That's possible.. but I have no Win7 experience, so I can't say. I am running the Q9550 on Vista64, though.I understand your reluctance to overclock.. I had it too.. but it's not the dark science it used to be. You just have to have an understanding of what you're doing, and why..To sum up my set up.. I spend days reading every forum I could find on clocking.. and then had the SimV guru (NickN) hold my hand ..lolAs for an i7.. it doesn't have much on the Q9550.. They're both 45nm, and both have massive cache. If you read through testing, you'll see that a Q9550 can be a very high-level performer.sorry.. lol Our posts got dove-tailed..Yeah, there's always risk.. so I'll leave it at that..

Which brings me full circle to the video card... its something I can change without risk of component failure due to overstress that will have at least some effect...

And since you have a buyer for your current card, you really can't lose much.. :( Just know that either of those cards are waiting on the CPU.. you won't see much improvement, if any at all.

Brett, I'm running a Q9550 @ 3.8GHZ. You can see the rest of my setup in my signature. My FSX performance is not as smooth as I would like it. I'm running DDR3 1333 @ 7-7-7-20. The memory is actually underclocked. Is there a chance another type of memory would lend better performance?

That's not what I've heard from a number of sources. Yes FSX will be CPU limited, but it supposedly has a big issue in particular with the 4870x2. Everyone who's ever advised me about it since I've had it has said that a "clocked 8800" could outperform the 4870x2 because of the architecture. So my thinking is that if I end up with something that at least isn't architecture limited like a GTX or maybe the 5850, that part will at least become better. Whatever the case, I'm not sure any amount of upgrades will make it so that I can have snot smooth graphics in all conditions in FSX, its just not a well written program, so it may take a whole new computer with all the best tech just to get it there...EDIT: Had ACES not been shut down, I assume that we'd already be looking at FS11 and it would have been a much better sim... It makes you wonder if anyone will step in to fill the void or if FSX is the end of the road...

And since you have a buyer for your current card, you really can't lose much.. :( Just know that either of those cards are waiting on the CPU.. you won't see much improvement, if any at all.

I guess the other aspect of this is, supposing you're right and this investment won't really deliver a return in increased FPS, am I just throwing my money out the window? I'll be losing $100-$150 no matter what I buy here, so will there be no real improvement? Should I just make do with what I've got and chalk this up to a bad program that just won't ever work right?

The BFG GTX285 OC version really rocks - but you have to back it up with about a 4ghz processor. Problems addressed include no blurries, increased smootheness, nice, smooth taxi. Massive improvement over a 680i nForce board OC'lked to 3.6mHz and an 8800GTX with same nvidia driver settings.Water is now at H2. Sweet!jja

Treb,If nothing else... At least, switch to a Nvidia card because of the reasons I mentioned on the other thread.-Better driver support-Multicore optimized drivers-Cards perform better in heavy 3D clouds (REX; Default).Anything from a GeForce 9600 GT, and up will give you better performance than its ATI equivalent. I know this sounds like a really excited user talk, but it's not.Before my new GTX, I was running a 4850, and the difference is night and day. I've never had a more smooth simming experience in my life coupled with high IQ.Also... Overclocking is fairly easy once you do the research and take the necessary precautions. A lot of motherboard BIOS have fail safes that automatically kick in if you O/C too high. This is why O/Cing is not as hard as it used to be. You have to know how to find your CPU (FSB) wall as well as your RAM wall, but once you find these fine tuning your O/C is very easy, relatively speaking.And one last thing...Have you tried the Frames Per Second Limiter 2.0?This is like a miracle application that equalizes the rapid fluctuations one gets with the frames set to unlimited in FSX. It also re-enables Vsync. This is what is responsible for the steady frame rate more than any single tweak, or piece of hardware on my system.

Brett, I'm running a Q9550 @ 3.8GHZ. You can see the rest of my setup in my signature. My FSX performance is not as smooth as I would like it. I'm running DDR3 1333 @ 7-7-7-20. The memory is actually underclocked. Is there a chance another type of memory would lend better performance?

I really can't say.. on paper, you've got a good an FSX system (on a normal budget..lol). From my experiences.. there isn't a practical CPU setup, that can take advantage of the best that other components offer. The first thing you have to have, is a high-cache, quad-core CPU running upwards of 4GHz (3.8 or more) before even looking at a high-end v-card. I tried a 285 in my system (borrowed), and it didn't show me more than my 8800GTS... leading me to believe that both cards were being held back by the CPU.I'm sure there are subtle things that even a 'bored' 285 does better.. but not equal to the expense (until you've got well over 4GHz of CPU pushing it).

