How about full right except auto-gen and cloud draw distance, UT2 traffic, AS2012 4096 clouds, UT, GEX?

Nice, but I don't own a Phenom II. Hop on over to the USA and I'll prove my point to you in person.

Jim,That would be easy to prove. Do a separate fresh install of FSX and run the FSXMark11 Benchmark tests, following the exact instructions and post the results. Anything else is a matter of preception and opinion.Kind regards,

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

How about full right except auto-gen and cloud draw distance, UT2 traffic, AS2012 4096 clouds, UT, GEX?

In what aircraft? Sorry Jim but that's fantastical to say you have great performance on a system on par with the Core 2s with UT2 and heavy autogen in anything other than default aircraft. Come to think of it, I seem to remember you mentioning that you only use the default aircraft. If that's the case, you should probably mention that. Either way, I'm glad you're happy with your system. I just cringe when you endorse AMD like it will tackle the NGX plus traffic. Don't set others up for disappointment.I'm not sure what all of this fuss is about. Intel is much, much faster. The Core 2s started that trend, and it hasn't changed since. When I built this system, I wanted to make as little compromises as possible, so I went Intel. To each their own. Why the fuss guys?PS. Whoever was comparing the 1st gen i7 to any AMD had something wrong.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by ZachLW

Jim,That would be easy to prove. Do a separate fresh install of FSX and run the FSXMark11 Benchmark tests, following the exact instructions and post the results. Anything else is a matter of preception and opinion.Kind regards,

Why would I waste my time doing all that? I don't care what some synthetic benchmark tells me on some stock FSX installation. I only care that I have a crap load of FSX add-ons installed, I saved a bunch of $$$ 18 months ago on my AMD CPU, I OCed from 3.4 to 3.77 one time, I didn't mess with multipliers, VCore, water cooling, BIOS updates, FSX.cfg settings, I run full right except autogen, cloud distance and road and airport traffic.At the current time I could care less what people use!

Why would I waste my time doing all that?

And why would the other fella' hop over to the US for you to prove your point? Come on Jim.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by ZachLW

Zach,You have NO idea what AMD chip I purchased 18 months ago for $179 USD. I bet it is A LOT less than what you paid for your CPU! And it is a heck of a lot less 18 months later!

I run full right except autogen, cloud distance and road and airport traffic.At the current time I could care less what people use!

I guess you don't run full right. I admire your enthusiasm, but IMHO AMD is not the best recommendation for those who want the best performance for FSX.Cheers!

Zach,You have NO idea what AMD chip I purchased 18 months ago for $179 USD. I bet it is A LOT less than what you paid for your CPU! And it is a heck of a lot less 18 months later!

Keep in mind a brand new 2500k goes for $210-$220 (I gave much, much less)! A brand new budget Asrock Z68 (which I'm using now, having sold the Asus last week) will set you back $100. My only point is, Jim, that most folks are making Intel out to be incredibly over priced. That's just not the case with these Sandy Bridge systems!

I wanted to get an intel last year when I wanted to upgrade. the added cost of intel motherboards put me off. I got my amd mobo for $50.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by OmniAtlas

I wanted to get an intel last year when I wanted to upgrade. the added cost of intel motherboards put me off. I got my amd mobo for $50.

In that case, it would seem cost is more important than performance for you. That's fine! But it's a moot point in this particular thread.

Why would I waste my time doing all that? I don't care... I run full right except autogen, cloud distance and road and airport traffic.At the current time I could care less what people use!

Ah so that's it, you are not straining your system much at all. It so happens that autogen, cloud settings and traffic are what uses most of the CPU's resources. When you run UT2 Traffic at 100%, plus 100% autogen and maximum clouds wih AS, 50% auto traffic, over ORBX PNW, then you have something to advise other people to copy. Why would you be evangelizing AMD on here when there is a chance someone might just believe you, shell out cash based on what you state, and be very disappointed? If that happens you would be entirely to blame.Kind regards,

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

Stephen what CPU am I running?What is my FPS locked at in FSX?What video card am I using?With a maximum visibility of 59 in AS 2012 do you REALLY think it makes a difference that you can run clouds out to 110 miles? Guess what? It doesn't.I do run UT2 at 100% so that's a wash.I am sure that 50% road traffic looks great at 30K.I think FSX auto-gen looks like CRAP, but if I run it, it's no big deal because i still get THE SAME FPS.Now, If a FSX user wants to save $$$, fly more than tweak, not have to add a cooler made for a Mack truck, not have to add 6 cooling fans to their case, then they can ask me about my $149 CPU.

So making no compromises, having FSX maxed with complex aircraft, and building PCs in general isn't your thing? I still can't see what the fuss is? I'm sure your system runs FSX to your standards. I'm sure, also, it wouldn't run it to my standards.And I only have five cooling fans, thank you. :Secret:

my AMD from 1.5 years

You said this earlier. This leaves only a few possibilities.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by ZachLW

Zach, there is no fuss.

I only care that I have a crap load of FSX add-ons installed, I saved a bunch of $$$ 18 months ago on my AMD CPU, I OCed from 3.4 to 3.77 one time, I didn't mess with multipliers, VCore, water cooling, BIOS updates, FSX.cfg settings, I run full right except autogen, cloud distance and road and airport traffic.

Yet you fail to prove your performance.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Kosta