Delf, That is an excellent config.You will enjoy fsx with 737ngx big time at stock setting already. In two months (or more) you will MAYBE want to overclock to get even more fps.At that time it will be early enough to go through the massive amount of info available and you will find that you will be able to overclock. But as you said yourself, first setup your rig, install fsx and enjoy BTW: althoug i am very comfortable with overclocking i will go the same route. ordered a new rig with i2500k and will start first to get it all installed and running perfectly at stock speeds. Fred Koch

64-bit has been introduced since CPU manufacturers realised that passing 4Ghz processor speed was a bit more difficult than first thought. So, how do you speed up a processor? One way is to multicore, so, the processor can run more threads simultaneously; processing more data - essentially speeding up the CPU. Another way was to double the bit width to 64-bit, which doubles the amount of data a CPU can process; however, this is only good if you have 64-bit applications. We may even see 128-bit one day! In essence, this will smooth the running of applications like games. As the 64-bit CPU can take double the "traffic" of a 32-bit CPU, more memory is required and the RAM can be increased past 4GB to a potential max limit of something like 17179869184GB!! I'm not sure how many sticks that requires!!! Say Microsoft Flight was produced for 64-bit and so were add-ons, etc, then you would see a smoother on-screen experience with 64-bit CPU, OS, and GPU. FS9 = 1 core, 32-bit (max RAM 3.6GB)FSX = 2 core, 32-bit (max RAM 3.6GB) Multithreading would mean an i7 CPU could handle 8 threads of data, if 64-bit application that'll be 8 threads and double the bit width (amount of data processed at one time). For ref: 1MB = 1,000,000 bits/bytes. Therefore, a 32-bit processor may be able to process 1.2GBytes/s, a 64-bit would be in the region of 2.4GBytes/s. EDIT: You can see that Overclocking from 3.2Ghz, say, to 4Ghz CPU speed would also smooth the experience. I have OC'd my i7 950 to 3.86Ghz (and with Corsair CPU watercooler, was simples!)

This is all wrong Christopher, sorry to say. It doesn't work like that at all. The need for 64b arised when 32b apps started running out of virtual address space. The max for a 32b app in a 32b OS is 2GB by default which is very little for todays standards. If you run out of VAS you get an OOM error (out of memory error). Nothing to do with "the amount of data a CPU can process". Like Ryan said, it has nothing to do with processing speed up"It requires more memory" false too. It has some impact in the processes memory footprint since instructions and pointers take up twice the space (64 vs 32b) but the image in VAS of a process is often data much more than instructions/pointers, and data structures keep the same size in 64b systems.

The other problem is that Windows requires contiguous memory space when allocating memory. If 1 Gb of memory is in use, and split into groups of 100 Mb with 100 Mb in between, then the maximum you can allocate on the next allocation is 100 Mb (assuming the total allocatable memory is 2 Gb). If you try and allocate more memory than the largest contiguous space, even if all the available free space is greater than the memory being requested, it too will result in an OOME. If they could fix this behavior/requirement, things would be easier as far as memory goes, but that is what we are stuck with for now (even on 64-bit Windows systems, at least). Best regards,Robin.

"The max for a 32b app in a 32b OS is 2GB by default ." By default? Wrong. 32-bit is 2^32 (4,294,967,296 bytes), max 4GB memory (which really is 3.6GB). Virtual addresses is a reason if you need a supercomputer (see IBM 7030 - circa. 1961); but, home computing is a little different. Home users, gamers, wanted fast. Therefore, 64-bit was introduced after 2004 - 43 years after the first 64-bit machine (see again IBM 7030). Multi-core was actually a financial decision; hence, for example, no 4Ghz Pentium 4. The issue above 4Ghz is heat. Some 64-bit chips we buy are also limited to 54GB of RAM. Modern chips also use integar addresses as well as virtual, etc.,. Still not many applications for us home users in 64-bit, unless you use 3DS Max, for example. There is also the question of max addressable in Win7...HP 64-bit is 16GB.

"The max for a 32b app in a 32b OS is 2GB by default ." By default? Wrong. 32-bit is 2^32 (4,294,967,296 bytes), max 4GB memory (which really is 3.6GB). Virtual addresses is a reason if you need a supercomputer (see IBM 7030 - circa. 1961); but, home computing is a little different. Home users, gamers, wanted fast. Therefore, 64-bit was introduced. Multi-core was actually a financial decision; hence, for example, no 4Ghz Pentium 4. Some 64-bit chips we buy are also limited to 54GB of RAM and 48-bit virtual addresses. Modern chips also use integar addresses as well as virtual. Still not many applications for us home users in 64-bit, unless you use 3DS Max, for example.

