performing quad and you basically be well on your way. BTW if you guys fly airliners all the time. Fly in France or Switzerland one day in a prop airplane and see how you like it. Small airplanes are also great to fly too!

So the point is you don't need an i7 to get great performance, you just need a little time tweaking here and there (just bufferpools, Texture_Bandwidth_Multiplier, and AffinityMask, then you need some time to tweak settings INSIDE FSX), a good fast dual core or good performing quad and you basically be well on your way. BTW if you guys fly airliners all the time. Fly in France or Switzerland one day in a prop airplane and see how you like it. Small airplanes are also great to fly too!

I'm glad I have exquisite performance too, even with an old . . . Penryn Quad Extreme at 4.15GHz! I've been silkly smooth n crystal clear for quite a while now, with full bells n whistles.No more upgrades for this dude. Unless a new edition of FS comes out, there really is no point in an upgrade--thank goodness! I put my $$ into a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid and that, I mean that, is a piece of technology! Gettin' 42.6mpg already and it's hardly broken in! It's 50% software! God help me!Nuttin' much is happening now with PC gaming, and what I have now runs everything hunky dorry. I have a decent video card too--nice to be away from the continuous upgrade cycling.Cheers,Noel

Try Aerosoft or UK2000 Heathrow (EGLL) with UT2 or MyTrafficX at anything over 80% and see if you can get more than 20 fps everywhere on the airport.

Aha! Managed it! Like a fool, although I was running DX10 (which for me is much smoother than DX9), I had the frame rate limiter still set to 30, as this definitely helped in DX9 mode. But in DX10 mode it severely cramps frame rates at busy places and causes stutters itself. I presume it's something to do with the scheduling ramifications FSX then had to do to "keep to" the limit! Or something ...Anyway, without that limit, I now get 24-34 fps everywhere on UK2000 EGLL, averaging 30, even with 100% MyTrafficX AI, and AES stuff enabled as well! As well as removing the limit, I turned off aircraft shadows -- I think that helps when there's a lot of traffic. Admittedly, the fps does dip now and then to as low as 15 and pops up to 46 or so too, but you have to watch very carefully to spot that, it's so short-lived. In fact i only found those by recording the frame rate values graphically using the JAB freeware tool.So ... there's the answer. Overclocking a water-cooled Core i7-975 to 4.5 GHz is justified -- and apparently necessary to get what I wanted, a realistic Heathrow! ;-)RegardsPete

Aha! Managed it! Like a fool, although I was running DX10 (which for me is much smoother than DX9), I had the frame rate limiter still set to 30, as this definitely helped in DX9 mode. But in DX10 mode it severely cramps frame rates at busy places and causes stutters itself. I presume it's something to do with the scheduling ramifications FSX then had to do to "keep to" the limit! Or something ...Anyway, without that limit, I now get 24-34 fps everywhere on UK2000 EGLL, averaging 30, even with 100% MyTrafficX AI, and AES stuff enabled as well! As well as removing the limit, I turned off aircraft shadows -- I think that helps when there's a lot of traffic. Admittedly, the fps does dip now and then to as low as 15 and pops up to 46 or so too, but you have to watch very carefully to spot that, it's so short-lived. In fact i only found those by recording the frame rate values graphically using the JAB freeware tool.So ... there's the answer. Overclocking a water-cooled Core i7-975 to 4.5 GHz is justified -- and apparently necessary to get what I wanted, a realistic Heathrow! ;-)RegardsPete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hello Pete,Pete, as I was playing around with different overclock settings on my bin speed alone, I could also reach 4.5 quite easily, but with some time at 75-80C. Now...being at 80C isn't a chip killer as you are still 20 percent below the thermal threshold, and that my Pent 4 3.4 GHz chip usually ran in that range under full load and is still here 6 years later pumping out the calculations...but it didn't have a memory controller on-board the chip. I think that with the i7-xxx's you need to be mindful of keeping the core temps of the 4th core as cool as you can in that it sits adjacent to the memory-control fab of the chip. With that in mind, I backed it (the overclock) off to just over 4.00 GHz and run mostly at 55 C under full load of FSX. This is pretty amazing as I am on a good air-cool solution, and that is only 22C up from idle. I'm most curious in wondering what your i7-975 is running at in C's when under water-cooling at 4.5 GHz. Thanks,Mitch

I would love to fly dx10 more, but for the shimmering of distant objects. Everything looks fine close up, inside the cockpit or parked next to airport buildings. But when flying on approach to the airport all those thin objects like light posts don't look so good. Still looking for ways to improve the image quality, but not finding them. Is this effect lack of AF rather than AA? In DX9, performance is worst but IQ is better.Simon

Pete, as I was playing around with different overclock settings on my bin speed alone, I could also reach 4.5 quite easily, but with some time at 75-80C. Now...being at 80C isn't a chip killer as you are still 20 percent below the thermal threshold, and that my Pent 4 3.4 GHz chip usually ran in that range under full load and is still here 6 years later pumping out the calculations...but it didn't have a memory controller on-board the chip. I think that with the i7-xxx's you need to be mindful of keeping the core temps of the 4th core as cool as you can in that it sits adjacent to the memory-control fab of the chip. With that in mind, I backed it (the overclock) off to just over 4.00 GHz and run mostly at 55 C under full load of FSX. This is pretty amazing as I am on a good air-cool solution, and that is only 22C up from idle. I'm most curious in wondering what your i7-975 is running at in C's when under water-cooling at 4.5 GHz.

