Hey,this type of question has probably been asked a zillion of times, but technology evolves so fast... so the question always remains actualI'm considering buying or building a new rig, designed to run FSX smoothly, but also other games (mainly simracing titles like iRacing).I've found a store here in Belgium which proposes a pre-configured rig, specially designed for FSX, with some components you are free to configure yourself (like processor etc).After playing with their online configurator for this system, this is what I've come up with:ANTEC P183 Quit TowerAntec TP-750 750W True PowerAsus Sabertooth X58INTEL Core™ i7-990X Hexacore Extreme Edition 32nm ( 3.4Ghz ) 12MB, 6 cores, 12 Threads, TurboCorsair CMZ6GX3M3A1600C8 6GB KIT (3X2GB) 1600MHZ DDR3 Vengeance SeriesAsus enGTX580/2DI/1536MD5 1536MB DDR5 PCI ExpressSCYTHE Mugen II CPU Cooler REV.bOCZ OCZSSD3-2VTX120G 120GB Vertex 2 S-ATA II 3.5 Inch MLCWestern Digital WD2001FASS 2000GB 64MB SATA300 7200RPM Caviar BlackPlextor PX-B320SAPremium Card Reader With a license of Windows 7 64 home (which I'm negotiating to drop because I already own a Windows 7 copy), the total price would be 2636.07 €, which is about 3679 $, which would fit my budget but this really is the max (depending on how much $ I can get for my current rig which I intend to sell). Keep in mind that PC components in Europe are generally a bit more expensive than in the US.So, can you please give your comments and remarks about this config ?I'm especially interested in knowing:1) Is the 750W PSU powerful enough to feed the beast ? Is it overkill ? Standard PSU proposed with this rig is a 650W2) Is the motherboard adequate3) Is the tower good enough for cooling4) is the I7-990X too much of overkill (PC will mainly be used for gaming (FSX, iRacing, ...), and only limited use for video rendering etc). So is this reasonable or should I settle for a less expensive 9xx series ?5) Is the RAM adequate6) Is the cooler adequate7) Is an SSD really a life-changer with regards to FSX ? If so, how ? OS on SSD, or FSX on SSD ? Or both ?What components would you advise to change to something else, and why ? e.g. is there a difference of quality in 580GTX cards from ASUS, MSI, ... ?Would you advise to go the I7-2600k way (which would mean another mainboard too I guess) ?I'm not really interested in overclocking... maybe only slightly, not pushing anything to its limitsThanks a ton for any input !TJ

Hey,ANTEC P183 Quit TowerAntec TP-750 750W True PowerAsus Sabertooth X58INTEL Core™ i7-990X Hexacore Extreme Edition 32nm ( 3.4Ghz ) 12MB, 6 cores, 12 Threads, TurboCorsair CMZ6GX3M3A1600C8 6GB KIT (3X2GB) 1600MHZ DDR3 Vengeance SeriesAsus enGTX580/2DI/1536MD5 1536MB DDR5 PCI ExpressSCYTHE Mugen II CPU Cooler REV.bOCZ OCZSSD3-2VTX120G 120GB Vertex 2 S-ATA II 3.5 Inch MLCWestern Digital WD2001FASS 2000GB 64MB SATA300 7200RPM Caviar BlackPlextor PX-B320SAPremium Card Reader 1) Is the 750W PSU powerful enough to feed the beast ? Is it overkill ? Standard PSU proposed with this rig is a 650W2) Is the motherboard adequate3) Is the tower good enough for cooling4) is the I7-990X too much of overkill (PC will mainly be used for gaming (FSX, iRacing, ...), and only limited use for video rendering etc). So is this reasonable or should I settle for a less expensive 9xx series ?5) Is the RAM adequate6) Is the cooler adequate7) Is an SSD really a life-changer with regards to FSX ? If so, how ? OS on SSD, or FSX on SSD ? Or both ?TJ