I guess the other aspect of this is, supposing you're right and this investment won't really deliver a return in increased FPS, am I just throwing my money out the window? I'll be losing $100-$150 no matter what I buy here, so will there be no real improvement? Should I just make do with what I've got and chalk this up to a bad program that just won't ever work right?

In a FPS reference.. yeah.. you'd be throwing the money away.. I wouldn't call it a bad program.. it's just demanding (probably partially due to innificient coding, but worrying about that is pointless). I'm not going to push the o-clock thing again.. but you'd see a world of difference going from 2.8 to even 3.4... and 4.0 is do-able..

The irony is the official FSX site recommends a CPU with a speed of 3.6 GHz, for best performance.3.6 GHz.AMD, or Intel don't even make a CPU with a stock speed of 3.6 GHz!So, the only solution is to O/C.Always remember...There's also FS9 / FS2004, too.I say this not in a negative, or demeaning way. I have both FS9 and FSX installed and use them about equally. Sometimes I just want pure speed & performance, so I fly FS9. Not to mention, like a lot of simmers, I have a lot more money invested in FS9 with regard to scenery like Fly Tampa, and others. There are things that FSX just (still!) does not have like a PMDG 737NG, so this is another reason I use FS9, too.

Yeah.. it's kinda funny how each sim never gets fully appreciated. With FS9, I was never content, until I could run it full out.. and I mean FULL out, with so much AI that the gates were overflowing.. never falling below 20 FPS. It was like an artificial goal, and was overkill, because I usually fly light singles out of remote fields..I know now that that was because (as good as FS9 still is), it just lacked something that gave you a sense of really being in an airplane.. so you made up for that by saturation..lolFSX makes up for that in its own way.. the overall 'picture' is more realistic, so you can reach satisfaction through that. While I do miss having to deal with a bevy off traffic when I do venture into a large airport.. the better eye-candy / flight-dynamics / VCs in FSX are noticed in a big way, when you go back to FS9. I'm not sure an affordable desktop exists yet, that can run FSX 'full out'.. but it sure is fun getting there.

hi, i want to make an upgrade and need your help. i have very limited budget (and limited english lol) so i have to buy used part as always :)my pc spesifications below:amd x2 7750 2,7 ghzkingston 2*2 1066 rampalit 8800gt sonicand my gigabyte mobo doesn't allow to oc my cpu.i am thinking of buying amd x4 940 3,0 ghz cpu, and buy a new vga. i can't decide which one to buy. i can buy ati4870 and nvidia gts250 max.i'm playing arma2, fs9,dcs bs, lockon and fsx if possible :) (my pc not enought to play arma2 and dcs bs smooth fps)if i upgrade my cpu, still i need to new vga to play these sims? if yes, which card i have to buy?

I will say that if you are good at looking for sales, a GTX 285 with 1 GB of RAM can be found for $275-300ish and that's what I'd try (I am in a similar situation and have been looking a bit myself). It's not easy to find, but can be done.

Where have you found this? I've been looking at that card for a couple of weeks now and never seen if for less than $380 which is out of my price range. I have found a couple of used ones for about $300, but I have trouble justifying buying someone else's used hardware since I don't know how badly they've abused it...

Treb,If nothing else... At least, switch to a Nvidia card because of the reasons I mentioned on the other thread.-Better driver support-Multicore optimized drivers-Cards perform better in heavy 3D clouds (REX; Default).Anything from a GeForce 9600 GT, and up will give you better performance than its ATI equivalent. I know this sounds like a really excited user talk, but it's not.Before my new GTX, I was running a 4850, and the difference is night and day. I've never had a more smooth simming experience in my life coupled with high IQ.Also... Overclocking is fairly easy once you do the research and take the necessary precautions. A lot of motherboard BIOS have fail safes that automatically kick in if you O/C too high. This is why O/Cing is not as hard as it used to be. You have to know how to find your CPU (FSB) wall as well as your RAM wall, but once you find these fine tuning your O/C is very easy, relatively speaking.And one last thing...Have you tried the Frames Per Second Limiter 2.0?This is like a miracle application that equalizes the rapid fluctuations one gets with the frames set to unlimited in FSX. It also re-enables Vsync. This is what is responsible for the steady frame rate more than any single tweak, or piece of hardware on my system.

