

Let me make something perfectly clear, and believe me when I say this, its with a wide open SMILE ; this is my BOOK, my OUTLINE and MY way of approaching a computer system and Flight Simulator and always has been. If you don't like my book, don't read it! I have made clarification edits to this outline recently in both the introduction sections and in the technical sections in order to make sure what I originally posted is made clear in its intent. Given some of the immature reviews about what I said and my motives, I am now making this very clear: Coming here and reading this is the same as asking to borrow the book and guide I have followed for years which consolidates my approach and my technical path to success and building a sim. That includes my approach and opinions to addons as well as what takes priority in render AND what their potential is to reduce a users performance. Many users have asked for this in-depth knowledge and my opinions for years and that is what I am providing here. There is no difference between what is presented below and how I would answer a individual topic question in a forum. If you want my opinion or my insight, you are going to get it here and remember by reading this what you are asking me for is; My Experienced Opinions . The biblical references are for comic relief. If you cant take a joke, leave. I will consider a PDF version after this is complete. As it stands today it is incomplete due to real world responsibilities we all have. In that PDF I will remove the biblical references as to not 'offend' anyone even though that was never the intent. No one is 'below' me.. we are all a community and the knowledge I have around the subject, including my 'opinions' are being shared for the first time in a fully consolidated outline with details. I originally had this outline scripted as I would have released to a peer review group but instead decided based on the diverse world of users Flight Sim has and the wide range of users, including the 'fan-boy' mentality, that calling on my military background which defines cutting RIGHT through the BS and simply telling it like it is was a far better way to approach this subject . Writing this up any other way would leave too many subjects unclear and may not get the points across the same way. I know the more mature crowd may not like that approach and I did labor over that decision , but given the realities around the personalities I think we 'old bucks' see in the forums everyday in order to make a point in this hobby sometimes it takes a little more of a direct approach with strong emphasis where its needed. I grew up during the 'Duck and Cover' era.. that meant 2 things: 1. If you hear the sirens for air or nuke attack, duck and cover! 2. If you 'smart-off' to your mother or father, you best do the same! I don't put up with nonsense and the forums are full of it. So THE REAL ISSUES AND THE GOAL section of this outline was written with that in mind.. First things first.. The issues and the goals must be understood above all else. ========================================== FSX COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND WINDOWS OPTIMIZING FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE

This is my last 'hurrah' to the Flight Sim Community. - and I do mean my last. Anyone is welcome to bookmark and use (without duplication or reproduction) the information in this document and supporting links however like anything else you read online use of this information is at your own risk.

This document is designed for those who prefer to fly Flight Simulator X instead of endlessly tweaking it. It defines a methodology to building and tuning a Flight Simulator system in which that methodology is proven in years of testing and is based on the application itself. After going through this information and following along, and, with a little practice, you should find it fairly easy to deal with Flight Simulator and how to approach tuning it in the future as more addons are introduced to your sim.

If you came here looking for a 'fast-and-dirty' way to make Flight Sim run better with a few silly tweaks (most of the tweaks you see online ARE silly!), you came to the wrong place and you will not find it. Success with Flight Sim starts with the hardware selections at purchase and ends with the user understanding the issues and how to optimize their system, correct issues before or when they appear, and, tune their sim correctly with the right methodology in mind.

I have been asked many times over the last decade how I personally build a Flight Sim tower and set it up. This document outlines how I establish, setup, install and optimize a computer system. I have doing this since the days of Windows95 with outstanding results. Over the years I have posted thousands of support solutions to common issues users face daily and I have provided outlines/guidelines for users to follow. I have worked with people 1-on-1 and provided direct support for those I considered would learn from the experience and pass it on.

The difference between this document and outlines I have posted in the past is that this document will explain in far greater detail the logic and engineering behind a methodology that will not fail as long as a user follows this guide and the defined criteria is met. This document supersedes all other Flight Sim, Windows and hardware optimizing guides that I have provided in the past. It includes a comprehensive list that touches on every topic I have addressed with users in support forums for nearly a decade and adds new information that has been generated in recent years.

