If your expectations are 30 fps with max sliders and payware scenery, you're right, we need more power!But if you're like me and satisfied coming from an AMD6000, running FSDT JFK with Duke @ 10fps to running at 30fps locked with mostly high sliders, then what's the problem?I fly online so I turn off the AI anyway - never really liked the cars either, waaay too many for smaller sections of road.

My advice to you is to set all your clock speeds and voltages back to default, start testing and tweaking fsx from there, then slowly start OC again in small increments and monitor the results in fsx, your not the only one I have heard having problems with theses new SB chips, when I fist got my i975 the first thing I did was got the thing ripping @ 4.20 ghz, I find now fsx runs alot more smooth and stable @4.0.

Sorry to be a wet blanket for you, Tor - I think there's a number of folks around that don't know how to manage and optimize a pc. My FSX has done nothing but get smoother and smoother since the Core2Duo E6600 days.

Agree! :( I would get rid of all the tweaks too and turn most of your sliders down as you must have them all the way to the right. Not good for any current computer system!Best regards,Jim

Agree! :( I would get rid of all the tweaks too and turn most of your sliders down as you must have them all the way to the right. Not good for any current computer system!Best regards,Jim

Thats true Jim you have to play with the silders.

Here's my current system:Intel i7 990X @ 3.47ghz12GB DDR3 RAMWin 7 64bitnVidia GTX 460I can run FSX with all settings on 'ultra high'. I have not applied any tweaks at all. None. My framerates are in the 40s at KSEA. They skyrocket to over 100 when I get out of that area.

I feel the pain of those who are having issues, been there-done that. The ONLY solution I found was to let the folks at www.fs-gs.com set my system up and with the specs in my sig I get consistant FPS in the 45-60 range, and that with most sliders maxxed. I have never even looked at the 'tweaks' others have posted here, I just launch and fly.Yes it costs a few bucks, but compared to what I have invested in FSX, it's a drop in the bucket. And the fact that FSX runs perfectly and trouble free.... priceless.

The first rule of FSX is - YOU HAVE TO BE PATIENT. There are so many factors influencing how FSX runs.Two - ALWAYS reboot your system BEFORE running FSX. If you've done anything on your computer prior to running FSX, you need a reboot.Three - Basic FSX performance depends upon the speed of your CPU and (secondarily) on the amount of RAM you have. FSX will run on systems that have relatively slow CPUs and perhaps 4Gb of RAM. However, your requirements for addons in FSX must be kept at the basic level. You can't have super flyable aircraft (such as PMDG or LVL) and still expect high performance. Your "sliders" must be kept at a minimum. NOTE: High level graphics cards (read expensive) will NOT increase your frame rates. The display will look better but your performance will not increase.Four - if you expect "smooth" performance, get a utility that identifies what processes the OS is running and allows you to stop only those that are essential to OS operation. You do this before running FSX. Don't do this - you get stutters.In your FSX main folder, build a set of "dummy" folders that contain a basic set of files needed for FSX to successfully operate. Here's what you will need - Addon Scenery, SimObjects\Airplanes, and Scenery. I usually label these folders with a "zzz."In your dummy Addon Scenery folder place empty "SCENERY" and "TEXTURE" folders.In your dummy SimObjects/Airplanes folder, place only the default FSX "flying" aircraft.In your dummy Scenery folder place a set of default folders from a "clean" install.Now, what to do with the dummy folders. These folders allow you to start looking for problems in your FSX setup. You rename the operational folders and substitute (one at a time) the dummy folders. I use these folders quite a bit when I'm trying to find problems with my setup. 99% of the time, using these folders will prevent constant re-installation of FSX.One more thing - make a dummy "scenery.cfg" file. Eliminate all the entries except the default ones. This will take out all installed addons you've made to your system.Last thing - run FSX and turn down all your sliders - ALL OF THEM. Select a default aircraft and fly it from some default airport. Look at your performance. Do you still have problems? No, then you start adding back your addons and your slider settings - a little at a time. Remember, it takes patience.If you still have issues running a basic FSX setup, then I would say that your computer is not up to running this software. I have an i7 extreme CPU (liquid cooled), 12Gb of RAM, an NVIDIA GTX 480 (liquid cooled) video card, a 10,000rpm hard drive, and a partridge in a pear tree. I run MAX everything and on occasion, still get some performance degradation (a little bit). Do you need such a machine? Only if you want to run a huge FSX configuration. Otherwise, FSX will run just fine on lessor machines.Happy flyingfb