I'm curious if you think that the nVidia being better situation would hold true with a lesser card like the 260 or 275? I ask because, as I said above, I just have trouble buying someone else's abused hardware. If the 260-275 would still give me better performance than the 4870x2, it may be worth the investment. What about the 5850 also? I've seen the 5800 series mentioned a couple of times here, but then no real reason why its not good compared to the GTX's. If I'm really stuck at a $300 price point, is the 5850 a good alternative? Or should I take a step down to the GTX 260 / 275? Or even just wait until I can afford the 285?I have tried the FSP limiter, but since its a DX9 only program, and I get better frames with DX10, it hasn't really done me any good. Now, if I could only find a way to use it with DX10...

The irony is the official FSX site recommends a CPU with a speed of 3.6 GHz, for best performance.3.6 GHz.AMD, or Intel don't even make a CPU with a stock speed of 3.6 GHz!So, the only solution is to O/C.Always remember...There's also FS9 / FS2004, too.I say this not in a negative, or demeaning way. I have both FS9 and FSX installed and use them about equally. Sometimes I just want pure speed & performance, so I fly FS9. Not to mention, like a lot of simmers, I have a lot more money invested in FS9 with regard to scenery like Fly Tampa, and others. There are things that FSX just (still!) does not have like a PMDG 737NG, so this is another reason I use FS9, too.

This is just a perfect example of a failure coming out of the software design house. Either they were working with souped up computers when they put the code together, or they were just being lazy and expecting that their software will work on most computers in the coming years. The thing is, if they were on their old 2-year release schedule, FSX would have been another lame duck already, falling by the wayside because it can't even be run perfectly now, 4 years after release, except for on the highest end hardware.I also run FS9 a lot, though mostly because I can't seem to get FSX to run the way I want it to. I like heavy metal, so I get to spend most of my time flying into and out of high density areas, which forces me into FS9 if I want to get more than single digit frame rates currently. If I do want to fly bush, FSX works great, with high frames and good graphics across the board, even in weather, but since I'm not there that often, FSX usually starts falling down towards the bottom of my most used programs list...

..I'm curious if you think that the nVidia being better situation would hold true with a lesser card like the 260 or 275?

Well, I just bought a brand new GTX 260 because it was the only thing I could afford after the holiday cash crunch. I mean, I could have bought a 275, but the only real difference is 240 processing streams vs. 216, and higher clocks. However, I can O/C my 260 to beyond 275 clock speeds (maybe 285?) and I doubt I will "miss" the additional 24 extra stream processors. This is where we have to separate reality from how something "performs" on paper.As for the ATI 5800 series... Nick N (UT; Scenery Solutions) has done some tests and he recommends the new 5800 series... But not the old 4800 series. I agree with his assessment, not because I have tried a new 5800 series, but because my previous 4850 struggled with FSX and FS9. It rocked in other games, however. More modern games, of course. But this is the whole irony when MSFS is your main game (like it is mine). You want to build a future proof computer for other titles besides MSFS, but it's hard when FS is based on almost decades old code that doesn't benefit from more modern hardware. It's a very frustrating Catch-22, IMO.

This is just a perfect example of a failure coming out of the software design house. Either they were working with souped up computers when they put the code together, or they were just being lazy and expecting that their software will work on most computers in the coming years. The thing is, if they were on their old 2-year release schedule, FSX would have been another lame duck already, falling by the wayside because it can't even be run perfectly now, 4 years after release, except for on the highest end hardware.

The interesting this about MSFS that many people may, or may not know is ACES designed FSX and all previous versions of FS based on the current hardware road maps of the time. Around 2004-2006, before FSX was released, it looked like AMD and Intel were well on their way to releasing four and five GHz consumer chips. However, both took a turn and started to develop more multicore chips, dual, triple and quad cores, but at much lower speeds like we have today. This is why ACES did not change the code that much. Their philosophy (more or less) was that any deficiencies in the old code would be negligible if the code was being run at five GHz, or more. And they still might be right. We just aren't there yet to test the theory. But this is why FSX, and FSX specifically, runs so poorly on most mid-range systems and why we need i7 chips at 4.0 GHz, or more to make FSX shine.