Past its use for Flight Simulator, this outline provides an exceptionally optimized computer platform from which to run any performance application. It will improve system performance regardless of the systems primary use. Any user who follows this outline and who does not ignore or skip steps will establish a base system which addresses the primary reasons for poor system performance which in turn is directly related to how well the Flight Simulator application runs.

I have provided a very comprehensive checklist below of prerequisites that will define success when building a system and optimizing it for high performance. Do not skip the "Preflight Checklist" as it outlines critical areas in a defined sequential order so that users can target many problems that will fix Flight Sim crashes and system performance issues before they ever appear! These are issues users report in forums everyday and who do not know where to start in order to correct them. After the Preflight Checklist you can proceed to the Windows 7 Optimizing Guide below it.

WINDOWS 8 NOTE: The Windows 7 optimizing section of this document does not apply to Windows 8. The optimizing list presented is designed specifically for Windows 7 ONLY. Windows 8 users are welcome to look over this document and focus on the preflight section as that defines building and setting up any system however the specific operating system settings changes outline for the OS for performance were not considered for Windows 8!

I have no desire nor any reason to run Windows 8.. nor FSX on Windows 8. I tried it, it makes NO difference to FSX and there are too many nonsense issues with the OS at this time.

============================================================

PREFACE:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day

Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. - Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie (1837�1919) Before you begin this process, understand the following:

This methodology has displayed instant visual results to users in the past decade and they understood immediately on the first flight the benefits of using it. The latest and newer hardware of the last few years masks issues of the past that slowed a system down. That overhead is still there and still influences performance, its just that the hardware and technology are masking users from instantly recognizing the loss.

People assume problems of the past are no longer an issue and in that users assume too much. What this outline provides is removal of that behind-the-scenes overhead and shifts the majority of the resources back to the application in which we all know that Flight Simulator can use all the resources it can muster. That can not be done by simply shutting down services and boot programs, as a matter of fact with Windows 7 shutting down a lot of Windows services is nonsense. Unlike XP, that all changed with Windows 7 and how it works with services.

Think of this entire outline as a chain.

If you have correctly worked through the Preflight Checklist and followed the advice then you have established the beginning of a strong chain. Now consider each step forward from that point in the order presented another single link in the chain as its made. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so with that in that in mind lets move onward and upward...

There is a lot of information in this document, please do not let that influence or deter reviewing it and giving it a try. Think of it as a fun project instead of a lot of reading. I have written this outline in a way that anyone can understand. I avoided the engineering 'tech-speak' and present the information in easy-to-follow-along terms and 1-2-3 sequential list. Once you have done this a few times it will take about a day to install a OS from scratch, set it up and install Flight Sim with 2 or 3 'base' primary addons and have it running smooth.

I will discuss good hardware choices for Flight Simulator X. The same information can be applied to future hardware as it is released to the market. You can then make informed decisions but users will be hard pressed to be satisfied with Flight Simulator X running large payware scenery and payware aircraft on laptops, cheap video cards, cheap memory and all around low budget hardware. Under those conditions you will be far better off running Flight Simulator 9 however you can still obtain results using the methodology outlined here.

With cheaper hardware and unrealistic expectations a user will be constantly spending money to upgrade, in other words you will spend more! with no long term satisfaction or true 'cash-savings' in the long run. Its better to spend a little more now than spend it again and again trying to upgrade cheap hardware over time. If a user selects the right hardware they can expect a 3-4 year minimum useful life with few or no upgrades required and will actually spend far less money over that same period of time since they won't be endlessly looking for replacement upgrade parts. ...and crabbing at the screen!

