Thank you a lot, I will see if it works for me.

Michael

I realy appreciate everyones posts, but I a, now having second thought on my new system specs !!! I have researched this whole system specs deal till I am almost mental. I have read articles, charts, reviews. etc....

I am now thinking that I am goiing overboard on the components I originally thought I needed. I am building this system to mainly run FSX decently (FPS and detail). All my other FPS and stratgey games run decent on my old, decrpeit Athlon 64-3500-ATI 3800 1 GIG, Windows XP-2GIG Ram system now. SO why am I sending almost $900-$1,000 on a Quad Core CPU/high end GPU system ?? My friend runs FSX great on an Intel Core Duo E800 series CPU !

Can someone recommend a decent Core Due(Dual Core) CPU (in the 3.0 ghz. range)-seeing FSX only uses two cores at best anyway + a mid range ATI Video Card(maybe a 5750 ?) If I can achieve 20-39 smooth FPS over major cities in an airliner that would be very good performance. I only use a 1280X1024X32 display resolution(due to my crapy eye sight reading game menu's), so at that resoltion I think a Core Duo card might jusut be a more reasonable choice. If I could get my new system into the $650 range it would be great. I would still get 4 GIGS of god RAM, upgraded case fans(120), Windows 7 64 bit and a nice mid-tower case and a decent MB.

Any ideas on this route ?

Thanks

Excuse me-I meant to select these CPU's for consideration:

Intel Core 2 Duo E-680

or

AMD Athlon II X2 250 Dual Core

Thoughts

I tend to recommend things I own, or things I've researched for possible purchase. In this case, I own it. We have 4 computers in the house. For Christmas fun, I wanted to make a powerful, yet exceptionally inexpensive computer -- an HTPC. Here's what I picked:

AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz ($91 free shipping)

Phenom X2 Black

ASUS M4A785-M AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 785G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard ($75 free shipping)

ASUS Micro ATX

Many think this is the dual-core to get. According to Tom's Hardware, the Phenom 550 Black plays all the games at basically the same fps as faster chips when using the same graphics card. That is, you cannot do visibly better on the CPU. Just get the best graphics you can afford. Also, its a Black edition -- so, it overclocks to 3.4GHz by a simple BIOS multiplier adjustment -- some get it to 3.7 with some effort. If you want to overclock it a lot, you may have to buy another heat sink. However, there is no real need based on your planned use.

The ASUS has all the features you want (including connectivity, great onboard sound and overclocking support) -- standard ASUS enthusiast quality -- its cheap because its micro ATX and has only one graphics card slot. It also has built in graphics, in case you want to retire it and use it as a second computer without the graphics card -- we're using the built in DX10.1 graphics for our HTPC application. It uses DDR2 memory -- just get what's cheap (with good timings) from a brand name manufacturer (PC2 6400 is fast enough) -- we got 4GB of what was cheap that day. Don't sweat the lack of slots (the only thing it lacks) unless you know you will be stuffing it with add in cards (doesn't sound like it from what you write).

You'll find a few 4GB (2x2GB) memories here for under $80 after rebate:

PC2 6400 4GB

Because you asked

P.S. Some people have unlocked the 550's unused cores -- to make an X3 or X4. It does not always work -- but the ASUS MB above supports trying (not all MB do) I may try it for fun someday -- but haven't yet.

hey guys,
Having bought an i7-920 processor, and looking finish my system one day, I really wonder if the whole X58 chipset thing isn't just a bit of overkill for a gaming rig. "Overkill" isn't really the correct term I'm looking for. But, how many games are out there, even on the horizon, that will take full advantage of the X58 architecture thing? I'm not sure how much horsepower Sow_BoB will require, but I note so sure even it will tax an X58 system overclocked at say 3.8ghz, and using a DX11 GPU. It's been in development for so long I just don't see how it can be ahead of the power curve at this point. OK. I may be wrong, but from what I've been reading online lately, the lga-1156 platform games so near the original i7s that it's almost a wash, except that the former is more power efficient than the latter, and currently does not get the same FPS from multiple GPUs. Still, it's so close. I refer to this article on Tom's ( http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-core-cpu,2499.html ) to show that as of 2010, the X58 chipset may be more hyper than (substantial) beef for the gaming community. Too bad I opened my processor box. otherwise I might return it for an 1156 platform, and put the meager savings into a more powerful (like the ATi 5870) GPU. Also the lower power draw strikes me a just a bit greener.
Flyby out

PS this article from Tom's seems more relevant to me, again speaking from a purely "gaming system" perspective (A DX-11 game): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dirt-2-performance-benchmark,2508.html I beleive most of you know more about this sort of thing than I, so I'm OK with being "schooled".