I also run FS9 a lot, though mostly because I can't seem to get FSX to run the way I want it to. I like heavy metal, so I get to spend most of my time flying into and out of high density areas, which forces me into FS9 if I want to get more than single digit frame rates currently. If I do want to fly bush, FSX works great, with high frames and good graphics across the board, even in weather, but since I'm not there that often, FSX usually starts falling down towards the bottom of my most used programs list...

In my personal opinion, I think FS9 is a lot more realistic in terms of its overall look while in the sim. I am talking about the heavy metal side of things. Not the VFR, obviously. I also think addons behave more realistically vs. FSX. Then again, I also like FSX's increased VFR elements, too.Like I always tell people, you have to tailor the sims -- plural if you run both -- to do what you want them to do. This is why I am grateful ACES gives us so many options to adjust in the customs & settings menus. I think people are so used to the "set and forget" mentality most modern games follow, right or wrong, they forget to actually readjust the sims to meet the needs of the specific kind of flying they are doing at any given time. Sure, it would be nice if we could just have all the sliders to the right and be able to fly into huge urban areas with something like the PMDG 747X... But that is not how the program is designed, or behaves.The other double irony is while MSFS is a PC-centric title... Developed specifically for PCs... It often performs worse than a lot of console ports. The good console ports perform better than MSFS because they do use more modern coding techniques, ironically, like multicore support and off loading more of the graphics processing to the video card. These games aren't as complex as a flight simulator, obviously, but this is still no excuse for MSFS to be stuck in the past. Literally.

Well, I just bought a brand new GTX 260 because it was the only thing I could afford after the holiday cash crunch. I mean, I could have bought a 275, but the only real difference is 240 processing streams vs. 216, and higher clocks. However, I can O/C my 260 to beyond 275 clock speeds (maybe 285?) and I doubt I will "miss" the additional 24 extra stream processors. This is where we have to separate reality from how something "performs" on paper.

So this really falls back to the old issue OC? The 260 is good enough, but mostly because you can clock it to act like a 285? I'm amazed at how quickly hardware needs to be overclocked after people get it... it used to be you bought the 260 because it was the best card, now people buy certain cards (and cpu's) just because they are better to OC. Considering this, I'm really amazed at the fact that the on board OC utilities are no good... you would think that the best tool for the job would be the one provided by the people who make the product.

As for the ATI 5800 series... Nick N (UT; Scenery Solutions) has done some tests and he recommends the new 5800 series... But not the old 4800 series. I agree with his assessment, not because I have tried a new 5800 series, but because my previous 4850 struggled with FSX and FS9. It rocked in other games, however. More modern games, of course. But this is the whole irony when MSFS is your main game (like it is mine). You want to build a future proof computer for other titles besides MSFS, but it's hard when FS is based on almost decades old code that doesn't benefit from more modern hardware. It's a very frustrating Catch-22, IMO.

Basically its a wash then... 6 of one or half a dozen of the other? The nVidia cards were better for all the reasons up until the newest series from ATI and now they are equally good? I'm guessing he put together some kind of real evaluation on the subject? Can you point me to it?

The interesting this about MSFS that many people may, or may not know is ACES designed FSX and all previous versions of FS based on the current hardware road maps of the time. Around 2004-2006, before FSX was released, it looked like AMD and Intel were well on their way to releasing four and five GHz consumer chips. However, both took a turn and started to develop more multicore chips, dual, triple and quad cores, but at much lower speeds like we have today. This is why ACES did not change the code that much. Their philosophy (more or less) was that any deficiencies in the old code would be negligible if the code was being run at five GHz, or more. And they still might be right. We just aren't there yet to test the theory. But this is why FSX, and FSX specifically, runs so poorly on most mid-range systems and why we need i7 chips at 4.0 GHz, or more to make FSX shine.

I still call this a failure. It wasn't too long ago that software designers built their products so that a good machine could play them at least at the default settings at the time of release, and a low to mid range system could play on low settings. This left room for better tech to still access the high / ultra high down the road a little. To design software in such a way as to make it pretty much unplayable for a couple of years shows that they just didn't really bother and/or care that people might not be able to play it. Even if we had gotten to 5GHz processors by now, only a small segment of the simming population would have such cpu's because they would represent the high end of the market. In my opinion, FSX was just never designed for anyone other than the upper crust of the gaming community. The fact that this caused a whole generation of simmers to go out and build hot-rod machines pretty much proves it... FS9 worked just fine on my old P4 from dell...