OK here is my take on this, first of there is no such thing as overkill in building a PC (not in my world) if your thing is FSX only I will go with the 2600K money wise (not perf. wise and I'll explain below) BUT I saw you wrote something about Video rendering etc. so the 990X is king because of his 6 core. The 990X can overclock at 4.7GHz with less voltage compare to the 980X. here is a review on it... http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i7_990x_hexcore_1366/1Just to make something clear here using the 2600K or the 990X is not the problem, what I see as a problem is to have a CPU clocked at 4.8GHz > using 1600MHz memory at cas 9-9-9-24 ...you will be better off with 4.2GHz on the CPU and the memory at 1600MHz cas 6-6-6-21 (for FSX), or 4.8GHz > 5.0GHz with 2300MHz cas 7 like these here.. (available soon) http://www.techpowerup.com/141392/G.Skill-Exhibits-New-Memory-Products-at-CeBIT.htmlBuilding a rig for FSX still = the fastest hardware you can find period IF you want to get as much as you can out of FSX. So lets answer some of your questions..1) Assuming you'll overclock get a PSU of at least 850W (I'll get a 1000W myself), the reason is you don't want to use all of it's power when overclocking to stay stable, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168173410442) NO the the sabertooth, get one of these two, a lot better, keeping overclocking in mind.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131614 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168131316423) A full tower is always the best for cooling... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168111330724) 990X is the king of the 9xx series.5) Not if you are overclocking, 1600MHz cas 8 is fast but not fast enough used with the 990X overclocked.... here... 2000MHz cas 7-7-7-21 is the best if you can find them http://www.supertalent.com/products/overclock_memory_detail.php?reg=N&mtid=56) Get this one if you want to keep your temp low, that's the one I have and it's a beast... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168356080187) SSD is the way to go today, FSX on SSD and OS on HDD or SSD (SSD better), no moving part, faster data delivery and that's what FSX need.As far as I can tell the 1366 990X or 980X is still better all around compare to the 1155 2600K because you have 2 more core + DDR3 triple chanel but again if it's only for FSX and money is a problem I'll go with the 2600K.

1) Regarding the PSU - Seasonic is the BEST, hands down. They also make Corsair's PSUs - at least their high end ones, anyway. I would also recommend 850W. Check out either the Seasonic X-850 or the Corsair AX-850. They're pretty much the same power supply.7) For an SSD, wait for the OCZ vertex 3 drive to be released if you can. It's 20-40% faster and should be priced at what the OCZ vertex 2 has been priced at. It doesn't have to be OCZ either - just wait for any of the revision 3 SSDs to come out. All the major manufacturers will be coming out with their latest SSDs (Corsair, OCZ, GSkill, etc) and they all have read/write speeds of approximately 500MB/s - 550MB/s.What website did you use to configure that system?

Alain, this topic has been beaten to death, but still, here I go againI disagree with you for the most part:

OK here is my take on this, first of there is no such thing as overkill in building a PC (not in my world) if your thing is FSX

Of course there is overkill in building PC when you consider the software you're goint to run, even if it's FSX, but a 990X is IMO not overkill, but a worst option performance wise than a I5 2500K (yes, even the 2500K) because SB has better IPC, memory performance and overclockability, and FSX can't take advantage of the 2 extra cores the 990X sports and HT. It's not your world, or my world or anyone's world I'm afraid, it's FSX's world and FSX rules it no matter what we think or do

The 990X can overclock at 4.7GHz with less voltage compare to the 980X. here is a review on it... http://www.overclock..._hexcore_1366/1

Might overclock a bit better than a 980X, but 4.7GHz with 1.45V in that review... I mean, that's way beyond the max of 1.375V!! If you're happy feeding that Vcore to a 1000$ 32nm 990X, you might as well feed 1.5V to a 200$ 2500K and get it to 5.3GHz or something like thatWell, he's not overclocking it too much, so it doesn't really matter to the OP anyway

Just to make something clear here using the 2600K or the 990X is not the problem, what I see as a problem is to have a CPU clocked at 4.8GHz > using 1600MHz memory at cas 9-9-9-24 ...you will be better off with 4.2GHz on the CPU and the memory at 1600MHz cas 6-6-6-21 (for FSX), or 4.8GHz > 5.0GHz with 2300MHz cas 7 like these here.. (available soon) http://www.techpower...s-at-CeBIT.html

No way 4.2GHz 1600 CL6 is faster than 4.8GHz 1600 CL9. You might get a 2-3% from going CL9 to CL6, while a 600MHz CPU OC will give a 10-15% perf boost

1) Assuming you'll overclock get a PSU of at least 850W (I'll get a 1000W myself), the reason is you don't want to use all of it's power when overclocking to stay stable, http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817341044

...talking about overkill... 850W - 1000W for a single GPU? 700W is more than enough. There's people running dual SLI on quality 700W PSU. What matters there is the wattage in the 12V rail(s), the ripple suppresion, voltage regulation and power efficiencyI have a Kill'a'Watt and at 4.8GHz, the GPU overclocked and full OCCT, it never gets past 350W. Of course a 580 is more power hungry, but 8500 or 1000W is flat out overkill

3) A full tower is always the best for cooling... http://www.newegg.co...N82E16811133072

very true, and it will house that huge GTX580 with room to spare

4) 990X is the king of the 9xx series.

