Hi folks, I don't want it to be a long long thread...I am as you awaiting the new realease from PMDG and I hope it will be released before the end of this year.I at present have a computer:AMD 64X2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2)4 Gig RAM Radeon 4780Windows 7 64bitI do also have sceneries of course mostly from Aerosoft. I do have weather add-ons (REX). I do have Radar contact.Well, you know the drill, I don't need to be that specific.So, will that be enough for the new NGX and FSX or is it time for me to do an upgrade?Of course, I'm not like flying all the time but I want to have a satisfying flight experiance while up there.Thanks so much for all kind of meaningful replies.

i5 6xx or 7xx series or i7 9xx seris, with a GTX 275 or higher will run it.

Only you can decide how good "good enough" is, but your processor has been produced since 2005, so it is no spring chicken any more. I suggest you make the move to FSX anyway and see how you get on. The MD11 or JS41 are about as demanding as it gets so if they run fine on your setup, NGX should be OK.

I get between 15-40 fps in fsx now, since I don't have my fps locked at 25. I expect it to do well with the NGX.

Get an i7 (or i5 750) and a good cooler, OC it to ~4GHz. At least 4GB of DDR3 1600. GTX 460 1GB or better for the video card and you will be screaming in FSX.

hey Ryan, what do you think of this? http://forum.avsim.net/topic/292181-i3-530-fsx/I'm pretty sure that's more than enough but would appreciate your input, no matter how harsh or assertive it is if you disagreethanks

Get an i7 (or i5 750) and a good cooler, OC it to ~4GHz. At least 4GB of DDR3 1600. GTX 460 1GB or better for the video card and you will be screaming in FSX.

Get an i7 (or i5 750) and a good cooler, OC it to ~4GHz. At least 4GB of DDR3 1600. GTX 460 1GB or better for the video card and you will be screaming in FSX.

Well, the guy (OP) hasn't got much idea about hardware, specs, etc, and suggesting quite serious overclocking to a newbie is not gonna help at all, in many cases it means loss of about $300 if something goes wrong.I'd say wait a bit, test it a bit and buy hardware if needed, but think carefully before OCing things. I use AMD PII X4 BE 3.2GHz @3.4GHz, Crucial BallistiX 4GB/1066 DDR2, ATI HD 3870 512MB setup, which is nothing as expensive as your setup, and i can play FSX with J41 on High settings, with AI 50%, at 15-25 fps on typicl airports (50-60fps standard planes). And it's fine for me. So, my point is, wait for NGX to be released, check it against your setup, then check your budget, and improve your hardware, without spending too much money up front. OP, Check: overclock.net for hints and tips too.Cheers

i7/i5 overlocking is hardly "serious" - the chips go to ~4GHz extremely easily. You need to do some reading obviously, but it's basically just adjusting two settings, the bus and (possibly) the CPU voltage.

hey Ryan, what do you think of this? http://forum.avsim.n...181-i3-530-fsx/I'm pretty sure that's more than enough but would appreciate your input, no matter how harsh or assertive it is if you disagreethanks

The i3 is fine, but I do think it'll be slower than a quad-core is all. FSX does use all 4 cores in a quad setup - yes 3 and 4 aren't as heavily used as 1 and 2 are, but there is going to be a difference.Btw, that Chris guy in that thread has no idea what he's talking about - the i7 was not "designed for OCing" and the i3 somehow not - it just happens to have a much higher potential than what Intel sold it at. No one designs chips intending for them to be OCed - otherwise they'd just make them that speed to begin with.

i7/i5 overlocking is hardly "serious" - the chips go to ~4GHz extremely easily. You need to do some reading obviously, but it's basically just adjusting two settings, the bus and (possibly) the CPU voltage.

I'm not saying it's hard - changing fsb and voltage is a piece of cake, but, remember that it's never safe to do so, up to the point of burnt houses. There's a reason why it's not done by default, nor is protected by warranty. Limits are for a reason.Cheers

i7/i5 overlocking is hardly "serious" - the chips go to ~4GHz extremely easily. You need to do some reading obviously, but it's basically just adjusting two settings, the bus and (possibly) the CPU voltage.