Last, but certainly not least Phil Taylor from Aces said it best;

"You get what you pay for!" - Phil Taylor, Aces Project Manager

..and I must add to that statement:

"If you know how to use it!" - which is what this document and supporting Flight Simulator X setup tutorial is all about.

That being said... Your results good or bad depends on the type (quality) and condition of your hardware, your ability to run a clean of spyware, malware and virus free system, a reasonable amount of boot programs in your OS, and, your ability to maintain proper maintenance on your system... and of course your ability to follow along and do not skip-through the information presented here. I will guide you though all of the above. As always please remember: You're Mileage May Vary !!

=============================================================================

THE REAL ISSUES AND THE GOAL This is an exceptionally important subject because it will enlighten the general public to the real technical issues they are facing for which they may not at this time understand. As you use your sim you will come to understand why the image blurs, shimmers, stutters, crashes and out of memory problems occur even with a properly setup and tuned Flight Simulator in use when all the hardware support is installed and correct.

I never had any performance problems with Flight Sim I could not trim out when I was running WindowsXP x64 on a old QX6 series processor and DDR3 1600 memory in 2007. The only reason I moved from XPx64 at that time was because of the Nvidia driver issue with the new video cards when I installed a 480GTX into a newer tower a few years later. I worked with Nvidia to get those driver issues resolved and in the process managed to nudge Nvidia to start using FSX in their driver testing program system and today we all reap the rewards of that in Nvidia driver development. By the time they solved the WindowsXP 400 series driver issues I had moved to Windows7 x64 so I simply stayed there.

I have never had performance problems with FSX that I could not trim out on the 980/480GTX system I had been using since March of 2010 and I did not 'absolutely need' a hardware upgrade today in which I moved to a Haswell and a GTX 780.

I have been asked many times over the years how I have been able to run Flight Simulator on older operating systems such as Windows XP and older hardware reasonably smooth and stable with the kind of flowing smoothness in most scenery situations one should expect from flying, as well as the images/scenery my computers produce when other users are running CPU and video card hardware that is far better than mine or clocked higher and they still complain about performance and image quality. This next section when applied to the rest of this document will clearly answer that question.

The ultimate goal is to: establish a stable, functioning, smooth flying simulation in DX9 mode and then backup a good running simulator install. All things being equal, lets assume this is a perfect word and everyone has done that and everyone has a correctly optimized system with all the correct fixes installed, and everyone uses top grade hardware .....



The top 3 reasons for Flight Sim performance and visual issues are:

I KNOW THERE WILL BE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY OR HOW I SAY IT.. I DON'T CARE. THIS IS ABOUT THE TRUTH. I AM NOT HERE TO WIN A POPULARITY CONTEST TO SIT BACK AND SAY NOTHING IS A FAR WORSE CRIME AGAINST THE COMMUNITY THAN ANY BEATING I WILL TAKE OVER IT IN PUBLIC. #1 THE USER:

Lets forget for a moment that you screwed up and bought cheaper or unbalanced hardware for the application (a lot of people are in this boat right now) and lets assume you run the right hardware and set it all up correctly....

The primary problem with Flight Simulator, regardless of its code, and even with the best of the best in hardware running top CPU clock speeds and 'Titan grade' video adapters are the users who want to look at wavy blades of grass, cows mooing in pastures, birdies, people waving, busy gas stations, highways full of cars, airports full of non-flight deck related animations, and, who want to see 'HD' 2048/4096 32bit or DXT texture resolutions coupled with overblown artistic lighting/shadow effects in a application that was coded in 2005-2006.

The name of the application is: Flight Simulator . If that is what people want to look at instead of being 3000ft in the air or higher in a quality, 'correctly' designed for graphics, aircraft simulation then my opinion is they have picked the wrong rendering platform for that purpose and that includes the changes currently being implemented with the product based on the outdated ESP code, Prepar3D.

