CPU to run FSX maxed out.

According to this here are your CPU options
http://www.gigabyte-usa.com/Suppor [...] uctID=3139
If you have the 2.93GHz Core™ 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe XE (Dual Core) rather than the 2.93GHz Core™ 2 Extreme QX6800 Kentsfield (Quad Core) you could indeed benefit from a quad core CPU on your motherboard as FSX is one of the few titles optimized very well for multi core CPU's especially quad core ones.I did noticed that you chose just a slight overclock rather than a large one on your Core 2 extreme x6800 CPU so that's probably why it lasted so long.

The Core 2 Quad Q9550 would be a good choice for you as an incremental upgrade.At $220 ($10 off) at newegg free shipping http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115041

You will probably want to flash your BIOS too for new CPU support if you decide to get the 9550
http://www.gigabyte-usa.com/Suppor [...] #anchor_os

If you had about twice the money for an upgrade the Core i5's are about to be released very soon and they should show even better improvement to run FSX at very high settings.
Of course you would need a new motherboard and DDR3 RAM for that.
It might be a consideration just to keep you current system and build a new Core i5 based one.
You could put your newer ATI graphics cards into a new system and use your older graphics card (you probably still have your older one) for your current Core 2 Duo system.

a Q9550, then overclock it to 3.4GHz+

^ Thanks for the reply but the first review says this:

Cons: Will not fit on the gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P board. This is why I gave it one egg.


same board I have...

I built a new rig specifically for FSX. You really need to get the CPU speed up to 4GHz to see a noticeable improvement. My E8400 stock 3.0GHz at 1920x1200 and sliders about 80% ran about 26fps at low level in New York City (you always want to test at low level in dense scenery - anyone can have high frame rates at 35,000 ft. with no clouds). Moving up to 4.0GHz overclock upped that number on the same flight to 36fps. Then moving up to 4.6Ghz for a quick test on the same flight upped it to 40fps.

One thing that is not mentioned, and I learned this when I bought an HD 4870, is that Nvidia cards run a LOT better than ATI cards on FSX. I jumped an immediate 7-8fps just by moving from the 4870 to a GTX 275. Toms has a comparo here somewhere that shows how FSX reacts better to Nvidia. It's not the one that is linked right above this post - I'll repost it when I get home tonight - I've got the link on that machine. In fact, FSX is so CPU bound that you can run a GTS 250 just as well as a GTX 275 with no noticeable performance drop.

Finally, there is a very nice guide out there explaining how to set up and tune FSX for maximum performance. That also increased my frames by a considerable amount over me just messing around with sliders. Think of this (linked below) as your FSX Bible. And for anyone who cares, I have similar performance to a guy with an i7 overclocked to 4.0GHz. So even on quad cores, it's not that much better in performance from a raw FPS perspective. But if you run multiple windows and other tasks in the background like some hard core simmers I know that do, you'd be better off with i7/or Core 2 quad.

http://www.simforums.com/forums/fo [...] ?TID=29041

Close, but not what I was talking about. Here's what I was talking about. You have to scroll down to find FSX here. One link for ATI, one link for Nvidia....

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 037-9.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 037-5.html

What resolution is your friend running? What AA level? Also, where is he testing his frame rates? As I stated, flying around Phoenix is one thing. Flying around New York City at low level for sight seeing is another. Also, FSX is very complicated (and frustrating) to set up to squeeze out every last bit of performance. There are a lot of settings to play around with, and each combination can make, or break, performance. Bottom line here is that my increased FPS going from the 4870 to the GTX 275 yielded about the same increases that CompuTronix linked that Toms found.

Finally, if you are playing at such a low resolution, you should have just bought FS2004.

I think the OP appeasrs to be somewhat less than pleased to learn that FSX does not offer the best FPS with ATI graphics solutions. From his perspective, perhaps FSX is simply just one of many "gaming" titles that he runs, and is understandably not interested in down-grading his graphics subsystem to accomodate FSX. If this is the case, then the best he can achieve, even with a highly overclocked Q9550, is to strike a balance between compromised FSX frame rates, while slightly improving the overall performance in his GPU bound gaming titles.

I'd be willing to sell my 4870 card's for the 260 if its really that much better, I dunno the frams on his card in nyc but in LA there about 27

Hi I'm actually looking for a specially build computer for using FSX in the best condition. I've already read lots of posts and I'm actually thinking of a i920 that I will overclock to 4Ghz.
I don't know if 6Go of RAM instead of 4 could be noticeable in fsx smoothness.
Your discussion about the graphic card is really usefull for me : I'm thinking of a GTX275 which is I think a good middle class Graphic Card (about 200€ in France) and seems to be sufficient for FSX.
My ultimate goal is to buy the Nvidia 3d vision glasses and a 120Hz LCD and enjoy 3d depth of field.

My question is mainly about 3d :
First of all do you think that my hypothetical configuration will run properly FSX with good graphics (not especially the Ultra one I don't want to have micro stutters)? about 30fps (no 3d enabled) between the new york skyscrapers?
Does anyone own 3d vision glasses or have already tried it in FSX? It seems that the graphic card need to create 2 separate images instead of one, so maybe it will only affect the GPU? Do you think that a GTX275 will be enough?
I've just installed the new nvidia drivers which includes the 3d vision drivers do you think one of you can try to run it in the 3d vision or if it's not possible in the Red/cyan 3d vision to show me what kind of framerate loss i can expect?

thanks a lot for your answer and already thanks for your previous one and the link that have been posted below.