Hi guys,what would this be like for fsx, ngx, orbx, rex:

EVGA X58 sli le

Intel core i7-930 quad core (8 threads)

Western Digital caviar black 640GB

4GB Kingston DDR3 RAM

Thermaltake evo blue 750W

Hauppauge win tv-Hvr3300

TP-link wireless N adapter

LG bluray drive

Windows 7 home premium

Depends on how much, as far as I'm concerned. It's not "new tech" but it won't disappoint if the price is right.

Well if it goes for what I think it will, I could put a 560ti into it. I dont really want to spend to much on fsx. I dont play it all the time due to work etc. I would also like to oc it to 4.0ghz or something. Its all in one of these:http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=silverstone+gd+101&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=709&tbm=isch&tbnid=nGvzA3zo1EHGwM:&imgrefurl=http://www.missingremote.com/htpc-2&docid=DgGDf_Gigg__0M&imgurl=http://www.missingremote.com/sites/default/files/u903/silverstone_grandia_series_gd06_htpc_chassis_review.png&w=620&h=290&ei=s81bT8POLoKeiQft9ombDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=159&vpy=181&dur=1648&hovh=153&hovw=328&tx=164&ty=55&sig=112118146202190060677&page=1&tbnh=96&tbnw=206&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

Well if it goes for what I think it will, I could put a 560ti into it. I dont really want to spend to much on fsx. I dont play it all the time due to work etc. I would also like to oc it to 4.0ghz or something. Its all in one of these:http://www.google.co...=1t:429,r:0,s:0

Right. So what was the cost?That Grandia will be a hot box for an overclocked i7. Good luck.

Definitely old tech at this point - the CPU and mobo will be two generations out of date within a few months here when Intel launches the Ivy Bridge chips.You're not going to be doing 4GHz OCing in an HTPC case like that either. The way you do those big overclocks is by using a tall heatpipe tower air cooler or else a water cooling system like the Corsair H series. Neither of those are going to fit in that case and the case isn't going to provide sufficient airflow anyway. I also question whether a 560 Ti will fit in that case too - I'm not aware of any half-height ones.

Not the best system choice... Don't spend your money on expensive i7's with many cores and hyperthreading, FSX can't use this all anyway. My system suggestion:i5 2500K (performs exactly the same as i7 2600K at the same clockspeed)For a motherboard, I'd wait, because the new Z77 chipset (with the 1155 socket), is gonna be in the stores here in Europe within a week or two. For RAM. 4GB is more than enough. I've tested it myself, and in the NGX, with sliders to max, in heavy scenery, no AI traffic, FSX did not exceed 3GB's of RAM. With AI traffic it went up to around 3.4 - 3.5 GB. If you're using many background programmes however, than 4GB might not be enough. Also make sure you get LOW LATENCY RAM! This will reduce microstuttering a little (but it won't eliminate it). For example 1600/CL7 or 1600/CL6. G.Skill also has 2133/CL7, which I'm gonna upgrade to shortly.For a graphics card, get the GTX 560Ti. I've had both the GTX 580 and the GTX 560Ti, and there is litterally NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL, nothing, zero, not even 1 fps. Only difference is that I can run slightly higher AA settings. However, if you're planning to make the move to XPlane 10 in the future, then get the 580 instead, because a single 560Ti is not enough for XPlane 10. PSU, Corsair 700W is more than enough.Case: Antec 902 is what I have, and it's not the biggest case, but you can fit a large heatsink in there, an ATX board, 6 HDD's, two graphics cards, and it's VERY well ventilated. My EVGA GTX 580 with it's reference cooling design, barely exceeds 70C. My CPU at idle runs at 30C with a cheap 30 euro heatsink (which is a great one btw!). If you want the Corsair H100, even that fits into the case, but only if you take the HDD cages out. You'll still have plenty of rooom for 2HDD's and 1 DVD/RW drive. Hope this helps.

i5 2500K (performs exactly the same as i7 2600K at the same clockspeed)

do you have a benchmark so i can get a clear picture? I heard that they both are alike in performance. But I need to get as much as reliable info before deciding to buy i5.Sorry, dont mean to hi jack the thread but, what do you guys think about AMD FX?

do you have a benchmark so i can get a clear picture? I heard that they both are alike in performance. But I need to get as much as reliable info before deciding to buy i5.Sorry, dont mean to hi jack the thread but, what do you guys think about AMD FX?