What I find amusing (and sad too) is that people actually pay developers to provide them with blurs, stutters, shimmers, glitches, crashes and out of memory issues. What needs to happen is a SHIFT in thinking about the goal; The eye candy that is unrelated to piloting an aircraft, to flying a quality simulation plane and land it. That is the bottom-line choice.

If a user can render more scenery out of their system after the aircraft has taken full priority, then fine! I too like a good scene and it is a wonderful perk! But all too often the primary goal for 'Flight Simulator' is lost to a users endless spiral of tweaking and searching for ways to see far MORE than their system can properly render and in the process end up frustrated and .... eventually if they are fortunate enough they may end up here reading this document! (You are here, right?)

If a correctly setup system will not run smooth flight in just about all scenery situations with a few simplistic slider changes to account for the aircraft and scenery being rendered, the user is simply overdriving their hardware.



-----------------------------------------------------

Standing on a barrel chanting Voodoo spells with a chicken and then trying or trading 'Affinity Mask' numbers along with tweak values with other users in forums will not make the sim run any better. All the user will accomplish is to eventually bring on another stutter, crash and the out of memory error. And every time you see a user post; " This tweak worked and my sim is perfect " within 1-2-3 months that same user is right back in that forum looking for another fix or boost... it NEVER ENDS and the tweaks and settings they claimed were perfect in the past now seem to need another round of changes.!

Those who do this need to take their next paycheck and buy a clue.

----------------------------------------------------

I do not have very good things to say about visual rendering utilities that adds DLLs to the FSX directory to alter colors tones and shadows other than they may be great for advertising and screenshots so lets get that said strait up-front. Those tools are widely used for the marketing of addon products so the addon looks far better in marketing than it really does in-sim. If you wish to add those things to your sim do not add them when using this outline and setting up FSX. Items like that add overhead and 'wild cards' to the render and that is the last thing you want when setting up and tuning FSX. If you are going to demand their use, then add them in later and if you start seeing issues appear after adding them to your sim, get them out of the install as many times they are the problem and you simply refuse to believe they are or have not realized it.

My goal here is to impress the importance of being REALISTIC and learn to settle for what the hardware can run smooth on a minimal set of configuration file values, even if that means eliminating the eye candy that has nothing to do with a plane or its operation.

After that goal has been accomplished, if you wish to apply unrealistic scenery settings over outrageously stuffed 'eye candy' scenery products, apply shader hacks, add in things like SweetFX, ENB, or, apply some kind of FSX.cfg tweak you found on the net, that is up to you.

I will help get you where you should be and need to be, first! Past that point, you are on the: Flight Simulator Hamster Wheel

AND right back at the flight sim site looking for another useless set of tweak values or tweaks that might look great today, and crash you tomorrow.. Please enjoy the ride! ********************************************************** Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein ***********************************************************

#2 IGNORANT DEVELOPERS: I wish to preface this next subject with important statements that qualifies what I am about to say; =======================================

Not all scenery and aircraft developers make the following mistakes but there are a very large number of freeware and payware addons out there on the market as well as developers and artists who work for a company who still make these serious technical mistakes today.

Freeware developers have an excuse (to a certain extent) its called 'inexperienced'.. You 'professional' developers who do this nonsense know who you are and it is high time someone with some clout and extensive background around this rendering engine and hardware told you just how ignorant your graphics production habits really are and how they really effect the sim and ultimately a users sanity.

I have a suggestion for you developers who do this.. please make your BASE release product RIGHT and only use high quality designed 1024 scale graphics with properly mip-mapped DXT or DDS textures and then 'offer' a separate so called 'HD' version with your silly graphics habits included. That way the user can decide how much nonsense they will personally put up with.

This issue is a two way street - You users who run everything from environmental graphics to planes and airports that render 2048/4096 resolution, 32bit, or include graphics that are not properly mip-mapped for 'so called' quality are actually responsible for your own performance and shimmer problems. You are being snookered by so called 'HD' texture marketing nonsense. If that is what you want to look at, then live with your decision because that is why you must run 2x Sparse Grid Super Sample (or higher) as well as why your performance tanks.