Depends on which i7 you are talking about. In regard to the 920/930... Actually.I'd say a few more than that. CPU Ratio setting may need to be considered, for example my system dislikes overclocking with a 20 multiplier but loves 19.RAM timings should be set manually. Along with RAM voltageAt 4.00GHz CPU Voltage will most definitely need to be higher. I get away with 1.24 volts some can do less, some need more.QPI/Dram Core Volts may need to be increased.Things like Load Line Calibration should be enabled, and CPU Spread Spectrum and PCIe Spread Spectrum disabled.But yes, not as hard as many think.Martin Wilby

Btw, that Chris guy in that thread has no idea what he's talking about - the i7 was not "designed for OCing" and the i3 somehow not - it just happens to have a much higher potential than what Intel sold it at. No one designs chips intending for them to be OCed - otherwise they'd just make them that speed to begin with.

Absolutely correct.They all come off the same wafer within a batch. Some chips perform better some not so good.The good ones are speed binned and become the upper models, while the slower chips are speed binned and become the lower models.However... when the lower models sell out, as the cheaper chips tend to, they often make up the numbers with chips from the faster speed bin, and simply code them as lower models. Therefore, you may well find yourself with a great overclocker, a faster chip in disguise.It is also true that the i7 in general overclocks very well indeed, so even a chip from a slower speed bin can overclock quite acceptably.Martin Wilby

I'm not saying it's hard - changing fsb and voltage is a piece of cake, but, remember that it's never safe to do so, up to the point of burnt houses. There's a reason why it's not done by default, nor is protected by warranty. Limits are for a reason.Cheers

Nobody in their right mind would overclock to the point of “burnt houses" not that burnt houses are feasible as a result of overclocking anyway.Tools like CoreTemp are used, in conjunction with the Intel Burn Test, and Prime95, to determine the maximum temperature the overclock generates under maximum load. The aim is to keep the temp below 78 degrees, although, in my view, I like to see lower temps. As for "a reason why it's not done by default"...Motherboard manufacturers actively promote overclokng, a boards overclocking features are a selling point. Overclocking these days is not dangerous as long as common sense is used.Intel aren’t going to sell a chip pushed to the limit without any safety margin, simply because they can't account for the thousands of users out there all with different systems, and different cooling solutions. Hence why they have to clock a chip on the lower side.However... Intel technical guys themselves, openly claim the i7930, on average, is a great overclocker, a tad better than the 920. They most certainly wouldn’t do this if they were averse to overcloking.Martin Wilby

I have a similar PC compared to the OP.These numbers all different aircraft in the same location, avionics booted up (virtual cockpit):Default CRJ7 - 53.0 (this is my baseline to judge all other addons)Flight1 Mustang (copilot PFD removed) – 24.0 (45% performance compared to default CRJ)Level D 767 - 32.0 (60%)Flight1 Super 80 Pro - 29.0 (55%)RealAir Duke - 33.5 (63%)Eaglesoft SR22 G3 Turbo - 35.5 (67%)Carenado Seneca – 55.0 (103%)Aerosoft F16C- 25.5 (48%)While these numbers don't mean you'll get exactly the same performance (fps-wise), but you should expect a similar ratio on your own system.

Nobody in their right mind would overclock to the point of “burnt houses" not that burnt houses are feasible as a result of overclocking anyway.Tools like CoreTemp are used, in conjunction with the Intel Burn Test, and Prime95, to determine the maximum temperature the overclock generates under maximum load. The aim is to keep the temp below 78 degrees, although, in my view, I like to see lower temps. As for "a reason why it's not done by default"...Motherboard manufacturers actively promote overclokng, a boards overclocking features are a selling point. Overclocking these days is not dangerous as long as common sense is used.Intel aren’t going to sell a chip pushed to the limit without any safety margin, simply because they can't account for the thousands of users out there all with different systems, and different cooling solutions. Hence why they have to clock a chip on the lower side.However... Intel technical guys themselves, openly claim the i7930, on average, is a great overclocker, a tad better than the 920. They most certainly wouldn’t do this if they were averse to overcloking.Martin Wilby

The fact is - Intel, as well as AMD will do everything to sell their product, cheap or expensive, it's the same. The reason why they don't push them to the limit is cheap production, not differences in users systems. Every manufacturer is striving for the cheapest production they can get that will give them at least 80%-90% quality, and chips are tested, per serie, as to what quality it is. Hihest quality chips are sold as higher model numbers, where lower quality are lower number. Simples.Of course, it doesn't mean that lower quality ones will break easily, they will simply not be clocked as the better ones, right from the start.That process was and is in use, by basically all manufacturers.As to burnt houses, I've seen one, burnt by overclocked machine, running overnight. There's many cases of such failures, but it all comes down to bending the limits. If you do so, keep it under control, and always be there to shut it down.Cheers