• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jamiee

  • Rank
  1. Hey wayupthere,Have you tried running FS9 in full screen mode?If you're running in windowed mode, then give full screen a try.I've noticed that with the last several nVidia GeForce series driver releases I don't get proper AA in FS9 unless I run it full screen.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  2. If your into overclocking then you could always clock the Q6600 up to the E6850's speed or beyond. That being said my E6850 easily clocks to 3.6Ghz on default voltage (many do). Some Q6600's can do 3.6 but it requires some added voltage and often watercooling.Now if your not into overclocking then I'd have to think for raw performance the E6850 is the stronger option. Quad cores sound attractive and all, but their power just isn't being tapped right now in terms of mainstream consumer computing. To a point I don't even think the dual core CPU's are being utilized to their fullest extent half the time.FlightSim has always been more CPU MHz hungry and with the cheap prices (near parity) for the the Q6600 and E6850, I think you'd get better bang for your buck by getting the 3GHz E6850.FYI, the 6850 also runs at a faster FSB of 1333MHz compared to that of the Q6600 at 1066MHz.Might be helpful if you ever decide on going with a DDR3 capable system.Just my 2 cents anyway :)http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  3. I've been running two BenQ FP241WZ's for a while now and they've been quite good.Alot of people seem to like the LG 24" screens as well (uses same A-MVA panel as the BenQ)The Samsung's are ok, but nothing special. The 244T is decent but has more lag in on screen mouse response compared to others, has less features and costs more than even the BenQ.The 245BW uses a TN panel if I'm not mistaking and in all honesty I'd stay away from 24" screens with TN panels. (Your just asking for some bad viewing angle issues there).There's loads of 24" panels entering the market now & they aren't all equal. Your going to really have to do your research & ultimately decide which one will best fit your needs.Cheers :)http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  4. I'm running the ASUS Striker Extreme 680i without issue.As mentioned above, the old 680i issues have been solved now, so go ahead and get one :) http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  5. I fully agree Bob.In most cases the X6800 is the better if not more sensible option.I'm cooling my E6700 with a Zalman CNPS9500 and it does quite a decent job of keeping things cool.Unfortunately I got a week 24 batch CPU & like most, it doesn't like to overclock all that well. Best I can get is just over 3.3Ghz stable, but I have to pump loads of voltage into it thus increasing the heat. At 3.0Ghz I can run stock voltage without issue.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  6. acmech,At the end of the day, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Processor at 2.93GHz, 1066FSB, LGA775, 4MB Cache is the fastest processor on the market in terms of pure performance per clock speed.The QX6700 Quad runs at the same clock speed as an E6700 but has the four cores which will give it an advantage over the X6800 in certain situations. Flight Simulator isn't one of them unfortunately - simply because it requires pure clock speed and ignores multiple cores.Now for the price, I'd consider getting a QX6700 (since it costs the same as a X6800) and overclock it. They are known to reach 3.0Ghz easily.But that's me... you on the other hand might have no desire to overclock or may have no real need for a quad core CPU. That being the case, then just grab an X6800 and enjoy :)I'm currently running my E6700 at 3.0Ghz & it runs FS2004 very well.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  7. I agree... Intel is the way to go right now.While FS2004 & FSX may not take advantade of multi-core processing, they will perform better with the improved CPU architecture.I will say that I think the FSX team/Microsoft goofed a bit by advertising the C2D's along with the product.. This could have easily led anyone to believe that FSX had the ability to take advantage of SMP processing when in fact it really doesn't. Though I guess it could be argued that the C2D's are the fastest processors right now and would be the most appropriate choice to run FSX on at the moment.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  8. Well you really have to compare each core type. Right now, clock for clock, the Intel Core 2 Duo's (& quad core) are the most efficient processors available on the consumer market (run either single or multi core).They easily blow away the older P4 Netburst architecture and are quite a bit stronger than anything AMD has to offer at the moment.I really don't see any advantage of owning a single core processor now as the foreseeable future looks to be multi-core driven and we'll see many more games and applications take advantage of it. http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  9. Any of the better multimedia sound systems for computers are fairly decent. My choice would either be the Klipsch Pro-Media Ultra 5.1 or the Creative GigaWorks 7.1 set.Both are better options than many of the HT in a box systems out there.I have a full size home theater sound setup that I use with my PC. It's fantastic! Most would argue that it's complete overkill (And it is), but heck..I like it :-)Here's some pic's of my setup:http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/view_userim...hp?user_id=4052it consists of the following components:Sound Card=......M-Audio Delta 1010CD Player=.......Cambridge Audio Azur 640CReceiver =.......Arcam AVR200 (90W/ch) stereo / (70W/ch) all channels driven 5.1Power Amp =......AMC 2N100-5 (150W/ch) 5 channels / all channels drivenFront Speak =....Dahlquist QX10A Towers Ctr Speak =......Dahlquist QX60CA Center ChannelSurr Speak =.....Dahlquist QX10A TowersSubwoofer =......HSU STF-3(12")http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  10. To get LFE, you'll have to enable bass management in the software & set a crossover.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  11. I bought my 8800GTX knowing full well that it wouldn't improve FSX much.I did however buy it because I wanted the performance gains in the other games I play, and let me tell you its a fantastic card!Yes it's not cheap, but then the rest of my system isn't exactly low budget either, so it only seemed fitting that I paired high end components with a high end graphics card.There will always be bigger & better around the corner.. such is life. If you always wait for the next best thing you'll end up just waiting and wanting.I had the money available so I thought what the heck!I certainly don't feel bad about my purchace. My enjoyment is all that matters & I certainly don't have to justify that to anyone else. http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  12. FYI: the 8800GTX has 768Mb of GDDR3 RAM.Now on to the issue at hand... Have you enabled trilinear filtering in FSX? If not, give it a try. Also make sure your 3D setting in the cards control panel are set correctly.Something looks clearly wrong in that screenshot...Here's one I just took with my 8800GTX at roughly 9,500ft above Vancouver. (add the "H")ttp://img164.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=59148_Groundshot_122_347lo.jpghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  13. Got my BFG 8800GTX yesterday.It dwarfs my older 7800GTX in size and just barely fit in my coolerMaster Cavalier case.One look at the fan & you'd think that it would sound like a jet, but in all honesty it isn't any louder than my 7800GTX was - in fact I think it's more quiet. The 7800 was already a quiet card.As for performance... In FS9 & FSX there are some improvements to be had in the range of +-5 FPS + some increased graphic settings. So overall nothing too major there.However throw in just about any other game & this card is amazing! Doom3, FEAR, NFS Carbon, BF 2142... all run incredibly well on the 8800GTX.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161122.jpghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  14. Yes I'd tend to agree that the in-game settings they used do seem a tad low for the systems capabilities.I have an E6700 OC'ed @ 3.1Ghz and a (now considered old) Nvidia GF 7800GTX vid card, along with 2Gb of Corsair 800Mhz ram..I have my FSX settings higer than what they benchmarked & in general don't get significantly worse performance than what they are showing.Though it is worth noting that for their tests, they did zoom all the way out. That will certainly tax the system more and cause poorer performance results.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  15. This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum. It can be found at:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&topic_id=20437