It gets up to around 65C -- not seen it any more than that. The company that built it had it on must more intense testing -- all 4 cores 100% used -- for 48 hours and were getting temps in the low 70's I think. Water cooling does do a good job it seems. Before this machine I was running a dual 9775 (SkullTrail) set up, also watercooled, at 4.0 GHz, and that was definitely getting warmer!RegardsPete

I would love to fly dx10 more, but for the shimmering of distant objects. Everything looks fine close up, inside the cockpit or parked next to airport buildings. But when flying on approach to the airport all those thin objects like light posts don't look so good. Still looking for ways to improve the image quality, but not finding them. Is this effect lack of AF rather than AA? In DX9, performance is worst but IQ is better.

I've not noticed any more or any less "shimmering" in DX10 compared to DX9, but I used a projected image, 1400 x 1050 on a 10 foot wide screen, viewed through the cockpit window. Maybe it's at higher resolutions you get the shimmering?Pete

Good info here,my question is how many monitors are you running? because with 1 monitors I get very good quality video at high settings with my core2duo 3.0ghz but I use 5 monitors for my ideal setup. 3 for outside view and 2 for instruments. Now that's really kills the frame rate on my PC to 14-20fps. Have you tried 3+ monitors? I would like to know how that runs before I upgrade to an i7.thanks

my question is how many monitors are you running?

In my case, with my current setup, I'm using no monitors on the FS PC, only a projector with a 10 foot screen at 1440 x 1050 resolution (the native resolution of the projector). There's no panels or instrumentation on the FS display, all that's taken care of with networked computers using Project Magenta.However, I have in the past used three monitors connected via a Matrox Triplehead2Gp unit, and never had any noticeable degradation at 3840 x 1024 across the three. But if you are creating additional 3D windows, for different outside views, then I don't think you'll find any system, overclocked or otherwise, which will cope adequately for FSX. Undocked instruments should be okay though.RegardsPete

It gets up to around 65C -- not seen it any more than that. The company that built it had it on must more intense testing -- all 4 cores 100% used -- for 48 hours and were getting temps in the low 70's I think. Water cooling does do a good job it seems. Before this machine I was running a dual 9775 (SkullTrail) set up, also watercooled, at 4.0 GHz, and that was definitely getting warmer!RegardsPete

Hi Pete,I'm using a SkullTrail at 4.0Ghz and was thinking of going i7. Was there much of an improvement when you switched over?ThxSteve

It gets up to around 65C -- not seen it any more than that. The company that built it had it on must more intense testing -- all 4 cores 100% used -- for 48 hours and were getting temps in the low 70's I think. Water cooling does do a good job it seems. Before this machine I was running a dual 9775 (SkullTrail) set up, also watercooled, at 4.0 GHz, and that was definitely getting warmer!RegardsPete--------------------------------------------------------------------Thanks for the response, Pete. Between 4.011 and 4.5, I really didn't see a huge performance advantage, so decided to stay with the 'at 4.0 GHz' overclock. It does appear that liquid-cooling has an added performance boost. :) Enjoy! No matter what overclock near about 4.0 GHz...FSX has come into its own. :)Mitch

I'm using a SkullTrail at 4.0Ghz and was thinking of going i7. Was there much of an improvement when you switched over?

Yes, but only really significant if you are desperate to use something like Aerosoft or UK2000 Heathrow with a reasonably amount of AI, or you are really bothered by the small stutters you probably still see. I suspect the latter are down to the memory restrictions on the SkullTrail -- the fastest memory the mobo supported was 800 MHz. With the Core i7 supporting 2000 MHz memory, and DDR3 at that (so 50% wider access to start with), plus the integration of the memory access circuitry into the CPU chip, I think that's no longer a problem, and I very rarely see any stutters on the new rig.My SkullTrail system has come to good use as my test and development system in my office, as with its 8 cores and 8 Gb memory it's ideal for running compilers plus FSX and other programs all at once whilst I'm testing and debugging! Also, I've switched my video editing tools over from my Sony Vaio notebook -- bought an external Blu-ray writer specially! ;-)RegardsPete