Some of you have been paying a developer for your own performance/visual issues and its sad that users are not educated around this. If enough users who fully understood this got together and did not support it, the developers who release base addons with no other alternative would have no choice but to STOP the nonsense.

The graphics card design since the early 2000's and especially today is designed to effectively work with mip-mapping for high performance and high visual quality. The ESP render engine, regardless of if it will display above 1024x, was NOT ever optimized to run above that resolution , nor run 32bit or unmapped texture efficiently.

There are models in the FSX autogen system that are predefined in FSX that have issues which developers can not change. For example autogen trees the way they are made and rendered as well as some fences and certain building models which the developer could be using from the FSX database can shimmer and that is not the developers fault but any custom items they make or add textures to that does not have a 1024 DXT mip-mapped texture can 'hard' shimmer as you fly away from it or closer to it or view from a certain distance, and, will create performance issues regardless of anything you do.

I am not pointing fingers here but I have been silent for the most part about this subject for far too long and today I break my silence and address this in public.

====================================================

The second problem with Flight Simulator which perpetuates performance and visual crippling issues and has been around for over a decade is the developer or artists of freeware or payware who do not understand rendering engine and how to properly optimize models and especially graphics for the hardware and its technical ability.

******************************************

If I were to take every improperly designed addon aircraft, AI package and scenery package such as airports and then proceed to repair their graphics file and then repost those products with the corrections

.........(drum roll).......

It would fix more than 75% of the visual shimmer and 50% of the performance problems that users of Flight Simulator see everyday.

That is a bold statement, and it is not a exaggeration!

******************************************

The number one issue with Flight Sim is the user and their demand for more eye candy, but the number two issue is the developers in this industry who insist on making addon scenery or planes that come by default with 32bit textures, 2048/4096 scale textures, and/or who do not properly mip-map their graphics, and, who do not properly make DXT files. There are some developers who insist none of that matters or that it reduces image quality, they are flat out wrong.

A properly made 1024 DXT5/DDS exterior model mip-mapped graphic will display exceptionally high visual quality in compare to 32bit or higher resolution DTX without a performance hit. The quality is in how the artist MAKES the source texture for the resolution to be displayed and not rest solely on the resolution or the lack of mip-mapping.

Furthermore, ALL textures regardless of scenery, AI, or addon aircraft should be DXT or DDS and mip-mapped with two exceptions: Interior aircraft or virtual cockpit textures, and, exterior night textures that are not 'light maps' and all DXT textures other than the two defined here, must be mip-mapped. ========================================== Never strip DXT5/DTX3 textures down to DXT1 for performance.. this is a myth and it will kill the quality of your sim. It will also destroy the alpha layer in the graphic. FURTHER: I have seen people post tools that convert DDS to DXt with the explanation the DDS graphics are 'flipped' in FSX and converting them stops the 'flipping' and makes for better performance; DEBUNK ALERT: FYI: The DirectX pipe will flip ALL textures regardless of DDS or DXT and the DX pipe handles this quite efficiently. This is another FSX forum nonsense hack and it will destroy the features DDS allows for graphics! ==========================================

You would be amazed to see just how many graphics artists and developers do not make graphics correctly and will insist till they are blue in the face that what they are doing has no impact or presents no issue. This has been a serious controversy in Flight Sim with developers since the days of FS2K. You seasoned users may have witnessed some of these arguments in forums over the years. Today you may not read about it as much because the hardware is masking the real issue. New users or the user who does not understand the technical side are clueless that it even exists today and it continues to be a major factor to complaints about visual shimmering and performance.

With modern hardware the 'performance' issues created by these poorly designed graphics are masked by the faster CPUs, video cards and memory products now available on the market but the performance problem is still present.

