At the moment, flying from Myrtle Beach, S.C. to Flint, Michigan at FL320 in the Flight1 Citation Mustang (WONDERFUL AIRCRAFT!!!)System: Dell XPS 730x. Running Vista Ultimate 64 bit with all the latest Microsoft updates as of Oct 22/2009Sim: Running with Active Sky (latest build) v6.5 as the weather engine.Under SCENERY: All sliders in the sim are at full right stop. All tabs, including even Ground Shadows are engaged.Under Weather: CLOUD Density full at 110 miles. Detail of clouds at Maximum.Under Traffic, the ONLY items not at full right stop on the sliders is:General Aviation, at full OFFShips and Ferries at full OFFLeisure Boats at full OFFPOST EDIT..Sorry, forgot to show Land and Sea Traffic at 25 percent.Other than what is not at full-feature on, is now full open on the throttle! In this configuration, and with the FPS limiter set to 30, I am getting a low average of 24 frames, to the limiter of 30 fps. There are very rare spikes past 30, here and there. Smoothness is de facto. I have been running FSX with the above CPU/GPU combo for over a month, and can state with absolute certainty, that this combo WILL give you simply stellar performance from FSX. Over this past month, I have kept playing around with drivers, and creeping up the detail levels of all the masks, monitoring cause and effect for display clarity, and levels of animation smoothness at each increment of detail advancement. As a result of deciding to stay with the driver 182.50/nHancer 2.5.1 combo, I am able to now run FSX at full-bore open and still maintain 24 FPS as an average drop from the 30 FPS setting of the limiter, when it does dip below the limiter setting. I can drop to 15-17 FPS, but it only lasts the blink of an eye, and then will go back to 24 and plus FPS. This has been the most beneficial and multifaceted event, and purchase that I have EVER decided to do, with flight simulation in mind. Yes, it cost thousands of dollars to have this equipment, but....it was without doubt in my mind, THE BEST USE OF MONEY I have EVER spent, on this hobby! Simply...FSX now runs, and portrays the world in such a life-like rendering, that the smile never leaves the kisser, from the first seconds of action, until I close FSX down. The i7-975/GTX285 combo in conjunction with a finely tuned system supporting it...will BLOW YOU AWAY!~ Especially, if the last system you owned, was a Pentium 4 3.4 GHz/ ATI Radeon 1950. The FSX performance difference between these two systems is like the Pentium 4 sitting at sea level, and the i7-975/GTX285 at the top of Mount Everest!Back to the flight.... :)Cheers!

Thanks for posting this. Always fun to hear from someone that is having a good time with this sim.Bob

Sounds fantastic! How about a couple of screenshots? :-)

Sounds fantastic! How about a couple of screenshots? :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------I can do a screenshot, but like I have always maintained, doing one degrades what is on the user's screen. I'll do a few and try posting them. BUT...I still say..that you have to own one to actually enjoy the full scope of what can be achieved. A screenshot needs to be rendered down to whatever a site will host. But, I'll do it anyways, lol. I'll have some time in the first of next week. I'll post them as soon as I take a few.Cheers!

$1000 processor and a $400 video card to get FSX running at 24fps. I'm glad you are happy with it, but it's not a road I'd ever go down myself.

And how many people have spent $1400 or more on addons. I would rather spend that money on hardware any day.I get good performance with my rig, but I don't run any addons. So, like everything, there's trade-offs.Sasquashtoo now has both. Good for you.Bob

$1000 processor and a $400 video card to get FSX running at 24fps. I'm glad you are happy with it, but it's not a road I'd ever go down myself.

Even if it were a smooth 24 fps?It's been said before that FSX is not FS9. 24 fps in FS9 was choppy at best. In FSX 24 fps is smooth.I'm over 40 fps everywhere except in NYC and other very dense areas.My system kicks *****. There's not a program that it can't handle.

