I wanted to know if any PMDG MD11/744 users have this CPU for FSX. I'm thinking of upgrading my I7http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct....rodid=CP-316-IN

I wouldn't consider it an upgrade going from a quad core to a dual. I wouldn't upgrade until you were completely changing architecture, which may be a few months to a year before anything changes significantly enough to be worth your coin.

So you wouldn't recommend two cores with FSX even If I can overclock this past 4ghz?

same as abovei would wait manseriously

So you wouldn't recommend two cores with FSX even If I can overclock this past 4ghz?

Well, you mentioned you already own an i7, or at least that's how I read it. My current i7 920 has a stock speed of 2.6. I have it over clocked @ 3.8 and without anything other than stock cooling, running very stable with 0 CTD's or other issues. I also have a liquid cooled rig I built that you can see

(I had that vid to 1984 from Van Halen but just noticed the sound was disabled,,,). Personally I will never go liquid again, and have grown out of the "pretty computer" phase.I just don't think that even though you will get a higher clock speed than a i7, that it is worth it with the other things you would need to buy/replace, such as mobo, ram, and possibly PSU. The next gen architecture is on the horizon. New video cards, cpu's and ram. I would just hold off a little bit to see the result. If nothing else, the prices will plummit on others and will make the switch easier on your wallet.

So you wouldn't recommend two cores with FSX even If I can overclock this past 4ghz?

Believe me, I use a i7 975xe @ 4,22 GHz with Corsair DIMM 6 GB DDR3-2000 Tri-Kit and water cooling and I'am not able to put all controllers to the right. What I want to say is, you need plenty of power...Matthes

I thought I read in the FSX somewhere a review of the i5 as it pertains to FSX, and the i7 was showing significantly better performance.

Ok thanks guy's, this is the kind of stuff I need to know as I am out of the loop when it comes to FSX. My I7 is running at 4ghz, I would not want to attempt to try and squeeze more out of it. This processor has a higher default clock speed so I figured I could bump it past 4ghz and still be stable. I'm just going by the FS9 way of thinking, as much ghz & raw cpu power as possible.Looks like I will spending a lot of time in the hardware forum...Cheers

Cores, cores and more cores...and bandwidth between all those cores and the vid card and memory. Such as in the current X58 platform, with its triple channel DDR3, massive bandwidth, and even more cores to come (six coming real soon on LGA1366 - plug n' play on the current X58)...and FSX can schedule (i.e. has work for) each and every one of 'em!FSX sp2, along with most high-end video editing software (and Mathematica 7!), is one of the very few shipping titles that actually make full use of as many cores as you can throw at it (I believe Phil Taylor mentioned 32 cores with sp2/Acceleration as it is presently coded).FSX - and all of PMDG's astonishing add-ons - are going to absoultely "sing" well into the future!Just my 2 cents...

OK guys, throw me a bone here.After the PMDG announcement of ending FS9 development, I have literally dug myself into reading about FSX. For the first 2 years of FSX's life I thought it was (and I'm being polite here), moronic to invest in it, as the hardware requirments were absurd. Now, even 2 years after that I am seeing all over, that people are still having trouble running it with various Quad cores and whatnot. Yesterday, when I read Mr. Randazzo's (FS9) statement, I thought: "sure by now I can run FSX smoothly on my AMD6400+ dual core & GTX260 & DDR2 800". My System is running FS9 on average 35fps dropping to 15fps, on rare occasions. All sliders to the right and filled with eyecandy add-on's. Is running FSX with this system, a childish notion on my part??? I've been dead set against FSX, until yesterday and SO MUCH want to get into this new FSX world and make it work. But here in my country a i7920 + mobo + RAM would cost me a whole months pay!! Not to mention I have over $2.000 worth in FS9 add-on's, accumulated for 4 years.I sure hope I can run FSX with my system. I want the PMDG Jetstream and B777 so bad :( Golli

OK guys, throw me a bone here.Golli

Being nice wouldn't include "Being moronic" to think about FSX :(Anywho, to say what others soon will, just because there are sliders doesn't mean they have to be maxxed to make it great! I hate reading that, but sadly it is burned into people that if they have a slider it must be maxxed,,, it doesn't, and in some cases, it shouldn't.Also, the mention of the amount of FS9 addons one has in pointless. In FS9 you need or want a lot of addons that you don't need in FSX. Also, if you have $2000 in FS9 addons I would hardly believe that you are running them all at the same time, unless you were talking about hardware specific for FS9. I have 46gb of addons and at times run them all with FSX (most of that size is mesh). Lastly, FPS in FS9 and FSX are totally different. I have stutters in FS9 at 40 FPS, yet I am smooth in FSX with 12, so there is no comparing the two that way.Here is what I would recommend. Buy FSX, either way if your system doesn't handle it then you still have it for next year. I don't think they will be updating it anytime soon so it's not going to be wasted money. Also, I have a much better system now, but I did run FSX on a simalar system like yours a while back and it was fine, not perfect, but as mentioned above, even with my beast of a comp, cannot and would not run max sliders. My sliders are tailored to my addons I have running (I wasn't running with your specs with PMDG's but performance has only gotten better with their latest and am sure it will maintain that direction).I could build you an i7 system and you could fly here and pick it up and fly back and still be under $2k hehe. Sorry that prices are so high there, but anywhere you are is always cheaper and better to build your own, rather than buy it.

Thanks for you reply Turbine777.I will take your advice and get FSX and try it out. I've read so much about "water cooling i7 rigs" and all kinds of stuff so I'm more confused, than anything else.I'll stop reading and try it. Thanks.Golli

Thanks for you reply Turbine777.I will take your advice and get FSX and try it out. I've read so much about "water cooling i7 rigs" and all kinds of stuff so I'm more confused, than anything else.Golli

Hi again Golli,Personally, I have tried water cooling, and personally think it's a waste, unless you want the look, otherwise don't bother. You can see my water beast

. I'll never do liquid cooling again. I am running a i7 920 with stock air cooling @ 3.82g (stock is 2.6). I wouldn't get anything more with liquid, and if anyone says they do, then it has nothing to do with liquid and their memory timing is suffering miserably because of it. Even my current rig's OC means my memory timing has to be 9,9,9,24 which isn't anything to brag about. But of course it is running @ 1603 mhz :(

Water cooling is extremely nice if you want a nearly silent computer though. If you water cool the CPU and GPU, you've basically got no fan noise at all in the case. Put an SSD in to get rid of the mechanical HD clicking and you're basically there.

Very true, but if you look at my video you'll see total lack of fans inside, but I still have to deal with the huge fans cooling my radiator and they're louder than my main system currently. Maybe I just have bad luck with my choices ;-)I've had a couple different coolers and the one in the vid is still the one I use on that comp. It has 2 pumps in case one fails and after 2 years did already replace one. Maybe I should use a high grade commercial type pump and run it from a reservoir in another room? :)Edit: My comp that I mention has 5 things being liquidated (sort of speak), southbridge, northbridge, GPU1 & 2, and the CPU. If I had a shorter run I imagine I wouldn't need to run my fans as high as I do on the radiator.