Unfortunately benchmarks measure only frame rates, not perceived smoothness, which is what matters to me. I never compare frame rates on FSX, they are irrelevant. Providing they are high enough to give correct responsiveness (which for an airliner, which I fly, is not very demanding -- it would need to be more so for a stunt plane or fighter), all that then matters is how smooth the world appears. Stutters, jerks, visible redraws, all those things spoil the experience. My system and settings are designed to eliminate those, not to obtain silly frame rates. ;-)Pete

And what is there in that platform that could provide more smoothness Pete? because it's the same thing, the same architecture, and so far my perceived smoothness is proportional to the silly frames I get. Silk smooth until it goes below 30 FPS with trackir. What was your former rig?Try removing two sticks and running those 1366 machines on dual channel and please let me know if you notice the difference

Dario,Keeping this in a friendly manner, I can guarantee you that if I built the above system that I recommended, regardless of what benchmark you use, it will perform significantly better/faster than your 1156 platform.The only way for anyone to really know is to put your proposed system against my above example. Load the same FSX scenerio and see how they match up. Not just using fps, but fluidity too. I guarantee you that using a complex airplane, important sliders to the right, poor weather, & using Manhattan X as an example, you will experience much better performance. Why? It's the hardware. It's the software. It's a properly toned system.I doubt that anyone would be wasting their money if they were getting the results that they want. Excellent FSX performance! I've been building my own system for over a decade. Along the way, I've learned a thing or two about hardware and performance.This is in no way intended to derogate your accomplishments. That's the end of this discussion.

LOL, where do you have this from, especially FSX concerned???

Anandtech got hold of an early sample and tested it ages ago. Read the review for yourself.Review hereThe 10 to 20% improvement is my opinion and I should have stated that. Sorry.

Dario,Keeping this in a friendly manner, I can guarantee you that if I built the above system that I recommended, regardless of what benchmark you use, it will perform significantly better/faster than your 1156 platform.The only way for anyone to really know is to put your proposed system against my above example. Load the same FSX scenerio and see how they match up. Not just using fps, but fluidity too. I guarantee you that using a complex airplane, important sliders to the right, poor weather, & using Manhattan X as an example, you will experience much better performance. Why? It's the hardware. It's the software. It's a properly toned system.I doubt that anyone would be wasting their money if they were getting the results that they want. Excellent FSX performance! I've been building my own system for over a decade. Along the way, I've learned a thing or two about hardware and performance.This is in no way intended to derogate your accomplishments. That's the end of this discussion.

well, I keep hearing I can't compare since I've never tested a system like that, but have you tested a system like mine? If it's such a subjective thing I would expect you (impersonal you) to know it from self experience. Again, what's there in that hardware that could improve your FSX experience?Tripple channel? (you can test it)6 cores? (test it)RAM speed? ....

Unfortunately benchmarks measure only frame rates, not perceived smoothness, which is what matters to me. I never compare frame rates on FSX, they are irrelevant. Providing they are high enough to give correct responsiveness (which for an airliner, which I fly, is not very demanding -- it would need to be more so for a stunt plane or fighter), all that then matters is how smooth the world appears. Stutters, jerks, visible redraws, all those things spoil the experience. My system and settings are designed to eliminate those, not to obtain silly frame rates. ;-)Pete

Thank you Pete Dowson!! I'd also throw an Amen Brother in there. I have my FPS locked at 30 or 60 but I never look at it. I judge my flights by the smoothness alone.Vic

Thank you Pete Dowson!! I'd also throw an Amen Brother in there. I have my FPS locked at 30 or 60 but I never look at it. I judge my flights by the smoothness alone.Vic

Another Amen brother from me.

As Pete pointed out Smooth flight is what you're looking for, and depending on what you are expecting with the sim and its performance some of the systems sugested do offer REAL bang for the buck value such as the I5 or lesser I7-860s we can even talk about some AMDs with a decent 460GTX.However what links some of the other suggestions is also linked to smoothness and the link that can be identified in benchmarking at the higher-end when anal-izing the results of a detailed FPS log IS: minimum and dropped frames and THAT is where there is a direct relationship with smooth flight. So IF you think you might be headed towards FSX add-on land (it always happens) that’s when being able to MAINTAIN FPS is what the better hardware can do for you for a fact.Can you enjoy FSX on a I5 @ 4ghz in combo with a 460? you bet and if you are going to just throw a few add-ons into the mix at decent upper IQ settings then you should probably stop right there because as Dario states there REALY is minimal difference. (I am speaking from good experience and in case anyone wants to fret it out I would normally be happy to oblige you with details, but I cant really do that on this forum for reasons that I can not realy discuss, not that anyone cares or even needs to know but I am limited to a degree)If however you start to push higher settings, IQ, filtering and start throwing highres Meshes, detailed airports, Traffic, weather, Scenery like ORBX or others and like to fly complex heavies - all of that type of thing and want to fully immerse yourself in the best experience that you can have; then I would listen to Word Not Allowed and what others are saying about what an I7-930-980/480/580GTX or other higher-end hardware can do. There is a REAL difference when you start to push it and even the highest-end systems have a hard time keeping up, much less a midrange, I for one would be glad to put my money elsewhere if it were the other way around.So to sum up if I can, it just depends on what YOUR expectations are, if you don’t have deep pockets and will keep the sim fairly light with just a few good add-ons you will be fine with a midrange system and more happy than the rest of us who spent all the dough only to still be tweaking...But you do get what you pay for.BTW the way most of you know but some here do not it seems: the 580GTXs are already out and available all over the place, mine is in my hands and right now, if you will excuse me its time to install... :Party: Cheers!