"The max for a 32b app in a 32b OS is 2GB by default ." There's nothing wrong there. The maximum VAS for a 32 bit application in a 32b OS is 2GB, since 2GB are reserved for the OS. And it's 2GB by default because you can expand that with the userva tweak in WindowsSupercomputers? you can EASILY get past 2GB in FSX and get an OOM.The fact that there are few 64b apps has nothing to do with all this, in Linux environments there have been tons of 64b apps available for years. The thing is that most casual users still run 32b OS so developers don't bother with 64b implementations. For that and because unless the application has a high memory requirement, it makes no sense to release it 64b: 32b apps are compatible with 64b OS, not the other way around, and... it's not going to perform any better just because it's 64b. 64b does not speed up anything vs 32 bit. Nothing runs faster on 64 bitsYou are completely clueless. Wherever you're getting that info, stop going there

"You are completely clueless." No need to get personal and also not true. I don't mind debating; but. not going to if this is how you manage a challenge. Not good, pal. "The maximum VAS for a 32 bit application in a 32b OS is 2GB, since 2GB are reserved for the OS." Which is 4GB! Also, single applications go up to 3GB, I believe. "Nothing runs faster on 64 bits." I said, "smoother" "it's not going to perform any better just because it's 64b" So, using more memory and more processing power = same as 32-bit. Why have it then (Rhetorical)? That's a performance increase, without you couldn't have that application. If your system can handle twice as much data, then graphics and scientific calculations will be faster. It's like if we have 10 chocolate bars each, and I can eat two at a time and you can only eat one, who's going to finish faster and move on to the next task? Obviously Office software won't matter; but, the principle is it will load faster or can be heavier in tools, etc.,. The experience will be "smoother." EDIT: As Some1's link shows, more RAM in 64-bit OS with 32-bit application = smoother (faster/increased processing). Shame they didn't test 64-bit with 6 and 8GB RAM installed.

64b does not speed up anything vs 32 bit. Nothing runs faster on 64 bits

That is not true. First link in google: http://blog.tune-up....re-performance/But there are also situations where 32 bit app on 32 bit OS performs faster. Anyway, back to the original question, with the current MSFS architecture where gauges are dll's, you don't have a choice. FSX is 32 bit application, and every c++ gauge has to be compiled as 32 bit. If it were a 64 bit app, then all dll gauges would have to be 64 bit. Simple as that.

That is not true. First link in google: http://blog.tune-up....re-performance/But there are also situations where 32 bit app on 32 bit OS performs faster. Anyway, back to the original question, with the current MSFS architecture where gauges are dll's, you don't have a choice. FSX is 32 bit application, and every c++ gauge has to be compiled as 32 bit. If it were a 64 bit app, then all dll gauges would have to be 64 bit. Simple as that.

I was probably inaccurate, or simply wrong. Had in mind 32b apps running on 64b OS, which is not really a good excuse. It may be possible to get a performance boost in a native 64b sim.Anyway, my apologies to Christopher

Thanks guys, much appreciated. Fred has the right approach for me at this stage I think. Firstly Win7 X64 is going to be new for starters, still running XP (X32). FSX I have some experience with but fps become an issue with Orbx and PMDG747 running together. So that should change with the new system. Will follow up on this "overclocking" business as a matter of interest and to gain some knowledge what this does and how to do it. Going into the bios mmmmmmmm now I am completely baffled and in the dark. I need the expertise and knowledge that Chris (Elliotc26) has, maybe one day. Anyway this is how it will look:CPU: INTEL CORE i7 2600K 3.4GHz 8MBCooling: CORSAIR COOLING HYDRO H70 CPU COOLERMotherboard: ASUS P8Z68-V PRO B3 DESKTOP MOTHERBOARDMemory: KINGSTON 8GB KIT DDR3 C9 HYPERX 1600MHZHard Drive 1: WD CAVIAR BLACK 3.5" 500GB 7200/32MB/SATA3 for OSHard Drive 2: WD CAVIAR BLACK 3.5" 1TB 7200/64MB/SATA3 for FSXGPU: EVGA GTX570 HD 732M/3800M 1280MB/D-DVI/HDMIOptical Drive: ASUS DVD RW 24x BK/ +/-/DL/SATACase: CORSAIR GRAPHITE 600T GAMING CASEPSU: THORTECH THUNDERBOLT 850W 80PLUS GOLD MODULAR PSUOS: MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 HOME PREMIUM OEM/64BITSound CREATIVE X-FI XTREME AUDIO PCI-E SOUNDCARD

HiI have just upgraded my system with an i7 2600k a.new mother board and H70 cooler. I already had Corsair 8Gb DDR3 1666 Mhz ram installed together with Windows 7 64 bit home premium. My previous processor was an E8650 quad core extreme 3Ghz and not overclocked.I was worried about overclocking but it is now so easy to do that I have o/c my i7 to 4.2 Ghz and have seen a massive improvement in frame rates. Previously at complex add on airports in say PMDG's 747 x my frame rates would drop to sometimes as low as 8 the lowest I have now seen is over 20. So I have now been converted to the idea of overclocking.RegardsNixon Thomas

Thanks Zach, all very interesting. My computer knowledge is nothing to speak of so I rely on you guys that know your stuff from years of experience. Words like overclocking send shivers up my spine, I imagine smoke belching from case with that horrible burning smell you get from anyhing electrical. See you have two HDD, that is what I plan to do. Infact the very same brand type, WD Caviar Black 1TB. Do you just have FSX on that drive? Some applications like Active Sky Evolution and Flight Commander sit outside FSX under Progam Files so where do you have them?

