mathisst

Hi John,I have the same question on the 6 core beast. I'm asking similar questions in my kind of rambling corei1-661 thread. I think a 6 core machine in a 3 or 4 hundred dollar case is overkill. If you have the money, I'm sure it might be *slightly* better (the processor, not the case) so the folks who can, I think that's fine. But there is some real value to be had right now in the 1156's - yes, it seems to be more of a dead ended upgrade path, but if you aren't planning on spending more money in the next year or so, boy, it's hard to walk away from a $199.00 4.5 GHz processor (on air). (With a mobo maybe $100 cheaper than an x58, anc cheaper memory too.) However, if you are planning on stuffing multiple graphics cards in there (again, for multiple monitors, sure but as we have all heard now for years from Phil Taylor and other real experts, "it's the cpu, not the graphics card that is the weakest link.") then x58 sure seems much better.Stephen

Hey Jetbootz,I agree with your comments about overclocking. Even a couple of years ago, for the average user it was kind of hit or miss and a time consuming pain (which, I guess is why some people overclocked as a hobby, as opposed to actually doing anything with their computer once they had it overclocked), but these days, especially with a motherboard designed for overclocking, like a decent Asus, it is pretty easy to do.So, mcl82, go for it. Jetbootz is right, you will save a ton of money, learn some things along the way, and have a much better sim experience is you build it yourself and overclock. An added benfit of rolling your own machine is that you will also save even more money over the long haul. Upgrading a store bought off the shelf system is often hard or impossible, because the cases and components are cheap as possible and designed for only that particular machine. Sure, you can swap a drive or cpu, but upgrading to a decent air cooler or adding a card or two and you're SOL. (Not to mention the rescue software CD, which means you will never be able to use that software anywhere else.) If you build your own with a long term upgrade plan in mind, then you can over time upgrade slowly as the technology evolves, and, if your patient, gets cheaper (which is why I am intrigued by the Core-i5 661). I've been simming since my apple II and sublogixc slide show, and haven't shelled out a ton of cash at any one point.Over the last 5? years or so, for FS I've used 2 Antec Sonatas. I started with one Sonata, an EVGA NF4 SLI EDI|133-K8-NF41 that was bundled with an EVGA 7800? graphics card and an AMD 4000+ and a Zalman cooler (my first overclock). Later, I picked up a Sonata II case even cheaper (always looking out for those rebates), then two years later I picked up an Abit mobo with a core 2 E6600 and a graphics card, waiting until slightly faster processors came out that dropped the early adopter premium on the Core 2 duos. (I kept the older machine as my work from home machine (I work a lot on my computer from home, but nothing I do is as compute intensive as FS) and still use it today as a house music machine and file server - again, waiting until black Friday and some great deals on 1.5 TB drives.) If something were to go wrong (not that is has), I can fix it and not have to rely on some microsoft wannabe driving a geek VW beetle show up at my house to fix a driver issue. So.The reason I brought up the i5-661 is because we're at the point now where the icore's are maturing and prices are in flux. (I may have waited a bit too long to upgrade my E6600 to a faster Quad, because a lot of folks seem to be waiting for that one last socket 775 upgrade themselves; there are a lot of bottom feeders out there.)TechguymaxC I think is right (thanks for the comments about this and my earlier question on my old rapter a couple of weeks ago) about the work per clock cycle of the i7's and i5's, but reading the reviews of the i5-660's really got me to thinking. The Anandtech review in particular (thanks ULf for the other links, I hadn't seen some of those before I what made me post was the one at Anandtech)http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704really slams the 661 because, well, for most modern/current software, the 661 is probably not the way to go. But the article does clearly show that in "old" single threaded applications, especially when overclocked, the 661 screams along. Since FS is based on such an old software model, I am thinking that maybe the 661 is not such a bad choice. I did read that the p55 architecture is actually a shade faster (no pun intended) than the x58 architecture in a single PCI card setup, so that is another bonus since I plan on running only one card for one monitor. (I have a 19 month old child, so I cannot go all out anymore with most things), so I am torn between the core i5-661 and the core i7-860. mcl82, for these to work (as I am planning to), they really should be overclocked, but reading the reviews, (take a look at the overclocking comments in the Anandtech article they mention several times how easy it was to get these things to over 4Ghz with no effort on air) - with a decent air cooler you can do the same.So I think I am not going to upgrade my E6600 (if everyone else is waiting to buy a Quad775 too, then I'll buy a 200 i5 or i7 instead and bite that bullet now), and then next year, once the next round of processors come out, I'll let the early adopters sort things out for a bit and then see if we really need 6 cores for a single threaded app.If anyone is looking for a decent case at a decent price (I see these questions popping up), I did just pick up a LIAN LI Lancool PC-K58 for $69.00 with free shipping last week at the egg. (It's now at 74 plus shipping, but I assume it will be one sale again at some point)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16811112237I love my Sonata II's, but if I'm going to be overclocking past 4Ghz, I do need some cable mgt. which my Sonata II's don't have)I do want to thank all the AVSIM folks out there for their tireless work on FS and alike - I have actually been reading stuff on here a lot longer than 2005 (I lost my original username and password eons ago), folks like TechguymaxC and others who chime in with thoughts and wisdom really are ahuge help. (as opposed to the very few, thankfully, who seem to want to pound on their chests and say, here's what I have a and know and you little people will never be able to do this blah blah blah . . . do they ever actually play the sim?)There are many of us out there like myself, and mcl82, who really want to play too but we may not have as much time and money, so I appreciate the productive comments that so many of you contribute every day.Sorry to make this so long.Stephen