$1000 processor and a $400 video card to get FSX running at 24fps. I'm glad you are happy with it, but it's not a road I'd ever go down myself.

i HAVE AN [email protected]/gTX285 You are totally missing the point on the performance details you get with i7 range.With defualt aircraft and no fps limit, i get about 20-40 fps on the ground, and at altitude the fps goes from 40 - 100+, but the flight is smoother and less jerky if you set a limit of say 30fps. The fps you get in fsx depends on so many factors that its best to give our fps refrence using defualt fsx aircraft.A well OC'd i7 makes FSX feel like a light application such excel, running FSx on my old dual core, you could feel the PC chasi vibrate as i launch fsx, on oc'd i7 fsx is small.Locked at 30 without fps limiter i too get down to 24fps or even less with payware addon like cs767, cs767 is the most fps hungary a/c i know.I use another monitor to display some cockpit panels , and this takes about 5 fps off my average.So saying he gets 24fps on i7975 locked at 30fps , probably means 120 fps with defualt aircraft at 35000 feet and fps set to unlimited.For what its worth spoting the difference made by fpslimiter on my system is like trying to spot a patch of cloud on a very foggy day. I JUST DONT SEE WHAT DIFFRENCE IT MAKES ON MY SYSTEM, except the atc window starts to act funny. when atc window is hard to move around means i got fps limiter running.So removed fpslimiter, disabled hyperthreading, and setaffinity = 14. THis is far smoother than fps limiter and FSX affinitymask = 15 on my system.So that disabling FSX on core zero and fps locked at 30 is by far smoother than fpslimiter for me. I found fpslimiter does not remove stutters, but it makes things smoother, whereas disabling core 0 for fsx with affinity 14 removes stutters and gives you a smooth ride.So to clear things up, where i7 gives 24fps, older systems will struggle to get past 16fps.However seems no cpu will still allow all sliders to the right, and a desecnt flight.One thing i have noticed is though, the improved fluid flight dynamics you get with lower display settings is often worth the eyecandy you loose with lower sliders. If you left enough room for flight dynamics , the flight is a lot more releastic, minor bumps, turbulence, turns etc.There is no point filling FSX world with eyecandy, when your plane flies like a train moving on fixed tracks. The less eyecandy you put in, the more the plane flies like a bird.If you can afford it i7 upgrade is worth every penny, if you cant, keep your low sliders lower for now.

Yes, but not all i7's are created equal. Or at least they aren't priced equal. A 920 is a far cry from a 975, to the tune of about $700.If you have money falling out of your pockets and can afford bleeding edge processors that barely hit the 25 fps mark, then that's awesome! I'd love to be in the same position. For most though that's probably out of reach.And using default to compare fps is fine and dandy, but for someone dropping $1000 on a processor for FSX is probably not flying default anything. So for me, those default numbers are meaningless because it's not what I'd be actually using in the sim.Also, for me, 25 fps is 25 fps. What sim you are seeing that in makes no difference.

Yes, but not all i7's are created equal. Or at least they aren't priced equal. A 920 is a far cry from a 975, to the tune of about $700.If you have money falling out of your pockets and can afford bleeding edge processors that barely hit the 25 fps mark, then that's awesome! I'd love to be in the same position. For most though that's probably out of reach.And using default to compare fps is fine and dandy, but for someone dropping $1000 on a processor for FSX is probably not flying default anything. So for me, those default numbers are meaningless because it's not what I'd be actually using in the sim.Also, for me, 25 fps is 25 fps. What sim you are seeing that in makes no difference.

I don't agree that 920 is a far cry from a 975. Actually I have never understood why people got i7 975. 975 is easier to overclock, but it doesn't have nearly as much overclocking head room as a i7 920. When you overclock the 920 to 4 ghz as I have, there isn't much performance benefit to 975 which can not be overclocked much more than that. One last thing, stutter free 20 fps is better than stuttering 25. Stutter is a different beast than plain FPS.

I never could understand why somebody would spend $2000.00 on a computer to play a game like CryisI do understand it for FSX because of all the free addons and new payware which makes FSX worth it.I'm going to stay put with my system until. Gulftown I hope that may just be the cores, threads and memory bandwidth that can pushFSX over the top. From what people have postedI7-975 seems to be the best for now. I'm stuck with a lowly Q9550 which is not bad.

I don't agree that 920 is a far cry from a 975. Actually I have never understood why people got i7 975. 975 is easier to overclock, but it doesn't have nearly as much overclocking head room as a i7 920. When you overclock the 920 to 4 ghz as I have, there isn't much performance benefit to 975 which can not be overclocked much more than that. One last thing, stutter free 20 fps is better than stuttering 25. Stutter is a different beast than plain FPS.