Haha. If you're careful and do the research, that won't happen. All of my programs are on the OS drive. My "Flight Sim" HDD contains FSX and DCS A-10C only. My 3rd 1TB drive is used for storage of drivers, add on installers, the occasional game, and the like. Finally, my 20GB SSD drive is used for the Intel SRT cache.

So, using more memory and more processing power = same as 32-bit. Why have it then (Rhetorical)? That's a performance increase, without you couldn't have that application. If your system can handle twice as much data, then graphics and scientific calculations will be faster. It's like if we have 10 chocolate bars each, and I can eat two at a time and you can only eat one, who's going to finish faster and move on to the next task? Obviously Office software won't matter; but, the principle is it will load faster or can be heavier in tools, etc.,. The experience will be "smoother."

Hmmm. Mmmmmmmmm. ???? Your theory is "interesting". The only thing a 64b OS brings to the table for us this day and age is more addressable memory. That's it. That is all.

<-----bangs head on wall!

Haha. If you're careful and do the research, that won't happen. All of my programs are on the OS drive. My "Flight Sim" HDD contains FSX and DCS A-10C only. My 3rd 1TB drive is used for storage of drivers, add on installers, the occasional game, and the like. Finally, my 20GB SSD drive is used for the Intel SRT cache. Hmmm. Mmmmmmmmm. ???? Your theory is "interesting". The only thing a 64b OS brings to the table for us this day and age is more addressable memory. That's it. That is all.

100% correct, this is documented and personally tested with server products. Stefan Ticusan

It's like if we have 10 chocolate bars each, and I can eat two at a time and you can only eat one, who's going to finish faster and move on to the next task?

I'd liken the argument to this instead... We've both got 10 ounces of chocolate. Your 32-bit mouth can fit only 1 ounce at a time but my 64-bit mouth can fit 2 ounces. That being said, I can't necessarily chew it at twice the speed... Even though I can fit more food in my mouth at one time, the total speed for me to eat 10 ounces of chocolate is only slightly faster because I simply don't have to put a chocolate bar in my mouth as many times as you do. 64-bit vs. 32-bit boils down to the size of the "word" which is passed from memory to the CPU for processing. 64-bit does not give you the headroom to read and understand two words instead of just one at a time... it only allows you to use bigger words. This is the theory behind it, and it fleshes out in practice too... As a photographer, I have used a particular photo management and processing tool in its 32 and 64 bit flavor. I saw a 10-20% improvement using the native 64 bit version as opposed to using the 32-bit version. As a home theater PC user, I also do a lot of video re-encoding of my DVD's and BluRays so I can put them into my library. Once again, using native 64 bit encoders for this heavy task only results in a 7-15% improvement in encode time. These two heavy multimedia tasks are tailor made for 64-bit processing - but as I witnessed, it is nowhere near a 2x speed improvement when you increase the word size from 32- to 64-bit. It does improve... but only slightly. For what it's worth,-Greg

Yes I agree that there is more addressable memory with 64 bit. Are you overlooking the fact that a 64 bit processor has larger registers and more of them as opposed to 32 bit? The whole crux of my argument about 32 bit versus 64 bit is if the application is coded and compiled with a 64 bit instruction set then many of the limitations of 32 bit no longer exist. If you have a 64 bit app with multi core support then there is no need to buy a faster processor and overclock it just to get more performance. Many large companies that run large apps such as databases and graphic intensive programs have already migrated to the 64 bit world. The UNIX world has known this for years. Don

That being said, I can't necessarily chew it at twice the speed

True; however, I can chew more at the same speed, so, I can still get twice as much, for example, in my mouth at a time. I will still finish in half the time as I can chew twice as much in each mouthful. My mouth is bigger if I'm 64-bit. You, 32-bit, will need to eat two mouthfuls to my one. If there's 10,000 cars and there's two motorways; one 32 lanes and one 64 lanes. Which motorway will the traffic flow faster through even if all the cars still travel at 70mph? Less chance of a bottleneck...the 64 lanes will help all the cars get through smoother than 32 lanes as there will be less cars per lane; half the queue. However, don't forget that there will be more data in 64-bit to 32-bit, i.e say more colours, so although the speed may seem comparable, it isn't really. You could say if 64-bit version is only 20% faster, 64-bit may be processing 180% of the 32-bit data. Therefore, only a 20% speed gain; although, 64-bit is processing more data. On a 1:1 basis, it's twice more, or there abouts. You can see this if, for instance, 32-bit has 32Million colours, but 64-bit has 64million. Same speed, but twice as much data = twice as fast.