Hi Steve:Great idea wish I thought of it, I will give that a go as soon as I get home from work, thank you all really appreciate your time Guys.Regards, Rich

As you are going from one 3.8GHz box to another with the same GPU, as far as FSX is concerned, there should be no significant performance change. Assuming you are using 6x2G, you might consider removing half your RAM, which will give you a small boost, but other then that, I would suggest you use Bojotes site to tweak your fsx.cfg and Mathijs tips here to make sure your settings are sensible.

Wow Paul removing 6 gig of ram would make it better why would that be pal ? Regards, Rich

Well, had you done a little more research before you spent your cash, you would already know. But seeing as you didn't, and I am in a generous mood, I will help you out anyway. Addressing two banks of memory at the same time takes more resources (and time) then just addressing one, which is why on 1156 (and 1155) MBs, 2x4G will out perform 4x2G memory with the same specs. It is also the reason that you were charged extra money to get a 1366 board over a similar spec 1156. The 1366, in case you forgot to read the specs, has triple channel memory. This means it can have three DIMMs in the same bank of memory, which in turn means it can access more memory at the same speed then a 1156 board which only has two DIMMs per bank. I presume I do not need to point out that all the DIMMs in a bank perform at the level of the one with the slowest specs, which is why it is important to use matched sets. I also assume that you weren't so stupid as to throw out the manuals you got with your motherboard, because when you remove three DIMMS, you want to remove them from bank two and your manual will tell you which slots bank two uses. And unless you are doing video editing or similar, you have to work pretty damn hard to use 12G on a Windows rig.If you need any help with the bigger words, don't hesitate to ask. Pal.

Great Paul I will try that tonight, I have narrowed it down to Real Environment Extreme it loaded into the x86 folder and I was read on their forum you should not load it there just in the c:: so I uninstalled it and stutter is gone may do a complete instal of fsx again do you reccomend I should put ut - rex - gex maybe on another drive would that be better, thanks for the help oh do you need some extra ram lol give it a go tonight :) Regards, Rich

As you are going from one 3.8GHz box to another with the same GPU, as far as FSX is concerned, there should be no significant performance change. ....

This is not true. You cannot use clockspeed as a measure of performance when you compare processors of different architectures. The 'Nehalem' family of cpus generally perform about 20% faster per clock cycle compared to the previous architecture, 'Core'. Google "Megahertz myth" for references

This is not true. You cannot use clockspeed as a measure of performance when you compare processors of different architectures. The 'Nehalem' family of cpus generally perform about 20% faster per clock cycle compared to the previous architecture, 'Core'. Google "Megahertz myth" for references

While you are of course correct in the broader sense, witness the SandyBrige chips significantly outperforming previous generation processors at the same clock speeds in modern benchmark tests, I did specify that "as far as FSX is concerned". Since FSX does not use hyper-threading, pipelining, enhanced instruction sets, or any other enhancement from the last half dozen years and more, it is not able to capitalise on the architectural changes newer chips have introduced. There will be differences between the two systems, of course, but I would suggest that greater differences would be seen from just defragging of harddisks.

This is not true. You cannot use clockspeed as a measure of performance when you compare processors of different architectures. The 'Nehalem' family of cpus generally perform about 20% faster per clock cycle compared to the previous architecture, 'Core'. Google "Megahertz myth" for references

Good point. Paul, you keep embarrasing yourself with your cocky posts full of BS.

Addressing two banks of memory at the same time takes more resources (and time) then just addressing one, which is why on 1156 (and 1155) MBs, 2x4G will out perform 4x2G memory with the same specs. It is also the reason that you were charged extra money to get a 1366 board over a similar spec 1156.

The overhead of having 4 slots vs 2 or 6 vs 3 populated is negligible. If any, you'll need to slightly loosen your timings and then the difference will still be close to none. More DIMMS can tamper with OC too, not too much, maybe 100 - 200MHz, but even though it's better to go with 3x2=6GB than 6x2=12GB you completely failed to pinpoint the actual reasons why. 12GB are overkill, but once he has them, it's barely going to make a difference to remove 3 sticks unless he tightens the timings and overclocks the CPU higher, nothing to do with overhead.

...triple channel memory. This means it can have three DIMMs in the same bank of memory, which in turn means it can access more memory at the same speed then a 1156 board which only has two DIMMs per bank. I presume I do not need to point out that all the DIMMs in a bank perform at the level of the one with the slowest specs, which is why it is important to use matched sets. I also assume that you weren't so stupid as to throw out the manuals you got with your motherboard, because when you remove three DIMMS, you want to remove them from bank two and your manual will tell you which slots bank two uses. And unless you are doing video editing or similar, you have to work pretty damn hard to use 12G on a Windows rig.If you need any help with the bigger words, don't hesitate to ask. Pal.