What happens today, in example, is a user purchases a scenery product or aircraft and then installs it. It looks good in the marketing, but in-sim real time render the product displays 'hard' or 'twinkle' shimmering on the exterior of the model that user just cant seem to tweak out except with ridiculously high Transparency or other AA settings (clue!) and the user likes like the scenery or plane.. its gorgeous until,... the user adds their traffic, starts flying a high-end aircraft simulation in/out of addon airport made the same way or over high impact scenery and all of a sudden, the performance tanks, OR, the frames seem ok but the stutters just won't let up.

The user goes back to the developer and of course its not their scenery or plane! Its your scenery settings, and your hardware, and your high AA settings you are forced to run to clean up the 'hard' twinkle shimmers and although all of those items do present a combined impact and can be part of the reason, if this developer is not requiring their artist mip-map textures and confirm DXT1/3/5 DDS files are made right and/or the addon incorporates silly high resolution graphics , what they are telling you is in many respects false and misleading as their product design has a direct responsibility and relationship to the issues you are seeing.

There ARE some predefined models in FSX that a developer can not control, but that is not what this issue is about.. it is about everything else they custom make and do not design textures correctly for.

In order to correct these issues it requires knowledge in proper flight sim graphics production, a few developer tools and taking the time to review a scenery or aircraft products graphics files, one by one, and then if issues exist in the graphics, repair them one by one correctly.

This is what myself and MANY others who are aware of this problem have done for a decade with every addon we have obtained We verify it and repair if necessary, reducing the scale of the graphics and adding the mip-maps if required, and this is one of if not the primary reason some users even on older hardware and operating system do not have performance issues, did not need the latest operating system, did not need the latest processor running 4.8GHz or the latest and greatest video adapter.

Sounds like a lot of work? It is! There are a lot of people like myself who have been fixing these badly made addons when we get them and wish to use them in our simulators since FS9. We still do it today!

You may ask.. What can I do about this on my system?

There is no easy answer for that. The best way if you do not know or understand the technical part and want to learn is to locate someone who does and who will assist you in learning how to review addons before installing them (or after if you think there is a problem) and verify it for correct graphics engineering. (sorry, however I am not available for that tutorial) EDIT: A TUTORIAL WAS POSTED HERE BY TOBY23: http://www.simforums.com/Forums/guide-mipmapping-and-optimising-textures_topic52893.html

For those who just don't want to deal with that and do not wish to lower the complexity of a render in a scene, then you will have to deal with the issues and wait for the processors that run 5GHz with the video cards that will keep up or not be bottlenecked by the CPUs. The problem will still be there.. you simply wont notice it or notice it as much. I just defined IGNORANT DEVELOPER #1 the primary and lead Neanderthal of the pack however there are others... IGNORANT DEVELOPER #2 - is the developer who alters your FSX.cfg file without your knowledge or input with a addon manager or installer. IGNORANT DEVELOPER #3 - is the developer who does not design their scenery to layer independently or be self contained effectively corrupting default core default files by overwriting them in FSX which then makes other developers products produce visual issues. IGNORANT DEVELOPER #4 - is the developer who designs their products to force other developers to conform to their product instead of the SDK developed by Microsoft Aces so all products work together in harmony. IGNORANT DEVELOPER #5 - is the developer who does not provided proper automated uninstallers or makes removal of their product cumbersome in a shameless attempt to force a user to not remove their product or force them to buy another. IGNORANT DEVELOPER #6 - is the developer who places so many draw calls and render elements into their scenery that the computer on the USS Enterprise from Star Trek would choke on and then pass it off to the unwitting public with a marketing video loaded with faked post-production clarity and smoothness no one could achieve and is also reasonable for a a large portion of reported OOM's IGNORANT DEVELOPER #7 - is the developer who uses color, shadow and tone altering to still images and craftily creates screenshots that may blow your mind until you install the product and realize the product you saw barely resembles those screenshots.