I was more referring to the price difference, which as I said is in the $700 neighborhood. One could certainly overclock the 920 to close the performance, but then they need to be ready to deal with fouling up their proc if done incorrectly.I just think it's kind of odd that it takes thousands of dollars in modern hardware and overclocking processors to reach an impressive 25fps in a three year old application. Moreover, people are happy about it. :( And I've run both sims since they day they were released and have never noticed any more studdering in FS9 than I have FSX. To me it's always been a method for those trying to make themselves feel better about slower performance in FSX. Perception is reality though and if that has been your perception, then good on ya.

After reading this thread i'm glad that I haven't dropped the $4000 that the original poster did when similar performance can be had for much less money. I'm still on the system in my sig that I built last April and although it's only dual core with 4gb of DDR2 memory, I think, judging from what the original poster has said regarding his performance, mine performance rivals his for 1/2 the price. However, when I do the next upgrade to Win7 64, I will probably go with an i920 or i950, overclock it, and make the jump to DDR3 memory. At the moment I think I would be disappointed by spending that type of cash only to see minimal jump in performance, if any. I don't think spending the money on the i975 is really worth it considering what can be done with i920/i950 and money spent on other good components. To each thier own.

Yes, but not all i7's are created equal. Or at least they aren't priced equal. A 920 is a far cry from a 975, to the tune of about $700.If you have money falling out of your pockets and can afford bleeding edge processors that barely hit the 25 fps mark, then that's awesome! I'd love to be in the same position. For most though that's probably out of reach.And using default to compare fps is fine and dandy, but for someone dropping $1000 on a processor for FSX is probably not flying default anything. So for me, those default numbers are meaningless because it's not what I'd be actually using in the sim.Also, for me, 25 fps is 25 fps. What sim you are seeing that in makes no difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi,With all due respect, I don't think you appreciated what my intent of the post was about. On my system, if I didn't limit the frames to 30 by means of the SOFTWARE limiter, with FSX set to unlimited...I can soar well into the 100's! But other than that...what my post was about...is that I can achieve a totally saturated world in depth and scope...and go no FURTHER lower-as-sustainable, than 24 fps. I usually hover at 30-31, but CAN go anywhere between my 24 fps-30fps at any given time or second. I also have very smooth, life-like animation, whether it by dynamic forces upon the plane as is generated using a weather engine, etc...and ALL at 24 FPS within FSX. With FS9---this was usually not possible. As for the poster who says that you have to sacrifice 'eye-candy' to have better dynamic effects, I have to respectively disagree. With an i7-975/GTX285, you can have it all. I have fluid movements through air currents. I have manifesting drops and dips going through air density and turbulence, both in a non-jerky way...and have ground effect come into play upon proximity to the ground at the point of flare--- still enjoying; fabulous world immersion. That was truly the whole point of posting a performance update.I am stating, that you can run FSX at 24 FPS, with all important Scenery and Weather sliders and boxes ticked on/or sliders to full, and have a very satisfying FSX session. This with clarity, no blurriness, no textures in less-than-developed states of rendering...THAT is what I am posting here. This is NOT about an FPS 'you-know-what' contest. Using my add-on aircraft, using UTX/GEX, add-on scenery, I STILL can get a very smooth 24 frames per second as my sustainable LOWER FPS FIGURE. That, with all of the above in play! This is most excellent. Most excellent! In a nutshell, you can get fabulous graphic performance with the massive load you are putting on the i7-975/GTX285 at full bore, wide open graphics demands...and it ONLY drops to 24 FPS!!!! This..was the intent of the post. :)Cheers!Mitch

After reading this thread i'm glad that I haven't dropped the $4000 that the original poster did when similar performance can be had for much less money. I'm still on the system in my sig that I built last April and although it's only dual core with 4gb of DDR2 memory, I think, judging from what the original poster has said regarding his performance, mine performance rivals his for 1/2 the price. However, when I do the next upgrade to Win7 64, I will probably go with an i920 or i950, overclock it, and make the jump to DDR3 memory. At the moment I think I would be disappointed by spending that type of cash only to see minimal jump in performance, if any. I don't think spending the money on the i975 is really worth it considering what can be done with i920/i950 and money spent on other good components. To each thier own.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Very, very satisfied. Money...well spent! My smiles continue to affirm that with each and every FSX session, three months after the wallet opened. :)Mitch