I've been waiting to see how things are shaking out hardware-wise for a while now too. I'm still on the fence about my processor and mobo (I was leaning towards a ASUSP7P55D and Core-i7 860, but now I'm not too sure about that), but case-wise you can't go wrong with the Antec 300, especially for $50.00. I almost went with that but finally settled on a LIAN LI Lancool PC-K58 case, which I really like for 25 bucks more.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16811112237It is great case, and while inexpensive, it is not cheap. I haven't yet built the rig, but I've looked it over carefully and like the way it is arranged, especially for cable mgt.Good luck,Stephen

Hmmmm. What would make the 4 GHz 920 roughly equal to the 4.5 661? And is that 920 on air or water? (Also, right out of the gate the 661 is $90.00 cheaper).Stock that 661 is 3.6 GHz, while the 920 is 2.93 GHz in turbo mode, and according to quite a few folks (not only Tom's but Anatech and others) you can overclock the sheet out of the Clarkdales - the Anatech reviewers have them on air higher than that, and ridiculously so with their exotic rigs. For a primarily FS only setup, why spend the money and effort on more cores and such for an application that doesn't take advantage of those features? Mind you, I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm just trying to understand the differences to make the best choice possible (like almost everyone else here).On a single threaded application (or poorly threaded?) like FS, I keep on reading that clock speed is paramount. Fine. But then, what about the memory architecture, cache and such? Do they really make that much of a difference? If not, then I wouldn't mind giving more of my money to PMDG and the like who could use the support as opposed to Intel, who, well, aren't as bad in their near monopoly as, say, Microsoft . . but still.ThanksStephen

Hi All,I have been using FS9 on an overclocked E6600 for a couple of years and was just about to pull the trigger on a new CPU and MOBO that would handle FSX too. Price-wise, an ASUS P7P55D coupled with an i7-860 seemed to be a smart choice, especially when I can pick up the i7-860 for $199 at MicroCenter.However, after reading about the latest i5 series processors at Toms Hardware,http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-...5-661,2514.htmlI am rethinking this strategy. If (since) FS9 & FSX don

Hi All,Finally getting around to upgrading my computer. For my FS9 dedicated drive, I have a 74 gig 1.5 SATA raptor. Great drive in 2006, but it is SATA 1.5. It is still fast, of course, in terms of access and latency and all, but it is a SATA 1.5 drive and I just have no idea how my data FS is actually pumping out. I'm not sure I want to pony up the cash for a new raptor (Since SSD drives are starting to sound attractive), but I do have a couple of spare WD Caviar Black drives I could use as my dedicated FS drive. So, here's the question: should I keep my old 1.5 SATA raptor for FS2004 drive, or, should I swap it out for a 640gb Caviar Black drive I have from another machine?ThanksStephen