It's still the same thing as a 980X basically. 100 extra MHz maybe

7) SSD is the way to go today, FSX on SSD and OS on HDD or SSD (SSD better), no moving part, faster data delivery and that's what FSX need.

An SSD won't increase frame rates as you prolly know, and I don't see how it could make the sim smoother. FSX uses async threads to load textures in memory, so I see no reason why it should be I/O bottlenecked. Besides, I tried an SSD and I couldn't tell the difference in game. Of course load times were much better, but that's about it. Truth is a had very limited time to play with it and some people reported a smoother experience, so I might be wrong

As far as I can tell the 1366 990X or 980X is still better all around compare to the 1155 2600K because you have 2 more core + DDR3 triple chanel but again if it's only for FSX and money is a problem I'll go with the 2600K.

P67's dual channel is MUCH faster than X58's tripple channel:

+1 for daz!

+1 for dazz!

Dazz, you made some very good point but you left some of what I was saying out...here... Quote" As far as I can tell the 1366 990X or 980X is still better all around compare to the 1155 2600K because you have 2 more core + DDR3 triple chanel but again if it's only for FSX and money is a problem I'll go with the 2600K. end of quote"Remember he is telling us he is doing some video rendering......so he need the best from both world.Core for core the 2600K is better for sure, overclock higher and does not need as much voltage.Now if the 2600K was the best of all for FSX would you care to explain how I can get these result after following Corey's test to the letter? My hardware are listed in the sig. Now I will try is new test to see what I'll get out of it.Again I'm not trying to start a war between the 2600K belivers and the 9XX series belivers but I can assure you that my FSX run like a dream.

Hey guys,thanks for your replies.obviously I think it's logical that there are believers of a 9xx based system, while others want to go the 2600k way. In the end, choosing a system with new technologies is always a bit of a leap into the unknown, and regardless of that I think both systems are very capable of running FSX and other titles smoothly, which is obviously the ultimate goal. As said, I'm not the kind of guy who will want to massively overclock to pump every possible frame out of a game... I just need a system that runs it smoothly with the best possible detail and graphical eyecandy. If it does that at let's say 35 - 40 fps in dense scenery, then I don't care I could reach 45 - 50 with overclocking but potentially harming the system...Anyway I'm in no hurry, I can wait for a couple of more weeks or even months, and if new stuff (like the 3rd generation of SSD's) is just around the corner then I'll be happy to wait. Maybe I'll wait until there are more users and opinions of the 2600k series and then make up my mind.Just to be sure ... Intel / nVidia is the best way to go for FSX, right ?

What website did you use to configure that system?

It's a Belgian store, you probably won't know it: http://www.tones.beIt's in no other language than Dutch, but I can point you to the pricelist of all their processors --> http://www.tones.be/...ten.php?cat=390 (prices are euros)As far as I can tell it's one of the cheaper stores here in Belgium

Dazz, you made some very good point but you left some of what I was saying out...here... Quote" As far as I can tell the 1366 990X or 980X is still better all around compare to the 1155 2600K because you have 2 more core + DDR3 triple chanel but again if it's only for FSX and money is a problem I'll go with the 2600K. end of quote"Remember he is telling us he is doing some video rendering......so he need the best from both world.Core for core the 2600K is better for sure, overclock higher and does not need as much voltage.Now if the 2600K was the best of all for FSX would you care to explain how I can get these result after following Corey's test to the letter? My hardware are listed in the sig. Now I will try is new test to see what I'll get out of it.Again I'm not trying to start a war between the 2600K belivers and the 9XX series belivers but I can assure you that my FSX run like a dream.

Don't waste your time. They just don't get it.

Don't waste your time. They just don't get it.

That's a pretty sour response. So far, we only have a single 980X benchmark to go off of. According to the results, it admittedly spanks everything else - but regardless, it's the ONLY benchmark of a 980X... not to mention he's also using a ridiculous SSD. That SSD is probably worth more than my entire computer! The benchmark doesn't say whether it's the 980X or the SSD drive providing the performanceLet's wait until we get more benchmark results form the 6-core 9xx processors before we make any judgments here. About the best source of performance info we have so far is youtube. From the videos I looked at, it doesn't appear as if the 980X provides any better performance than 1155 systems. Let's just wait for more benchmarks before we make any final judgments. The results will speak for themselves. But I don't blame anybody for taking a single result with a grain of salt. Perhaps you could add to the results, Jose?

