Yes that is the correct CPU.any of these: http://www.alternate.nl/html/product/Moederborden_Socket_1155/GIGABYTE/GA-P67A-UD3P/508409/?tn=HARDWARE&l1=Moederborden&l2=Intelhttp://www.alternate.nl/html/product/Moederborden_Socket_1155/MSI/P67A-GD65/499011/?tn=HARDWARE&l1=Moederborden&l2=Intelhttp://www.alternate.nl/html/product/Moederborden_Socket_1155/ASUS/P8P67/496659/?tn=HARDWARE&l1=Moederborden&l2=Intel

Yes that is the correct CPU.any of these: http://www.alternate...borden&l2=Intelhttp://www.alternate...borden&l2=Intelhttp://www.alternate...borden&l2=Intel

Great many thanks for your help!! ;)

FSX flies on my AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE running at stock of 3.5 GHz.Beware benchmarks - they are not a true representation of real-world performance, and beware also that FSX is fickle at the best of times and can either run well or badly purely because of the way the system is set up.If you are serious about a streamlined system, kill off all those unnecessary services, don't let anti-virus or anti-spyware anywhere near your computer, get plenty of memory, and don't fall for snake oil like SSDs that cost 5x-10x what a normal HD would cost - sure FSX loads faster initially, but it has zero impact on performance of the sim once it has initially loaded.Your best bet is to look around at peoples rigs and ask for screenshots with the frame-rate counter visible.It was found a little while ago that certain graphics card positively kill FSX performance. I went for a cheap ATI HD5750 (£100) and get great performance. I could have easily spent £600 but it would have been a total waste of money.I don't suffer stutters either even though I run with an unlimited frame rate.DCS:W (a cutting-edge stand-alone A-10C simulation currently in Beta) leaves FSX in the dust and it does far more than render a few trees. There is nothing wrong with AMD; as the European Competition Commission recently ruled, Intel is using under-hand tactics to push its warez, and in the real-world AMD perform just as well as the Intels, but for less money (in the EU at least).One point to note about benchmarks - they can be optimized to hell and back to perform extremely well on one processor (type), then run like crap on another. If I optimize a benchmark for Intel, I wouldn't expect it to run well on an AMD, and vice-versa. This is something not discussed when talking about benchmarks.Just throwing my two penneth out there.Caveat emptor.Best regards,Robin.

FSX flies on my AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE running at stock of 3.5 GHz.Beware benchmarks - they are not a true representation of real-world performance, and beware also that FSX is fickle at the best of times and can either run well or badly purely because of the way the system is set up.If you are serious about a streamlined system, kill off all those unnecessary services, don't let anti-virus or anti-spyware anywhere near your computer, get plenty of memory, and don't fall for snake oil like SSDs that cost 5x-10x what a normal HD would cost - sure FSX loads faster initially, but it has zero impact on performance of the sim once it has initially loaded.Your best bet is to look around at peoples rigs and ask for screenshots with the frame-rate counter visible.It was found a little while ago that certain graphics card positively kill FSX performance. I went for a cheap ATI HD5750 (£100) and get great performance. I could have easily spent £600 but it would have been a total waste of money.I don't suffer stutters either even though I run with an unlimited frame rate.DCS:W (a cutting-edge stand-alone A-10C simulation currently in Beta) leaves FSX in the dust and it does far more than render a few trees. There is nothing wrong with AMD; as the European Competition Commission recently ruled, Intel is using under-hand tactics to push its warez, and in the real-world AMD perform just as well as the Intels, but for less money (in the EU at least).One point to note about benchmarks - they can be optimized to hell and back to perform extremely well on one processor (type), then run like crap on another. If I optimize a benchmark for Intel, I wouldn't expect it to run well on an AMD, and vice-versa. This is something not discussed when talking about benchmarks.Just throwing my two penneth out there.Caveat emptor.Best regards,Robin.

Is FSX another CPU benchmark optimized for Intel? Come on. Intel chips are a lot faster clock for clock than AMD's at the moment. It's no corporative conspiracy or anything like that.Most games are GPU bound but Sandy Bridge puts any AMD chip to shame in every single CPU limited scenarioHopefully Bulldozer starts to even things and not only adding more cores but in raw processing speed so there's some competition

Is FSX another CPU benchmark optimized for Intel? Come on. Intel chips are a lot faster clock for clock than AMD's at the moment. It's no corporative conspiracy or anything like that.Most games are GPU bound but Sandy Bridge puts any AMD chip to shame in every single CPU limited scenarioHopefully Bulldozer starts to even things and not only adding more cores but in raw processing speed so there's some competition

Dario, I never asked but how does your i5 750 perform compared to X6 which you had before?

Is FSX another CPU benchmark optimized for Intel? Come on. Intel chips are a lot faster clock for clock than AMD's at the moment. It's no corporative conspiracy or anything like that.Most games are GPU bound but Sandy Bridge puts any AMD chip to shame in every single CPU limited scenarioHopefully Bulldozer starts to even things and not only adding more cores but in raw processing speed so there's some competition

I see in your signature that you have an Intel i5 750 at 4.0 GHz. Overclocked I'm sure? Are you getting good FPS with add-ons? When yes, can you please tell me what FPS you get with wich add-ons e.g.? Screenie would be nice aswell :rolleyes:Thanks in advatage! I'm thinking about to take the Intel Core i5 2500K and than overclocking to 4.0 GHz.

Dario, I never asked but how does your i5 750 perform compared to X6 which you had before?

I had my X6 OCed up to 4GHz as well. The difference is about a 20-25%

I see in your signature that you have an Intel i5 750 at 4.0 GHz. Overclocked I'm sure? Are you getting good FPS with add-ons? When yes, can you please tell me what FPS you get with wich add-ons e.g.? Screenie would be nice aswell :rolleyes:Thanks in advatage! I'm thinking about to take the Intel Core i5 2500K and than overclocking to 4.0 GHz.

Don't even consider an I5 760. Go with Sandy Bridge as others have already suggested. I ordered a 2500K a few days ago, so I will have some performance figures to post soon.

I had my X6 OCed up to 4GHz as well. The difference is about a 20-25%Don't even consider an I5 760. Go with Sandy Bridge as others have already suggested. I ordered a 2500K a few days ago, so I will have some performance figures to post soon.

And you keep your current mobo, Asus P7P55D-E?

And you keep your current mobo, Asus P7P55D-E?

No, of course not hehe. I picked an Asus P8P67 Pro