No I do not have a benchmark. Basically, the i5 2500K is the same as the i7 2600K/2700K, but then minus the hyperthreading. The thing is, that FSX CANNOT use hyperthreading. It's not designed for multi-core CPU's, so it will not use those extra virtual cores from hyperthreading. The i7 2600K/2700K is only better when you're using programmes that use so many cores. Never let the name of a hardware component fool you! I always thought that the i7 was better than the i5, just because of the name it has, i7 sounds much faster than i5, however, at the same clockspeeds the performance is the exactly the same, IN FSX. Same for the GTX 580 vs GTX 560Ti, GTX 580 sounds like a beast, which it is, while actually, the difference in fps in FSX, is zero, nothing, nada. However, I still got the GTX 580 for future platforms (X Plane 10), and I also play RFactor 2. Those are games that the GTX 580 will perform much better in than the GTX 560Ti.

Arjen,This stuff about CAS latency causing stutters is dubious at best - I have CL9 DDR3 and I do not get any stutters whatsoever. (and I play a ton of non-FS games too) Not sure where you're getting this claim from. Relative performance of different CAS latencies has been benchmarked by the big hardware sites and there's very very little difference. It's like a 10 second difference in video encoding speed on something that takes 3 hours to render. We're talking nanoseconds or fractions of nanoseconds here in terms of the difference per cycle - that is not perceptible in a real time game environment. If there were something causing enough lag to visibly stutter FS (a stutter is huge orders of magnitudes longer in time than the difference between CL9 and CL6 is) it would be borne out in benchmarking.Read here - there is an absolutely tiny difference in the actual speed between these different ratings and higher CL at a higher DRAM clock is actually faster than lower CL is at a lower clock.http://en.wikipedia....SDRAM#LatenciesOne of the most respected tech site's testing:http://www.anandtech...g-the-best-ddr3"Finally, although the effects of low latency memory can be seen in our bandwidth tests, they don't show any real world advantage over their higher latency (ahem, cheaper) counterparts. None of the real-world tests performed showed any reason to prefer low latency over raw speed."They end up concluding that there's nothing wrong at all with CL9 DDR3-1600. CL primarily affects memory bandwidth - that is certainly not the problem in FSX as even CL9 DDR3-1600 is capable of something like 18GB per second of throughput. There is absolutely no way FSX is sending that much data across the bus - it's a 6 year old engine. Nothing I know of outside of synthetic benchmarking can even come close to this.If you still want to argue this, I'd ask that you have proof for what you're claiming before you continue telling people here to go out and buy expensive memory they likely do not need in the slightest.

I would wait for the new Intel Ivy Bridge CPU and Nvidia Kelper graphics card. Also, get the 64bit version of Windows 7.

If you still want to argue this, I'd ask that you have proof for what you're claiming before you continue telling people here to go out and buy expensive memory they likely do not need in the slightest.

I've told him time and time again in the hardware forums. :Talking Ear Off:RAM timings and speed isn't going to make the difference he (and that Nick N fellow) claims. Not unless you're comparing a low extreme to another. ie 1066 vs 1800. In any case, lower timings won't cause stutters.

Like I said guys, I dont really want to spend alot on an fsx machine. I can get this system for $600nzd:

CPU

Intel i7 920

Memory

3Gb DDR3 Triple channel

Graphics Card

Radion 2400 HD (i will change this to a 560ti if i can get one cheap enough)

Power Supply

430W Thermaltake

Hard Drive

500GB Western Digital 10,000 RPM Super Fast Raptor Drive

DVD RW

Sound

Intel High Definition Audio 7.1 (Onboard)

10-channel (7.1) Dolby Home Theater* Audio subsystem with five analog audio outputs and two S/PDIF digital audio outputs (coaxial and optical)

LAN

Gigabit (10/100/1000 Mbits/sec) LAN subsystem (Onboard)

Motherboard

Intel DX58SO

Intel® X58 Express Chipset

Twelve USB 2.0 ports (8 external ports, 2 internal headers)

Six Serial ATA 3.0 Gb/s ports, including 2 eSATA port with RAID support

Two IEEE-1394a ports (1 external port, 1 internal header)

Consumer IR receiver and emitter (via internal headers)

One PCI Conventional bus add-in card connectors

One primary PCI Express* 2.0 x16 (electrical x16)

One secondary PCI Express 2.0 x16 (electrical x16)