Hi All,It looks like I'll be sticking (happily) with FS9 for a while, so I was wondering about recomendations for the following airports - (payware or freeware)Atlanta (KATL)Gatwick (Oss or UK pro/extreme)Sydney (YSSY)ThanksStephen

I was facing the same issues - I had a socket 939 AMD 4000+ slightly overclocked to 2.6 ghz, and was wondering if it was worth upgrading my cpu. I had an EVGA NF4 SLI EDI|133-K8-NF41 that I bought last year when NewEgg was offering it with the EVGA|GF 7800GT 256, and so things seemed pretty good for FS9 at that time.Then, after the first FSX reviews were coming out, I decided to save my money for an upgrade for FS9 instead. First I bought 2 gigs of great corsair memory and a Antec Sonata II case (onsale at NewEgg), and was waiting for a decent mobo to come along. Finally, I bit on the Abit AB9 QuadGT and a Core2 Duo 6600 last week. What a difference - Huge frame rater increase - I was running the LDS and PMDG birds out of the usual big add on airports with 100% custom Ai (lot's of traffic), sliders 2 thirds over and getting about 10-12 FPS upon approach. Now, with everything maxed, I'm maybe down to 18 at the worst (Newark) while KSFO or PHNL or Amsterdam, always at least in the mid-20's, mostly more, with a fair amount of weather too. Night and day. (A huge FS9 boost, it's like a new sim!)A few words on power supplies and the Abit AB9 QuadGT. The Antec Sonata 2 comes with a 450 watt power supply (the case for $50 bucks after a rebate was a great deal) and it ran my overclocked AMD San Diego 4000+ and Evga 7800GT just fine for over a year, and the Core 2 Duos draw a lot less power, so unless you have more than 3 or 4 drives in your box, and maybe a huge video card, these + 500 Watt powers supplies seem to be excessive. (This power supply calculator link, http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp ,mentioned in other posts, seems to be quite decent)The Abit AB9 QuadGT, onsale right now at NewEgg is the easiest board I've ever used in a self-built computer, and seems like a great board with some decent upgrade potential (future proof? yeah right, like my EVGA board!) so if you're looking for a decent core 2 board, I would check this one out. One word of caution thought - the IDE controller on this, like all 965 boards, is a piece of (&^&@#! If you don't have a SATA optical drive, forget about loading your OS. If you have SATA drives, then all is good.Finally, I'm still using my EVGA 7800GT in this system, so for all the FS9 folks out there thinking about upgrading, (Like it hasn't been said before), you don't need a gazillion dollar video card to get better FS9 performance - it really is in the CPU.I'm back to flying (KSFO to EDDF in the 767 right now on my new machine - that's what autopilots are for, right?), but for anyone on the upgrade fence, I am speechless - all the sliders maxed and so smooth.Happy contrailsStephen

Very interesting post. I'm sticking with FS9 for the at least the next year - I have enough addons and it's set up quite well, and I can't imagine getting anywhere near where I am in FSX for at least the next two years . . . Your frame rates sound great, but how was EGLL with 100% ai?So I'm wondering if I should follow your lead. I have a Athlon 4000+ (socket 939), 1 gig okay memory, and evga 7800gt. Here are my options:1. Do nothing, and just overclock my current Athlon 4000+.Decent performance right now without overclocking, but with the PMDG 747 VC at a really busy airport, not so good.2. Do one final AMD upgrade - get a single core 939 2.8ghz CPU, and maybe overclock that? Costs me 300 dollars. Is the performance increase enough, for a dead-end/not future proof upgrade?3. Go the Core 2 duo route - Need new mobo, cpu, and memory. Costs me 6 - 700 dollars. And, I imagine that if/when I go to FSX, I'll need to upgrade that Core 2 duo rig.But, your performance sounds really great. Is it that Core 2 or that video card or?So, what to do. Any thoughts?ThanksStephen

Hi All,So I'm finally building a new machine and I have a hard drive configuration question. I have 2 drives, a 200 Gig Western Digital IDE and new SATA 76 Gig 10KRPM Raptor. Do I put the OS and such on the 200 Gig drive(Primary IDE), and put (only) FS2004 on the Raptor? It would be nice to have the speed of the Raptor for the simulator; I can live everything else on my old drive.ThanksStephen