In my personal opinion, I think FS9 is a lot more realistic in terms of its overall look while in the sim. I am talking about the heavy metal side of things. Not the VFR, obviously. I also think addons behave more realistically vs. FSX. Then again, I also like FSX's increased VFR elements, too.Like I always tell people, you have to tailor the sims -- plural if you run both -- to do what you want them to do. This is why I am grateful ACES gives us so many options to adjust in the customs & settings menus. I think people are so used to the "set and forget" mentality most modern games follow, right or wrong, they forget to actually readjust the sims to meet the needs of the specific kind of flying they are doing at any given time. Sure, it would be nice if we could just have all the sliders to the right and be able to fly into huge urban areas with something like the PMDG 747X... But that is not how the program is designed, or behaves.The other double irony is while MSFS is a PC-centric title... Developed specifically for PCs... It often performs worse than a lot of console ports. The good console ports perform better than MSFS because they do use more modern coding techniques, ironically, like multicore support and off loading more of the graphics processing to the video card. These games aren't as complex as a flight simulator, obviously, but this is still no excuse for MSFS to be stuck in the past. Literally.

Your point here highlights the one main thing separating MSFS from most other games / sims: It really is a simulator rather than a game. You can't really just hop on, play to the next level and then call it a night... even a 30 min VFR flight takes a minimum time commitment of 1 hour by the time you've set up your flight, figured out where you want to go and then go. People seem to forget this when it comes to settings and systems. Part of the reason people are having so much trouble with FSX is because they want to be able to "set and forget" like you said, and fly from city to country and back without a single stutter. The reality is that even FS9 will start to get bogged down on a hot-rod modern system in super dense scenery areas, so we'll probably never see a computer that can run FSX with snot smooth graphics all the time.That all being said though, I do feel that FS9 just doesn't quite cut it when it comes to immersion. Yes, I love that program and have sunk much time and money into it, but there are just some things that I can't reconcile, like the fact that you can't get rid of the horizon square edge without cutting your visibility down to 29 miles, or the fact that the sun and moon and stars can appear underground sometimes, or that the densest parts of the forest or city have only about 1%-10% of the actual numbers of items in them. FSX goes a long way towards alleviating these problems, which is one of the reasons I'm still pushing to make it work rather than just leaving it by the wayside and moving on. That being said of course, I still don't really feel like its reached the level of immersion I want to see... of course for me, that would be a virtual 3d environment... something that just isn't in the cards for a long long time...I will say this though, I think that ACES closure might open the door for another house to come in and design the next sequel (there will be another, I'm sure of it), and that might really open the door for a better platform to be put into place. I guess we'll see what happens.

I will say this though, I think that ACES closure might open the door for another house to come in and design the next sequel (there will be another, I'm sure of it), and that might really open the door for a better platform to be put into place. I guess we'll see what happens.

Aerosoft is working on one as we speak.When it will be released, however, is the big question.And as much as I like Aerosoft products, I do not think it will be *the* MSFS replacement at this time (or time of its release). To be fair, I don't think Aerosoft is claiming it will be, but because ACES no longer exists, this opens up a huge market segment that's just waiting to be filled like you said.RE: OCing...The reason for O/Cing is spending less money, obviously.And being able to O/C is now being used as the added value a lot of hardware manufactures are associating their with their products. Case in point: I would not have bought my [email protected] GHz stock. I bought it because I was advertised as a O/Cing magnet capable of reaching clock speeds greater than an E8600. It has 4MB less cache, but the core is a Wolfdale, the same as the E8000 chips. Again, more value, less money :( RE: Graphics card...Since this is the original topic of this thread...I am now forever a Nvidia man after spending a long time with ATI, a good five, six years. It's not just because of how they perform in MSFS. It's because the "green team" seems to have more resources to dedicated to their drivers, so they actually FIX problems... Unlike ATI who does not address a lot of bugs even though users keep asking them to. And the fact the drivers are mutlicore enabled is something ATI apparently is very poor at, or don't even include this functionality.Like I said, it sounds like a really excited user talk... But it's not a really excited user talk if there are legitimate reasons for why you support one product over another. At the moment, Nvidia has better support and cross computability versus ATI. This is why I choose Nvidia. Especially, for FSX.