Here's my current system:Intel i7 990X @ 3.47ghz12GB DDR3 RAMWin 7 64bitnVidia GTX 460I can run FSX with all settings on 'ultra high'. I have not applied any tweaks at all. None. My framerates are in the 40s at KSEA. They skyrocket to over 100 when I get out of that area.

My setup is closed to yoursBut in KSEA with the PMDG MD11 + REX + ASE + FTX + LOD 10, it's 10-15 FPS

Here's my current system:Intel i7 990X @ 3.47ghz12GB DDR3 RAMWin 7 64bitnVidia GTX 460I can run FSX with all settings on 'ultra high'. I have not applied any tweaks at all. None. My framerates are in the 40s at KSEA. They skyrocket to over 100 when I get out of that area.

My setup is closed to yoursBut in KSEA with the PMDG MD11 + REX + ASE + FTX + LOD 10, it's 10-15 FPS

Sandy Bridge is faster in FSX guys. FSX can't take advantage of the two extra cores, so the OP should get better performance than you. Much better actually given that he's overclocked it to 4.8GHz. It must be something about the settings he's using. Set water to 2.x low at most. No light bloom. No airport vehicles. Don't abuse AI traffic

One common mistake I have seen a lot of people make is to install windows OverClock it and then install FSX, tweaks, etc. BIG MISTAKE. Everything should be installed prior to overclocking.In regards to the original topic, I have seen many pilots with systems a lot less powerful than yours using FSX with very nice results. One suggestion is not to use every tweak in the book and they are probably contradicting with each other.I have done minimal tweaking in my FSX.cfg, didn't bother with the shader mods, etc. and I am using nVidia Inspector and have great results and this is with a ton of addon scenery, aircraft, VATSIM pilot client, Active Sky, etc. etc.Try one tweak at a time and see if there are improvements. If there are not any, remove it and try another.

Four - if you expect "smooth" performance, get a utility that identifies what processes the OS is running and allows you to stop only those that are essential to OS operation. You do this before running FSX. Don't do this - you get stutters.fb

Could you please name one such utility ?ThanksVic

Here's my current system:Intel i7 990X @ 3.47ghz12GB DDR3 RAMWin 7 64bitnVidia GTX 460I can run FSX with all settings on 'ultra high'. I have not applied any tweaks at all. None. My framerates are in the 40s at KSEA. They skyrocket to over 100 when I get out of that area.

So many differences between PC's here. Setting ultra high doesnt mean the sliders are all maxed, and are you using nvidia inspector to increase your AA? There's so many combinations.Also SEA area might not look as good on your PC as it does on mine, and vice versa.

@cmpbellsjc wrote: "You could always go back to FS9!!"Very good advise, thank you!My intention with this post was to inform other users, that just because you upgrade like I did, and run a monster CPU @ 4.8 Ghz, everything is not all peaches and cream!Maybe I expect too much smoothness and fluid operation, but it´s strange why the difference from X-Plane 9 is so obvious? I don´t like XP9 - it´s a pain to install and adjust, but I look forward to XP-10 (If Austin has the Powers to finish it! ) and MS Flight, I sure hope they will perform better than FSX.Thank you all for the replies and different suggestions, I will try them out.

deleted by author

MS Flight, I sure hope they will perform better than FSX.

Not likely... Have ever recalled any version of flight sim that didn't require tweaking in order to perform well on a PC at that time? Nope!