I presume you have not researched on how much faster triple channel is and I'm not in the mood to do that for you, or even post a stupid link to lmgtfu.com. Also, if you assume triple channel is faster, but less dimms perform better, what's better? 2 dimms in dual or 3 in triple chanel? well, the answer is, it depends on the architecture rather than any of those factors. You are totally clueless so at least you could try to "help" in a more polite way because you are just embarrasing yourself

While you are of course correct in the broader sense, witness the SandyBrige chips significantly outperforming previous generation processors at the same clock speeds in modern benchmark tests, I did specify that "as far as FSX is concerned". Since FSX does not use hyper-threading, pipelining, enhanced instruction sets, or any other enhancement from the last half dozen years and more, it is not able to capitalise on the architectural changes newer chips have introduced. There will be differences between the two systems, of course, but I would suggest that greater differences would be seen from just defragging of harddisks.

OMG!!! you crack me up, really

Paul, you've given me a good chuckle! Try not to be so condescending! Especially when incorrect. Everything you've mentioned is not interfering with Richard's system. You're putting to much emphasis on the small things...Anyway. To the OP. I was getting uiautomationcore.dll and on occasion other CTDs when I built this rig. Turned out my overclock wasn't as stable as I had thought. My fix was to come up a tiny bit on the vcore. You also may like to check that your ram isn't overclocked or too tightly timed, as that can cause this instability as well. I got lost with all of the BS in this thread, so I'm sorry if this is repeating something someone else has stated already. Speaking of which, seems like you should be able to get a much better overclock out of that chip.

I'm going to start calling Dario "Thread Saver". That has a nice ring to it don't ya think Dario? :Big Grin:But in all seriousness, you and Zach do bring up several legitimate points for the OP to consider.

Sorry guys didn't mean to start any quarrels, my cpu is running at 3.8 ghz and is a noticeable difference, I also think it can go up a notch but I am not overclocking ram, not sure how to, is this a bad thing if the cpu is overclocked, thanks so much guys for posting, still not sure where to load each program if I re-install fsx, would like to know because I am sick of spending hours to do this process, getting old lol :)Regards, Rich

Sorry guys didn't mean to start any quarrels, my cpu is running at 3.8 ghz and is a noticeable difference, I also think it can go up a notch but I am not overclocking ram, not sure how to, is this a bad thing if the cpu is overclocked, thanks so much guys for posting, still not sure where to load each program if I re-install fsx, would like to know because I am sick of spending hours to do this process, getting old lol :)Regards, Rich

Not to worry Rich. Any 'quarrels' were started by our own account, you didn't do anything. When you install fsx, don't install it into your program files folder. Ideally, you would have a hard-drive dedicated just for fsx and associated programs. If not, you can still create a separate partition for fsx. This keeps fsx clean and free of any other junk that may be happening in the background of a system hard-drive. When you install FSX and other sim addons like REX, you can create your own directory. For example, if you choose to install FSX on your main HDD you might name the installation path C:\Sim. And then REX could be C:\REX, etc. You can follow this same format if you use a separate partition or HDD. For example, H:\FSX. Hope this helps Rich. =)

I am glad I seem to be entertaining people today. Not quite sure where you are coming from Dario, Wims point was correct and I agreed with it, but it didn't apply to FSX for the reasons I thought I explained. Do you have any reason not to agree with those reasons that you would like to share?I had already mentioned to the OP that there would only be a "small boost" from using a single bank instead of two and pointed the original poster instead to two locations where he could get his FSX settings tuned. An action that would give him a far better performance gain. That he dismissed my help with a 'wow...pal' was consistent with his earlier "spend money instead of thinking" approach and try to blame others when it doesn't get the results his money deserved attitude which, rightly or wrongly, annoyed me to the point where I felt like putting him in his place. I never said less DIMMs was better or even that the number of slots was a factor, but questioning something as simple and as easily verified as accessing one bank being faster then two for a given set of DIMMs surprises me. Anybody can verify it by simply taking out all their DIMMS. Select how ever many are needed to fill one bank, and place them in different banks and run a memory benchmark. Now place them all in the same bank and repeat. I can only assume you misread what I wrote since I know you know this stuff.

Paul, this was Rich's exact post that you were referring to:

Wow Paul removing 6 gig of ram would make it better why would that be pal?

Maybe he wasn't being sarcastic, maybe he was genuinely wondering, and calling you pal because he appreciates your assistance. After all, he referred to others in the thread as pal, and his general attitude seemed to be one of appreciation. But your reply was very rude regardless of what he said, or meant to say. I'm sorry, I don't want to get caught up in this, but I don't think it is fair to "put him in his place", as that indicates that you somehow have authority over him. In case it is unclear in my posts, my tone is pleasant; and I'm not being a jerk, I'm just trying to stick up for a seemingly nice guy who came here looking for assistance.

Hi Ethan:Thanks so much and to all thank you some great input and did not expect this much help, great bunch of guys, ok sounds like I will load fsx on a second separate hard drive 500gb raptor, just want to fly my 747-8 pmdg beauty stutter free JRegards, Rich