I've largely moved entirely over to FSX, even though my system struggles some with it still. With the add-ons I would like to be using (FSDT airports, PMDG aicraft, REX, GEX, ~30% WOAI traffic) I am at 12-14 fps on the ground at an airport. Occasionally in a rough area like approach JFK I go to 9-11 fps. I also hit OOM crashes after about 2.5 hours (very understandable given my system). I'm currently running:Intell E8400 at stock 3.0 GHzGigabyte P35 Motherboard2 GB Geil RAM (I think it was 800 MHz)8600 GT 512 MB card2xSATA HD2xDVD/DVD-RWWindows XP 32 bitIf I upgrade, it will be to:Intel i7-920 (plans to overclock to 3.6ish GHz)Asus P6X58D Premium MotherboardCorsair XMS3 3x2GB 1333 RAMGTX 285/1GB Corsair 750W PSU2xDVD/DVD-RW3x7200 RPM SATA HDWindows 7 64 bit Home EditionTo me, this looks like a huge upgrade. However, I know FSX largely uses only 1 core of any multicore processor (the others for loading scenery textures). My concern is that at stock speeds I actually loosing CPU speed and while it sounds like overclock the 920 to 3.6-3.8 GHz is very reasonable on air (I'm still scared about water cooling), I don't know that I can achieve this and it isn't exactly top end speed (4-4.2 GHz I've heard about). However, I also understand the busses are much faster on the i7's and the L3 cache is much better, so I would think that part will help. Obviously the 6 GB of RAM vs. 2 GB would be a huge thing, but probably less for FPS and more for stability and reducing OOM crashes.I've heard of people having great luck with similar systems (25-30 fps in the worst areas), but I've also heard of people running the i7's that aren't getting performance really any different than what I have now. So it's hard to know which way to go. I do know about optimization of FSX, including NickN's guides and advice, so I will do that stuff.I just want to get some feedback. This is about a $1600 updgrade for me and while I can put the cash together it would be very dissappointing to do so and not see a big difference. I'd really be quite happy if I could move my bottom FPS range up to the 18ish FPS and maybe add in a little more AI. Thanks for any help.Eric

Most users here that have transitioned from Core 2 Quad to Core i7 9xx have reported increases in smoothness, although I can't say I've ever seen any FPS increase quantified. You will certainly gain performance in the worst-case scenarios you've described, as bandwidth and CPU instruction completion rate increase moving from C2Q->i7 9xx. At your targeted clocks, I'd guess minimum FPS to be in the high teens to low 20's. That's smooth enough for most people but you may want more performance, in which case you'll have to overclock further or reduce application settings.

Your upgrade looks good to me. I went from computer (1) to (2) in my signature, and while the FPS is not a huge improvement, the smoothness is. I felt that the upgrade was very much worthwhile, but I only spent half of what you are indicating.

Thank you both for your input. I'm very close to saying "yes", but am just trying to do my best to cross out buyer's remorse.

Most users here that have transitioned from Core 2 Quad to Core i7 9xx have reported increases in smoothness...

This actually makes me quite happy to hear, as I expect potentially even better. The E8400 I am using is actually a dual core processor, so I would expect the improvement to be at least a little bit mroe than I'd see if I was moving from a quad core.

...but I only spent half of what you are indicating.

Yes, my cost in part is related to the fact that I've been reusing parts (cases, optical drives, even HD and sound cards) in builds that are now 7-8 years old. I've decided that this build will be a ground up build to move on in to the next century and have to rebuy some of those basics.

HelloWhy not just O/C that E8400

Most users here that have transitioned from Core 2 Quad to Core i7 9xx have reported increases in smoothness, although I can't say I've ever seen any FPS increase quantified. You will certainly gain performance in the worst-case scenarios you've described, as bandwidth and CPU instruction completion rate increase moving from C2Q->i7 9xx. At your targeted clocks, I'd guess minimum FPS to be in the high teens to low 20's. That's smooth enough for most people but you may want more performance, in which case you'll have to overclock further or reduce application settings.

I saw you describe in a previous post your system as being very fluid. Would you please explain that as I'm about to install a Q9550 as the first part of an upgrade

HelloWhy not just O/C that E8400

Mostly because hitting OOM errors consistantly after 2.5 hours of simulator time makes any type of commerical flight simulation difficult if I wish to include full ramp procedures. Adding more RAM is questionable since WinXP 32 bit will never use more than 3 GB, and that is with the switch. That dictates a new OS. On top of that, the video card is very outdated. I would also need a new CPU cooler (another $50-60) since I'm running on a stock cooler right now. So I'm more interested in moving on than trying to apply band-aids to get a few more months to a year on this rig.

EricThree suggestions for you:1. If you want to continue using PMDG and other complex add-ons with minimal risk of the "black screen/disappearing textures" problem (see the PMDG forum for this topic: it's constantly coming up), then stick to XP Pro but choose the 64-bit version. MS changed hardware acceleration under DirectX in Vista and Windows 7 and this can sometimes cause problems with the more complex add-ons. If you want to go with Windows 7, then you may find you need to change your sound settings to ensure that sounds are only played at 8000Hz "telephone quality" when running FSX. On the other hand, not everyone seems to get this problem so you could be lucky.2. You may want to aim for more than a 3.6GHz overclock. To give you some ROUGH idea of what to expect on the performance front: on approach to EGLL with the Aerosoft scenery in heavy weather in the PMDG 747X, approaching from the east over London with Active Sky Advanced, UTX night lighting and scenery sliders pretty much all to the right, my framerate drops from the high 20s/mid-30s over London down to the low- to high- teens on final approach and touchdown. This is with an i7-975 @ 4.4GHz with RAM @ 1866MHz 7-8-7-20 CR1, also with a GTX285. The CPU speed makes the biggest difference of all those variables.3. Following from that, people have different views about whether fast RAM gives value for money, but my personal experience is that it helps to have faster RAM: not a magic cure, by any means, but a definite improvement. I did some benchmarks a while ago which you should be able to find somewhere in these forums. They showed that there is a pretty direct relationship - albeit within limits - between RAM speed and FSX performance. If you go down this route, then aim for 1600MHz RAM at CAS6 or better; or for 1866MHz RAM at CAS7 or better.Tim