Hi,Actually, I'm planning to buy a new hardware for FSX, but there are no plans for overclocking, since I don't feel comfortable enough with this technique. My question is how big is the advantage of having i7-980 Extreme vs i7-960 in terms of FSX dedicated computer. The base frequencies are almost identical and the only differences are L3 size and unlocked multiplier, but the price ratio is 2:1. Therefore, should I stick with i7-960 of save monies for 980 model?ThanksDmitriy

You're forgetting the fact that the 980x is six cores and the 960 is only 4.

You're forgetting the fact that the 980x is six cores and the 960 is only 4.

OK...will FSX benefit from that?

Definately. More cores gives a smoother performance.

OK...will FSX benefit from that?

If you are not going to overclock - don't waste the money. The six cores alone are NOT worth the difference in cost.That said - the 980X is the easiest chip to clock. It took a minute to change two settings, an hour to test for temps and stability and I've been running at 4.43ghz on air ever since with no problems.If you get the right hardware it is very easy and there are lots of folks who will be glad to help you.

Thanks for the responses, folks.This returns us to the original question - what is the best CPU for FSX if there will be no OC. Should I look for raw frequency only or a size of L2/L3 and a number of cores might have some effect as well?PS. I understand that there are lot of successful stories for OC on this forum. However, I'm pretty much convinced that there is the other side of the coin, i.e. the stories of the people who do no write here - unstable systems, fried CPUs, MB, constant BSODs, sleepless nights, nervousness etc. I'm working 10 hours a day and I don't have a Master Degree in Computer Science, so for me OC is not an option. I'd like to pay good portion of money and be happy the way I have been happy with FS98-FS2004 when only minor technical tweaking was required.Thanks again.

My advice is this don't buy a high end chip like the 980X or 975 if you have no intentions on OC. These cpu's are meant to be pushed and worked hard, no sense in spending over $1000 to have it running at stock speeds.

You'd have to be REALLY intent on doing harm or completely not paying attention to harm these new chips but, if you are intent on NOT overclocking - go for the highest CPU speed coupled with multiple cores. Anything over 3ghz will be sufficient BUT no matter what CPU you get you are going to have to apply a few tweaks to get it where you might really like it without overclocking. I ahve seen quads at 2.6 do quite well with the right tweaks, moderate settings and a decent video card.

I'd say if you are not overclocking why not consider AMD? How about this: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor And at $179.00 your saving a boatload of $$ that you can put into other parts of your PC. You could go with their new 6 core at around $299.00 but it speed is 3.2GHz a little slower than their 4 core.

I'd say if you are not overclocking why not consider AMD? How about this: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor

Sound advice there - That 965 will peform on par with a 930/920 at stock settings. The main reason everyone recommends intel is that with a i7 930 you could OC much higher than with that AMD 965 - however you should be able to find an i7 920 or 930 at Microcenter stores for around $200.