Advice on new PC build...

[mavericksfan412003]

I'm looking to build a new FSX machine to replace my 4 year old PC. My current PC was home-built, but I don't consider myself an expert at this stuff whatsoever. I don't mind taking the time to install/tweak everything properly, but I want to get a machine where I don't have to spend countless hours trying to squeeze every last drop of performance out of it so that it can run FSX well.I looked at Jetline Systems, but it seems the markup is pretty high (all of the main components for their HellFire GTX purchased on NewEgg would run near $3k, as opposed to their $5k price).Trying to go the somewhat pre-built route, I came across this: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=194147&CatId=2846It's a barebone system with an OC'ed i7 2600k to 4.6 GHz, with liquid cooling and a ASUS P8P67 motherboard. I'm thinking that the 8 GB (4 X 2GB) RAM isn't ideal for FSX, and might need to be upgraded to some lower latency memory later on, but that's the only drawback I can find. My ideal budget is $2k, so I could throw a GTX 580 in there, and two HDDs (maybe even a SSD for the dedicated FSX drive), and I could be right around that target.Anyone have any good/bad experience with Systemax, or a system like this in general? My goal is to finally be able to run FSX with all the major addons (REX, UTX, GEX) and complex payware aircraft (waiting for the NGX!) smoothly and without the stutters.Any advice appreciated. Thanks!Kyle

[SpiritFlyer]

I'm looking to build a new FSX machine to replace my 4 year old PC. My current PC was home-built, but I don't consider myself an expert at this stuff whatsoever. I don't mind taking the time to install/tweak everything properly, but I want to get a machine where I don't have to spend countless hours trying to squeeze every last drop of performance out of it so that it can run FSX well.I looked at Jetline Systems, but it seems the markup is pretty high (all of the main components for their HellFire GTX purchased on NewEgg would run near $3k, as opposed to their $5k price).Trying to go the somewhat pre-built route, I came across this: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=194147&CatId=2846It's a barebone system with an OC'ed i7 2600k to 4.6 GHz, with liquid cooling and a ASUS P8P67 motherboard. I'm thinking that the 8 GB (4 X 2GB) RAM isn't ideal for FSX, and might need to be upgraded to some lower latency memory later on, but that's the only drawback I can find. My ideal budget is $2k, so I could throw a GTX 580 in there, and two HDDs (maybe even a SSD for the dedicated FSX drive), and I could be right around that target.Anyone have any good/bad experience with Systemax, or a system like this in general? My goal is to finally be able to run FSX with all the major addons (REX, UTX, GEX) and complex payware aircraft (waiting for the NGX!) smoothly and without the stutters.Any advice appreciated. Thanks!Kyle

Hi Kyle,At 4.6 Ghz it should run FSX smoothly and without stutters. I recommend an SSD for FSX also, and the 580GTX. Looks like a bargain if all the pieces are good quality.Kind regards,

[mavericksfan412003]

Thanks, Stephen.I'll probably get a standard 7200rpm drive for my OS, and a SSD for FSX. Are the SATA 3 SSDs worth the price difference over the SATA 2s when it comes to FSX performance?Kyle

[mavericksfan412003]

So I went ahead and bought this system, and I'm very pleased with it so far. I set up FSX using NickN's tuning/tweak guide and am getting good performance overall from it:i7 2600K @ 4.6 GHz8GB (4 x 2GB) 1600 Corsair CL9EVGA GTX 580120GB OCZ SSD for FSX1TB WD 7200rpm 64MB for Win7If I get some CL6 RAM, what sort of performance increase should I expect? Occasionally, I'll experience some micro-stutters when flying low over heavy scenery, and some blurries too.My main question is: what difference in FSX performance does the high-end CL6 RAM make over the sticks I currently have?Thanks,Kyle

[kaydub]

So I went ahead and bought this system, and I'm very pleased with it so far. I set up FSX using NickN's tuning/tweak guide and am getting good performance overall from it:i7 2600K @ 4.6 GHz8GB (4 x 2GB) 1600 Corsair CL9EVGA GTX 580120GB OCZ SSD for FSX1TB WD 7200rpm 64MB for Win7If I get some CL6 RAM, what sort of performance increase should I expect? Occasionally, I'll experience some micro-stutters when flying low over heavy scenery, and some blurries too.My main question is: what difference in FSX performance does the high-end CL6 RAM make over the sticks I currently have?Thanks,Kyle

I don't know, but look in the swap meet forum...