One PCI Express* 1.0a x16 (electrical x4)

Case

Antec P180 with tripple lined side panels to dampen noise

Like I said guys, I dont really want to spend alot on an fsx machine. I can get this system for $600nzd:

CPU

Intel i7 920

Memory

3Gb DDR3 Triple channel

Graphics Card

Radion 2400 HD (i will change this to a 560ti if i can get one cheap enough)

Power Supply

430W Thermaltake

Hard Drive

500GB Western Digital 10,000 RPM Super Fast Raptor Drive

DVD RW

Sound

Intel High Definition Audio 7.1 (Onboard)

10-channel (7.1) Dolby Home Theater* Audio subsystem with five analog audio outputs and two S/PDIF digital audio outputs (coaxial and optical)

LAN

Gigabit (10/100/1000 Mbits/sec) LAN subsystem (Onboard)

Motherboard

Intel DX58SO

Intel® X58 Express Chipset

Twelve USB 2.0 ports (8 external ports, 2 internal headers)

Six Serial ATA 3.0 Gb/s ports, including 2 eSATA port with RAID support

Two IEEE-1394a ports (1 external port, 1 internal header)

Consumer IR receiver and emitter (via internal headers)

One PCI Conventional bus add-in card connectors

One primary PCI Express* 2.0 x16 (electrical x16)

One secondary PCI Express 2.0 x16 (electrical x16)

One PCI Express* 1.0a x16 (electrical x4)

Case

Antec P180 with tripple lined side panels to dampen noise

Why don't you build your own.. The one in my signature is the first system I built from the ground up, it was easy and I get great performance

Arjen,This stuff about CAS latency causing stutters is dubious at best - I have CL9 DDR3 and I do not get any stutters whatsoever. (and I play a ton of non-FS games too) Not sure where you're getting this claim from. Relative performance of different CAS latencies has been benchmarked by the big hardware sites and there's very very little difference. It's like a 10 second difference in video encoding speed on something that takes 3 hours to render. We're talking nanoseconds or fractions of nanoseconds here in terms of the difference per cycle - that is not perceptible in a real time game environment. If there were something causing enough lag to visibly stutter FS (a stutter is huge orders of magnitudes longer in time than the difference between CL9 and CL6 is) it would be borne out in benchmarking.Read here - there is an absolutely tiny difference in the actual speed between these different ratings and higher CL at a higher DRAM clock is actually faster than lower CL is at a lower clock.http://en.wikipedia....SDRAM#LatenciesOne of the most respected tech site's testing:http://www.anandtech...g-the-best-ddr3"Finally, although the effects of low latency memory can be seen in our bandwidth tests, they don't show any real world advantage over their higher latency (ahem, cheaper) counterparts. None of the real-world tests performed showed any reason to prefer low latency over raw speed."They end up concluding that there's nothing wrong at all with CL9 DDR3-1600. CL primarily affects memory bandwidth - that is certainly not the problem in FSX as even CL9 DDR3-1600 is capable of something like 18GB per second of throughput. There is absolutely no way FSX is sending that much data across the bus - it's a 6 year old engine. Nothing I know of outside of synthetic benchmarking can even come close to this.If you still want to argue this, I'd ask that you have proof for what you're claiming before you continue telling people here to go out and buy expensive memory they likely do not need in the slightest.

It is definately true that normally, low latency RAM would not make a difference AT ALL. But it seems, that FSX does love low latency a lot. And I"m not seeing stutters, but MICROstuttering, even with an FPS limiter, tweaked FSX.cfg, great system, no background programmes, no CPU spiking. Here's a video that Word Not Allowed made a while ago. This is what I was seeing when I still had the 1600/CL9 RAM:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PL7rKt5uuY&feature=channelHe said that it's entirely normal that FSX runs like that. It will always be a little microstuttery. So, I lended some 1600/CL6 RAM from a very friendly guy here in the forum, and voila, much smoother, no difference in framerate, but it was smoother, still a tiny bit of microstuttering sometimes, but it's definately smoother. This is just what I experience, and this is what several other people have said too, low latency RAM makes FSX smoother, and does not increase FPS at all. I can't imagine that your FSX is 100% smooth. It also depends on how you perceive microstuttering. I'm always pretty perceptive. And I do not have stutters, like those short lockups because of HDD access or something. No, I'm having many tiny microstutterings, very tiny microstutterings, barely noticeable, but they are there. Many people say that everyone is seeing this...