One of the biggest shortfalls with the i5/X55 platform that I can see is with it

Why do they test with such unrealistic settings? Light bloom and DX10 on? Default planes?/wonders if he should contact Anand with an offer to give them a J41 and MD-11 and an fsx.cfg file...

That is why the BEST bencher is one of us (FSX hardware people).Only we have the FSX Knowledge + Tech Knowledge to pull it off. Question is will Bruce be the first person to really test this platform.Still, the Anand tests are useful to me, gives at least some basis of comparison, although I agree certainly if you take away the default planes, bloom and DX10 you could be looking at different results. One thing about testing with default aircraft is that you eliminate the aircraft type as a variable.anyways, good thread, nice catch Glenn H. I missed that at Anand...

That is why the BEST bencher is one of us (FSX hardware people).Only we have the FSX Knowledge + Tech Knowledge to pull it off. Question is will Bruce be the first person to really test this platform.Still, the Anand tests are useful to me, gives at least some basis of comparison, although I agree certainly if you take away the default planes, bloom and DX10 you could be looking at different results. One thing about testing with default aircraft is that you eliminate the aircraft type as a variable.anyways, good thread, nice catch Glenn H. I missed that at Anand...

I'm glad to see this thread have some life. I was thinking the FS crowd might be passing the Lynnfields by without notice.I certainly understand the limitations of the 1156 platform, but I'm looking for something that will handle FSX at a good price point. The reviews show it can match up nicely with the i7 920, and with plenty of 920 owners on this board and their good reports, the 860 might be a reasonably priced alternative.The 1366 design definitely has some upgrade aspects, and the early i9 tests look enticing, but I'm thinking the chip introductions will probably mirror the i7 introductions. Pricey extreme processor models for early adopters, then mid-stream processors for the masses at a later date, maybe 2011.I also appreciate the feedback on the BCLK tied to the PCIe. It does limit one's options, but people are able to get to 4.0 GHz on the 860 with a good cpu cooler.I've decided on a case, PSU, cooler, GPU, but the mobo and cpu decision is the toughest.

"The reviews show it can match up nicely with the i7 920, and with plenty of 920 owners on this board and their good reports"Unless your budget is small I think you should go with the 920. The 920 has been test driven very thoroughly by members of the flightsim community for a while now and everyone agrees that its a great chip with nice performance gains over previous hardware. The 860 looks like a nice chip but is still in the guinea pig stage as far as fs goes and seeing as your doing your homework and not throwing caution to the wind on a new platform, I think the 920 would be the safer bet based on the feedback it has recieved.Gary

"The reviews show it can match up nicely with the i7 920, and with plenty of 920 owners on this board and their good reports"Unless your budget is small I think you should go with the 920. The 920 has been test driven very thoroughly by members of the flightsim community for a while now and everyone agrees that its a great chip with nice performance gains over previous hardware. The 860 looks like a nice chip but is still in the guinea pig stage as far as fs goes and seeing as your doing your homework and not throwing caution to the wind on a new platform, I think the 920 would be the safer bet based on the feedback it has recieved.Gary

I put off my build until Windows 7 launches. It gave me a good excuse to continue looking at options and possibly just save up some more cash and go with the i7 950.The 860 does look good value when you look at the $$ saved on memory and motherboard costs. You can easily save $300 going with the Lynnfield setup. Then again, what's another $300 when you are already at $1500+?Very interesting times right now with these two platforms. I'm still somewhat concerned that with my luck I would get a crappy 920 that won't overclock worth a damn....Is 3.8 - 4.0 Ghz easily done on a 920 D0 stepping CPU or does it take some major manipulation?I don't have time to be an uber tweaker with my 3 kids so spending a little more on the 950 would make sense to me if it guaranteed better results.Good thread this one.......Cheers,Glenn

I put off my build until Windows 7 launches. It gave me a good excuse to continue looking at options and possibly just save up some more cash and go with the i7 950.The 860 does look good value when you look at the $$ saved on memory and motherboard costs. You can easily save $300 going with the Lynnfield setup. Then again, what's another $300 when you are already at $1500+?Very interesting times right now with these two platforms. I'm still somewhat concerned that with my luck I would get a crappy 920 that won't overclock worth a damn....Is 3.8 - 4.0 Ghz easily done on a 920 D0 stepping CPU or does it take some major manipulation?I don't have time to be an uber tweaker with my 3 kids so spending a little more on the 950 would make sense to me if it guaranteed better results.Good thread this one.......Cheers,Glenn

While all i7 chips are a little more complicated to over clock they are still relatively easy. I have a 920 C0 stepping that I have over clocked easily to 3.8 ghz. (It was my first built computer :( ) I would go higher but my room has been really hot (rarely less than 83C in summer and early fall). DO stepping should be more over clock-able than my chip. But there are two factors to consider:1)A good air cooler is needed. Stock cooler that comes with i920 is not good. I don't have the best air cooler (Zalman 9900LED) but its much better than what came with the CPU.2)Choice of mother board is also good for stable (and ease of) over clocking.Frank