IGNORANT DEVELOPER #8 - is the developer who designs a product that does not take every region of the world into thoughtful consideration and who does not give a damn about all the regions of the world they stomp all over and change and then pass that off as something incredibly advanced and new, when in reality the product works more like a virus or malware. and last but certainly not least... IGNORANT DEVELOPER #9 - is the developer who sends a user to a 'automated' online tweak tool when the user asks about performance or visuals with their scenery or plane they sold them and passing that NONSENSE tweak site off as a the way to run Flight Sim better, effectively filling their FSX.cfg file with garbage tweaks and edits and from there the user spirals down in flames trying to fix the issues all the tweaks cause. ============================================ Addendum Since the initial release of this outline it seems some of the FAN BOYS in forums are going APE-NUTS about what I posted above. Sometimes the truth hurts Let me be VERY CLEAR about that list: 1. It was not my goal to point fingers at any single developer and given my time around this application going back over a decade I can name far more than one developer that can fit each category in that list. If YOU are putting a SINGLE name into a category of that list and point fingers at ME then YOU obviously recognize the TRUTH in the statement regardless of if you like what I said, or NOT! 2. To post lists of scenery that DO and that DO NOT have issues with the literally THOUSANDS for freeware and payware titles posted would be quite a undertaking. 3. Developers can change their ways and get their act together . Some developers make mistakes in one release and figure out the mistake and correct it in another. To single them out is not fair and instead better to let them consider their methods and perhaps make a change. 4. The user: When a user comes across addons they find have issues and they can not work with the problem, and, approaching the developer does not net any result, then the user needs to come to terms with that and either deal with the visual and the performance issues that will never get corrected, OR, get rid of the addon and that is the users choice! I have in the past, in example, purchased a airport addon to find it shimmers with wavy lines and the performace is quite bad. After review of the design have deleted it and simply eaten the cost because where I purchased the product offers no refunds and the developer wont fix or change their design. If I don't have the time to fix another developers graphic issues and the scenery is not high priority for me, I will sooner eat the cost of that addon over deal with the nonsense in the sim Sometimes I will take the time to fix addons like that, sometimes not. ================================================== I am sure you can add a few to this list as well.. the point being: BEFORE spending money like a drunken sailor on addons, if you don't want to pay a developer for issues that you can not fix, or, that you refuse to be reasonable around the render complexity, select a source for your addons that offers a no questions asked money back policy and if you see these issues, get your money back and don't use the scenery or plane.

Distributors can not always control the QC part of the addons they offer. They are in business to make money and the ones that care about what they offer, even if they can not control the engineering of the product, will not stick you with the bill and offer a test period money back policy. I AM NOT SAYING USERS NEED TO ABANDON THEIR ADDONS FROM ANY DEVELOPER - I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT THE UNWITTING USER NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF WHAT IT IS THEY ARE INSTALLING AND WHAT EFFECT IT CAN HAVE ON THEIR PERFORMANCE AND HOW TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHAT IT IS YOU ARE BUYING INTO AS WELL AS WHERE YOUR PERFORMANCE MAY BE GOING AND WHY. Look at the product in-sim after its installed and define if you are willing to deal with the issues or not and if you are, then you must accept the visual and performance problems they may create. And last, .... Many users are totally blind and will follow a developer down a hole and into a pit before they ever realize that developer is their 'dealer' and the user is the 'addict'. 'Dealers' want the addict wrapped around their finger so the addict will accept everything that the dealer hands them without question. Some addicted users will go so far as to ridicule and rail other users in public who don't see their addon 'dealer' the same way they do. Sound familiar? Don't think for one minute some of these 'dealers' do not have 'ringers' in the Flight Sim forums doing their dirty work for them either. Its been going on for years and its gotten far worse in the last five years. #3 THE CODE AND DESIGN OF FLIGHT SIM: Last but certainly not least is the 2005-2006 code and the design of the rendering engine itself, its limitations and its inefficiencies in rendering. I make this the THIRD primary reason for issues with Flight Simulator and not the FIRST because the first two items have manageability by users and developers, this one does not!