And what is there in that platform that could provide more smoothness Pete? because it's the same thing, the same architecture, and so far my perceived smoothness is proportional to the silly frames I get. Silk smooth until it goes below 30 FPS with trackir. What was your former rig?

i7-975 running at 4.2GHz with GTX-285, also water-cooled. In fact I simply got it upgraded. The new one is really noticeably better and takes the full Bojote tweaks with no artifacts.

Try removing two sticks and running those 1366 machines on dual channel and please let me know if you notice the difference

Sorry, I'm not buggering about with the water-cooling stuff. It cost me extra to get the upgrade done because I'm no plumber!Let's just say that I'm a lot happier now than I was before and consider the upgrade worthwhile. That's not scientific, but it doesn't need to be for me. My "benchmark" smoothness testing is done at UK2000 Heathrow with 100% UT2 traffic plus MyTrafficX making up the UT2 shortfall, with ASE 5 cloud layers, dense but not max autogen. With my previous system it was fine everywhere except there. Now it's even enjoyable there, if not yet quite perfection. Still tweaking a little. ;-)Enough from me, now... work to do! RegardsPete

I'm not talking about some vanilla FSX here, talking about full geared FSX: PMDG/FSLabs/Maddog + EGLL UK2000 + UTX + GEX + REX2 + ASE + MyTraffic or UT2....Pete, there was something wrong with that i7-975 @ 4.2 + GTX-285if it was not performing as expected, that upgrade only makes sense in terms of OC capability, you can always test it at 4.2GHz and see if you can notice the difference in a clock for clock comparisonAnd for some reason, every time I ask someone to test their system on less memory channels or cores they'll come up with an excuse. oh well

Anandtech got hold of an early sample and tested it ages ago. Read the review for yourself.Review hereThe 10 to 20% improvement is my opinion and I should have stated that. Sorry.

Actually, 10 to 20% is not unfounded opinion. It's been pretty well advertised that the new sandy bridge IS supposed to perform 10 to 20% better clock for clock and based on the performance of that i5-2500 in the review above, it seems plausible. In the anandtech review posted above, the i5-2500 locked at 3.1 GHz performed pretty close to or better than the i7-980X at 3.33 GHz in several categories while using 25% less power. This brings me to my next point: overclocking headroom. Check out the following.Sandy Bridge at 4.9 GHz on airi7-2600k at 5.5 GHz on airI don't know much about overclocking an i7-980X other than it's also 32nm, but good luck getting an i7-920, 930, or 950 stable anywhere near those speeds. These things should be able to clock much higher without the need for watercooling or noisy fans.I think it would be wise to wait for Sandy Bridge. I hate to spread any rumors, but I've read in more than one place that release date should be something like January 6th - but take that for what it is at this point - rumor. Finally, and most importantly, you're not going to pay anywhere near as much money for a Sandy Bridge chip as you will that i7-980X. I'm willing to bet you will be able to buy a new motherboard, memory, and i5-2500k and still save money over that i7-980X! The i7-2600k will probably come at a premium, but still be fairly affordable.

Pete, there was something wrong with that i7-975 @ 4.2 + GTX-285if it was not performing as expected, that upgrade only makes sense in terms of OC capability

No, even with them both at the same clock the 980X + GTX480 combination was noticeably smoother in my extreme test situation. The only change initially, before I ramped up the clock, was the processor and video card (and the water block on the video card, which was different of course). I think the larger RAM on the 480 helps with the BufferPools tweaks. Maybe that's it. I don't know. But for sure, if there was something wrong there still is, because nothing else changed.I'm not arguing with you. I'm only saying it suits me for what I want, and it was worthwhile to me. But my test situation is not normal for most folks. I just want one of the busiest airports in the world to be realistic. Full AI, full ground traffic, AES, rotten British weather, the lot. I know that when it is acceptable there it will easily be more than acceptable everywhere else I'm likely to fly to (I only fly "Greater Europe" in my 737NG).Bye now,Pete