Allright, I'll run my FSX through and tell you what I get..

okay my specs are in the signature, no overclock and these are my results Min: 36 Avg: 57 max: 76

Which settings are they? "Global high" or "max". So that's generally 15-20fps higher than mine on high (min 20, avg 35.687, max 51), nearly double. So I guess those extra 2 cores are put to use effectively and my old 8800GTS really holding things up.

Global high! But not really I didn't put in one of those CFG I just used the one I have now becasue I need the affinetiy mask tweek to get good FP/S maybe I'll try on of the CFG later? But My i7 isn't even overclocked at all..

Even worse here: Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 2436, 300000, 3, 14, 8.120And with Global High settings:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg16290, 300000, 33, 82, 54.300But I noticed that the settings applied (especially the scenery settings) vary depending on the number of times the settings are loaded, so maybe we didn't use the same ones

So using the FSX07 benchmark at full max, DX10 disabled (using their cfg file) I got min/max/avg 6, 18, 10.6. And it looked terrible!

With the "alternate" Global high settings:LOD Radius = Medium;Mesh Complexity = 70;Mesh Resolution = 76m;Texture Resolution = 2m;Water Effects = Mid 2.x;Scenery Complexity = Dense;Autogen Density = Normal;Special Effects Detail = High;Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg10670, 300000, 21, 57, 35.567which is very close to that I3, and those are actually High Scenery settings now I notice. @ Luckyman, can you please repeat your test @ Global High and make sure the settings are loaded properly? Your Affinity Mask tweak will still be there after loading the FSXMark07 settings

@luckyman I thought the affinity mask tweak wasn't needed anymore since FSX SP2? Either way your i7-930 still kicks my i3's &@($*. Of that there is no doubt.The price (at my local computer shop) of the i7-930 has the same digits as the i3, just rearranged (CAD314.99 vs CAD134.99, both prices dropping). If some nVidia price drops come soon, then that difference = GTX460!@dazz Thanks once again for your input. Where the i5 fits into all of this is unclear but your testing is very helpful.I'm a little bit confused at the performance difference between the i5-750 and i7-930 - HT and triple memory bandwidth seem to be the main differences and FSX does not use HT as I understand. Your graphics cards are similar-ish GTX460 v GTX470.What resolutions are you both at?

1920x1080 here, but I don't think that has anything to do with frame rates TBH.I'm also surprised with the I7 results. Tripple channel alone can't make that big of a difference... or maybe it can?

I think resolution will make a big difference to framerate - a pure hunch based on these numbers:1920*1080 = 2 073 600 pixels1280*1024 = 1 310 720 pixelsor you have 762 880 more pixels than me or (762 880 / 1 310 720) * 100 = 58.2% more pixels. I reckon that's significantly more to process so the i5 is probably doing better than the i3, more so than we thought. So don't be too down about your i5! The new aim of this thread is to have the happy i7, happy i5 and happy i3 FSX pilots!

I repeated the test at 1280x1024Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 11375, 300000, 23, 57, 37.917That's something that has been consistent in all my tests, resolution has very little impact (if any) on frames. I know it doesn't make much sense, but it's been like that with all my CPUs & video cards

<P>Allright So I'll test the MAX settings right now and report back.<BR><BR>My ram Is DDR3 but the timmings are tightened from 8--8-8-24 to 7-7-7-20</P>

Run the test on the FSXMark07 - Global High.CFG also please :)Make sure you end up with:Aircraft = Ultra High;Scenery = High;Weather = High;Traffic = High;Thanks for your input!

Yup, going for it right now. Give me 30 Minutes

Even worse here: Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 2436, 300000, 3, 14, 8.120And with Global High settings:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg16290, 300000, 33, 82, 54.300But I noticed that the settings applied (especially the scenery settings) vary depending on the number of times the settings are loaded, so maybe we didn't use the same ones

So it did better than you, slightly on Max settingsMin: 3 Max: 18 Avg: 11 Global High you did a bit better than meMin: 27 Avg: 45 Max: 73But The ******* CFG specificaly said not to touch any settings and upset the balence. The setting there are higher than Global high, so i'm re-running the test with *******' CFG...

no I didn't! 45 average in REAL Global High settings is much better than what we both did (averaging more or less 35 FPS)And adding up the fact that you are on stock clocks it seems there's a huge difference.It has to be tripple channel then, would be cool if you could repeat the tests after removing 2 RAM sticks of the same channel

Global High you did a bit better than meMin: 27 Avg: 45 Max: 73But The ******* CFG specificaly said not to touch any settings and upset the balence. The setting there are higher than Global high, so i'm re-running the test with *******' CFG...