[TechguyMaxC]

My main question is: what difference in FSX performance does the high-end CL6 RAM make over the sticks I currently have?Thanks,Kyle

Kyle,it looks like there's only one set of Cas 6 DDR3 that is compatible with Sandy Bridge and that is this 4GB set from G.Skill. In order to get the most out of your system you'll probably want more than 4GB RAM though, which means you'll have to buy two kits. Otherwise you can get 8GB kits of higher latency that are also higher clockspeed as well, which helps offset the latency difference somewhat. You can see some of these here. Whatever you do, don't just run off and buy the first Cas 6 DDR3 set you find, because most of these were designed for previous Intel processors or even AMD processors that have much higher memory voltage tolerance. If you buy RAM that needs voltage greater than 1.5 it can fry your processor and you don't want that.

[dazz]

Or you can get 2000+ CL7 sticks and run them at 1600 CL6. And for what I know, up to 1.65Vdimm is perfectly safe (it better be cause I've been running my RAM at 1.65V since day 1 :P)

[TechguyMaxC]

Or you can get 2000+ CL7 sticks and run them at 1600 CL6. And for what I know, up to 1.65Vdimm is perfectly safe (it better be cause I've been running my RAM at 1.65V since day 1 :P)

1.5V is the recommended maximum VDIMM for Sandy Bridge, just as 1.65V was the recommended maximum for Nehalem.

[dazz]

1.5V is the recommended maximum VDIMM for Sandy Bridge, just as 1.65V was the recommended maximum for Nehalem.

No Max, 1.8 was the absolute maximum for Nehalem and 1.5 was the "specification". The specification remains exactly the same in SB but they never published absolute maximums (for what I know) Nehalem specs:And Sandy Bridge...if you are going by that table for Sandy Bridge, the max would be 1.575, but then it would have to be be that for Nehalem too. The absolute maximum was 1.8 in Nehalem, so 1.65 is already quite conservative for SB given that there's no absolute maximums published:

[TechguyMaxC]

No Max, 1.8 was the absolute maximum for Nehalem and 1.5 was the "specification". The specification remains exactly the same in SB but they never published absolute maximums (for what I know) Nehalem specs:And Sandy Bridge...if you are going by that table for Sandy Bridge, the max would be 1.575, but then it would have to be be that for Nehalem too. The absolute maximum was 1.8 in Nehalem, so 1.65 is already quite conservative for SB given that there's no absolute maximums published:

Dazz, VDDQ is I/O supply voltage, not DDR voltage. VDIMM = DDR voltage, and should not exceed 1.65V for Nehalem, 1.5V for Sandy Bridge.

[dazz]

Dazz, VDDQ is I/O supply voltage, not DDR voltage. VDIMM = DDR voltage, and should not exceed 1.65V for Nehalem, 1.5V for Sandy Bridge.

Do you have a link to the Intel datasheet where the maximum Vdimm for Nehalem is 1.65 please Max?

[TechguyMaxC]

Do you have a link to the Intel datasheet where the maximum Vdimm for Nehalem is 1.65 please Max?

I'll look for it but you can find it referenced in EVERY launch review. Just Google Nehalem 1.65. Here's a link to an article which has a picture of the DIMM slots of a (then new) X58 board with the warning sticker still attached, indicating voltage in excess of 1.65V could damage the CPU *per Intel's specifications*. The board in question is an Asus P6T.

[dazz]

I'll look for it but you can find it referenced in EVERY launch review. Just Google Nehalem 1.65. Here's a link to an article which has a picture of the DIMM slots of a (then new) X58 board with the warning sticker still attached, indicating voltage in excess of 1.65V could damage the CPU *per Intel's specifications*. The board in question is an Asus P6T.

I dunno, but the absolute maximum Vddq is what has always been considered as the reference for safe RAM voltage in the overclock world. Rest assured if I ever notice any sign of early degradation in my chip I will let everyone know. My Vcore is very conservative at max 1.35V (and Extreme LLC, which means that it hardly ever gets past 1.33), so it could only be Vdimm really

[TechguyMaxC]

I dunno, but the absolute maximum Vddq is what has always been considered as the reference for safe RAM voltage in the overclock world. Rest assured if I ever notice any sign of early degradation in my chip I will let everyone know. My Vcore is very conservative at max 1.35V (and Extreme LLC, which means that it hardly ever gets past 1.33), so it could only be Vdimm really

VDDQ is not RAM voltage though, and that is my point. Your contention is based upon a flawed premise.

[kaydub]

VDDQ is not RAM voltage though, and that is my point. Your contention is based upon a flawed premise.

We're going to find out, because a whole lot of us are using 1.65V...and a number of memory vendors are saying in their forums that 1.65 is fine. Mushkin and Patriot have said we are good to go.K