Allen: That AMD Phenom X2 550 Black Edition CPU got rave reviews everywhere. I think paired with a good quality ASUS MB this may be my best bet. I can configure a nice system at CyberpowerPC with that chip, an ASUS MB, a Radeon/ATI i GIG GPU, 4 GIG 1600 RAM(good quality), 120 extra -quiet fans, extra quiet Thermaltake V3 Mid-Tower Case, Windows 7 and Microsoft Works 8.0 for under $800. That's pretty dam reasonable and should meet al my needs. That'snow-I will waiy until the new Intel and AMD chips are out in March and the prices should drop even more(I figure a good stratefy).

Having said that(like the CNN polititions always say), remember my major goal is to b build a new PC to run FSX at 1280X1024X32 resolution, 25-35 smooth FPS over cities in airliners and I figure all my other games will run great also (Modern Wrfare 2, Left For Dead 2, Fallout 3, Silent Hunter 4, CFS3, etc.).

Anyone else want to weigh in on the fSX issue ?

Thanks a lot Allen. I am not rich and $754 sounds a lot better than $1,000 +.

Am I missing anything else in the system ? I am getting name brand 600 Watt PSU and a quiet-liquid cooling system upgrade.

Don't discount the quads because FSX only runs on two cores. More cores = always better. Why? What if you are running something like FRAPS, an anti-virus, or perhaps an IM in the background? You want it to place those on the two cores FSX is running on? Why not put those on the third or forth core? My point is that just because FSX only uses two doesn't mean your PC is ONLY running FSX. I haven't seen ONE program take 100% control of the PC since DOS protected-mode. Just open the process list (Ctrl-Alt Esc) and see al the other stuff that the OS could place on another core away from your game's threads.

EDIT: Besides a Core2 Quad is like $10 more than a Core 2 Duo in the same model line (Example: E8400 vs Q8400 - and don't compare the clock speeds - its almost irrelevant with overclocking ability and additional cores)

I don't have much to add, but having a quad sounds like a good idea to me if you want to run FSX. I recalled reading this article about "real world game play" over at HardOCP, and there was a page which featured FSX's performance on the tested processors. read the page here (be sure to check the whole page out): http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/7 NOTE ARTICLE THE DATE is May of 09 Also note the resolution is 2560x1600, a 30" monitor. All processors in the article will give better minimum fps numbers on a 1900x1200 24" monitor, I'm sure.

Now read the conclusion of that article I found the mention of FSX being "massively CPU-centric" interesting. Some AMD processors acquitted themselves very well in that sim"
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/11
good luck with which ever way you go.
Flyby out
PS gapman, at the resolution you want to run, perhaps the GPU you mention will be sufficient. Finally, man, go here and maybe you'll find some additional resources to help you get FSX running as you want. : http://www.netwings.org/

Thanks for the article link Flyboy, I really enjoyed that read!

I was a little puzzled by the fact they state clock speed is of prime importance yet the i7 is at stock levels a 2.66 versus the 3.0 of the others and it held itself very well in all of those stock scenarios.

I still say that clock frequency comes in to play when overclocking, but if you're like me and don't generally enjoy overclocking (i.e. purchase aftermarket coolers, thermal grease, and play with various bios settings) the i7s seem to take the cake even if they are significantly more expensive clock-cycle for clock-cycle - and for an extra few ghz are easy to overclock with little work and almost $0 extra in cost. Based on the entire conclusion where they state the Intel chips and more specifically, the i7, is hands down the best performer is nice and all, but cost unfortunately isn't a factor in any of these test unfortunately.

Again, the reason is the under-lying architecture. The i7s have an enormous amount of work going on behind the scenes to make the best of those 2.66ghz cycles as possible compared to any other chip out there. I just wish they weren't so much more expensive... Although, if you DO factor in aftermarket cooling costs, "overclockable" motherboard costs, and labor costs (if you want to go that far) - the AMDs are no less expensive.

I still say a solid Core2Quad or i7 on a relatively budget (yet reliable) system of other components are going to be far more cost effective.

Hi CrashDome,
I'm glad you found the reading interesting. I agree with you that the architecture of the i-7 Nehalem makes a big difference in performance, at it's price. Careful shopping for components can bring the price of such a system down a bit. Performance in our flight sims is a software coding thing too. Not much optimization for multiple cores unless you count RoF. So I too recommend that gapman get a quad whatever for his FSX system. It will run on two cores,leaving two more to run the background stuff.
Flyby out