I have been contemplating an upgrade to my system, I saw this for sale as a pre-built bundle. I7 920 confirmed running at 4.0Ghz on air with 6GB of DDR3 to boot.I am wondering how the performance of this thing would be for FSX if I matched it with a GTX 295 graphics card (or is this OTT for FSX? If I could downscale without a performance hit I'd like that as it reduces cost). I have a Q6600 clocked at 3.4Ghz now.. with 4GB ram... and a GT 9800 card in there.. FSX is stuttery and awkward.. FS9 smooth as silk..I was also contemplating matching this with a solid state drive, one OS and FSX, but the cost is high and I am wondering what actual real performance benefit I would get from this, I imagine it's limited and not worth the cash?What do you guys think?CheersCraig

A 920 @ 4.0GHz is really nice. Yes, that is possible, assuming the cooler is aftermarket (usually a big honkin thing)That would be a noticeable improvement from 3.4 I think you said. I would not go with the GTX295 - it's essentially two cards in SLI. FSX shows mixed results with SLI configuration. I would go for a GTX 285 or a Radeon 5870A SSD would help with initial scenery loading (you know the loading bar prior to flying), and maybe some for loading ground textures. But I think that would be it. You'd probably be better of just getting a 300GB velociraptor.

I have a 285GTX and i overclocked my I7 920 to 4.0 with a Coolermaster CPU fan; it runs FSX very nicely at over 17 fps (locked at 30) on demanding areas like FSDT KJFK and Aerosoft NY, REX wheater and 4096 clouds on high/max FSX settings; the CPU temp is around 70 degrees Celsius;I presently run at 3.2 ghz, the CPU is at 60 degrees and frame rates are around 13-15 in the same region as above, 29/30 locked in the air with default plane.Hope this helpsAlain from Montreal

I agree. It runs really nice and my cooler is not the best one out there. Temp is around 70 degrees in FSX. The only thing that brings the fps down is ai aircraft but that is still manageable.Don't bother with the 295 - not that is is over the top but from my understanding it is dual core which reacts with FSX in a similar manner to SLI. FSX doesn't like SLI.Can someone confirm with a more technical resonse?

Thanks for all the replies.. ok so I've dropped the 295 for the 285 graphics card now.. the aircraft I always fly are PMDG 747, MD-11.. I don't really fly anything else.. as for AI traffic etc.. it's quite low on my priority list so I am not too worried about that.. I do however like my detailed scenery such as UK 2000 extreme, aerosoft, fsdream and so on.. with ASA or REX (I have both).. Am I looking at 17fps with an FSX configuration like this?Is there an improvement in terms of the CPU jump for FSX from the Q6600 to the I7 920? I mean is it faster clock for clock/core for core..? As I understand it running at the same speed the I7 920 is a faster processing CPU than the Q6600..I've decided to drop the idea of SSD too, I might also not bother with the raptor and just wait for SSD to reduce in price and upgrade at a later date.. At the moment a standard drive will do I think..ThanksCraig

Is there an improvement in terms of the CPU jump for FSX from the Q6600 to the I7 920? I mean is it faster clock for clock/core for core..? As I understand it running at the same speed the I7 920 is a faster processing CPU than the Q6600..

Is the improvement going to be worth the price of a new processor and motherboard (and probably memory) - that should be the bigger question. :)The i7's do have cores which process faster than identically clocked cores from the C2D/C2Q series. You WILL see an improvement there, no doubt. But considering the actual cost of upgrading includes the required new motherboard and most likely a memory update too, the performance increases may not be worth it dollar for dollar. The C2Q you have is certainly a decent performer - you're stuck in the rut of having "good" hardware right now... not top shelf, and certainly not bottom of the barrel. Good choice in skipping the SSD drive too - I've been VERY tempted to get one myself, but I can't seem to justify the pricetag simply to improve simulator loading speeds... and the drive I'd need to replace my boot disk is faaaar too expensive right now. Maybe someday...Good luck!-Greg

Is the improvement going to be worth the price of a new processor and motherboard (and probably memory) - that should be the bigger question. :)The i7's do have cores which process faster than identically clocked cores from the C2D/C2Q series. You WILL see an improvement there, no doubt. But considering the actual cost of upgrading includes the required new motherboard and most likely a memory update too, the performance increases may not be worth it dollar for dollar. The C2Q you have is certainly a decent performer - you're stuck in the rut of having "good" hardware right now... not top shelf, and certainly not bottom of the barrel. Good choice in skipping the SSD drive too - I've been VERY tempted to get one myself, but I can't seem to justify the pricetag simply to improve simulator loading speeds... and the drive I'd need to replace my boot disk is faaaar too expensive right now. Maybe someday...Good luck!-Greg

Yeah, this is the problem isn't it. The setup I was considering was a guaranteed 4.0Ghz clocking I7 920, this will be purchased pre-configured and pre tested. Obviously you pay a premium for this service/feature of the site but it means you're safe to that speed rather than buying the components and hoping your chip will clock up to that. With the same cooler, ram, board, my friend and I have different results with the Q6600, I am at 3.4Ghz he is at 3.25Ghz.So this lot with the 6GB ram comes to