It's not just the 980x or the SSD, its the entire system and how it is configured.You can have the best, most expensive parts, but if you don't know how to set them up, then you will still have poor performance.We all have come to understand that FSX is an outdated, CPU intensive, program. However, as many of us have shown, a fast video card and fast drives do have a MAJOR impact on performance.I'll leave the tweaking for a different thread.

It's not just the 980x or the SSD, its the entire system and how it is configured.

You make an excellent point - that's exactly what I want to know. How much of that performance comes from the SSD, and how much comes from the 980X??? Everybody here understands the importance of a balanced system. That's not some sort of high-knowledge revelation for advanced computer users only. Ideally, we could figure this out with a simple test matrix:Test 1: 980X + RevoDrive SSDTest 2: i5-2500k + RevoDrive SSDTest 3: 980X + regular HDDTest 4: i5-2500k + regular HDDWe have numbers for test 1 and 4. We just need test 2 and 3. For all we know, a well clocked i5-2500k + RevoDrive SSD would provide equal performance to the 980X + RevoDrive SSD. It's been said that FSX can only take advantage of 4 cores. If that's true, then I don't see why a 980X would be any more special than a 2500k or 2600k. Saving $700 on the 980X by getting the i5-2500k instead would actually help fund the purchase of the RevoDrive! Finally, let's suppose it does take both the 980X and the RevoDrive to see that kind of performance, but you can't afford a RevoDrive. Then there's no point in getting the 980X.

I can find tons of posts of I7 hexa cores (including yours Jose, so come down) claiming poor performance (frames in the teens) in heavy scenery/traffic. I have yet to see my 2600K go below 25FPS in the PMDG744 and 30 in the MD-11 with 100% mytraffic, and all the scenery addons. Going by Alain's results in FSMark11 V1, the I7 980 should double the 2600K performance which makes no sense at all no matter how you look at it. The figures were all over the place and that's why the FSMark11 thread was reset

You make an excellent point - that's exactly what I want to know. How much of that performance comes from the SSD, and how much comes from the 980X??? Everybody here understands the importance of a balanced system. That's not some sort of high-knowledge revelation for advanced computer users only. Ideally, we could figure this out with a simple test matrix:Test 1: 980X + RevoDrive SSDTest 2: i5-2500k + RevoDrive SSDTest 3: 980X + regular HDDTest 4: i5-2500k + regular HDDWe have numbers for test 1 and 4. We just need test 2 and 3. For all we know, a well clocked i5-2500k + RevoDrive SSD would provide equal performance to the 980X + RevoDrive SSD. It's been said that FSX can only take advantage of 4 cores. If that's true, then I don't see why a 980X would be any more special than a 2500k or 2600k. Saving $700 on the 980X by getting the i5-2500k instead would actually help fund the purchase of the RevoDrive! Finally, let's suppose it does take both the 980X and the RevoDrive to see that kind of performance, but you can't afford a RevoDrive. Then there's no point in getting the 980X.

Corey, a drive can't improve FSX's framerates no matter how fast it is. It's not bottlenecking FSX in any way. Same goes for the GPU most of the time unless you start to push it with huge 3 screen resolutions and/or 8xSQ FSAA. It's not about getting the fastest parts and hope for every single upgrade to add to the system performance in FSX. That's pretty well known.And yes, for video rendering the 990X will outperform the 2600K and even more so the 2500K, by a 20-30% maybe, for 500% the price and at the expense of performance in games - FSX, where Sandy Bridge is the better performer

I'm actually a lot happier. All I did was lower the water setting to high 1x and I gained 5-10 fps in NYC. Now I'm in the 20s. I have a feeling that the two extra cores make a difference. I have a feeling that faster ram makes a difference. I have a feeling that the SSD makes a difference. I have a feeling that a gtx 580 or a very fast gtx 480 makes a difference.I have a feeling that all that added performance translates into even more performance. I have a feeling that all that additional performance translates into spending more money.That does not mean the the 2600K is not a better buy, if you want to save some money. But, Alain did say if money was a concern, the SB was a an excellent alternative.