All to many times I see users who post "Its the code, the old garbage code" FALSE: It's the users unrealistic demand for things that Aces never designed the product to handle, and, the users/developers who add to the issues. With that, the code is all too often used as the 'excuse' instead of the real reason. People who run around and blame the code need to get real and stop putting the cart before the horse.

Flight Sim was designed a certain way and we can not change that, but what we can do is be SMART in how we use it and while we use it understand what it is that causes the problem we see on the screen and how to simplistically solve them. and now to bring this section to a proper close... *************************************************************** There is no such thing as an absolutely FLAWLESS running MS Flight Simulator. There will always be some point in a flight where a glitch or a stutter of some type will be seen. How frequent and with how much tenacity those may appear depend on everything from the hardware choices and setting up the system from the BIOS to the drivers, to user demand on scenery eye candy, to the addon scenery and payware aircraft manufacture QC for performance. If you are looking for perfection you will never find it. The application is archaically coded and as such will never perform flawlessly in all circumstances and conditions, which change constantly moment to moment during a flight even with identical system hardware. Furthermore, there is NO FSX BENCHMARK on this planet that will define FSX performance. In order for any benchmark result to show practical data results it would require the FSX application have a 'BENCHMARK MODE" that removes the 'constantly changing" priority render system from FSX and demand the same exact data be rendered in every single benchmark run, data that is definitively defined by the programmer (Aces) which can be compared against the output result. And if that 'benchmark mode' was available, no benchmark can define how smooth, how fast scenery loaded or how clear the image was throughout the benchmark run at 5-10-15-20+ KM away from the aircraft, OR how many autogen objects or models were dropped/rendered/or rendered at a slower pace in the flight. FSX Benchmarks are useless tools to define hardware or set it up. A GAME has a predefined scenery area map and does not alter render elements based on real world. This simulator in many ways is loading up the entire world when you boot it and what you see on the screen will change in identical flights even with identical weather, traffic and scenery settings. As such a game can be benchmarked, Microsoft Flight Simulator can not. ************************************************************ Now that you fully understand the REAL issues and can evaluate them when they may happen, lets move on....

MY GOAL IS TO RUN IN DX10 PREVIEW:

I know some people recently are now raving about DX10 and how there have been fixes released by users for them. I have a great deal of respect for Paul over at AVSIM as well as Steven for their work in that area. Of that, I will say this.. A lot of users gave up on DX9 because of their lack of knowledge around how to purchase the right hardware and even if they did, they simply do not setup their systems correctly for performance or install/tune FSX correctly. The DX10 pipe is simply allowing more overhead and the real issues the user deals with in DX9 are still there, just masked.

I do not use DX10, I have no use for DX10 because DX9 runs perfectly smooth on my systems and I do not like some of the "gotcha's" still present in DX10 such as seen when night flying as well as the somewhat cartoon look with respect to water. That part is simply my personal opinion and preference.

Once you have established a correctly running DX9 setup if you wish to add in the fixes and suggestions that they have provided, that is fine.. If your sim runs smooth in DX9 it will also run smooth in DX10. The only difference is DX10 will allow 'Light Bloom' and higher water slider settings and shadows since the DX shader pipe is more efficient in DX10, that is all.

Since I do not care for the visual render quality of the default FSX light bloom effect and I have established my own water shader edits that make 2xLow water reflect far better in DX9, I have no need for DX10 although I do understand the attraction for many users to try it.

If your goal is to run in DX10 mode then set up and establish DX9 first and BACK IT UP, and then if you wish to run DX10 move to it after establishing a safe backup of a working DX9 simulator.

I wish Paul, Steven and anyone else involved the best in their venture to improve the DX10 code left unfinished by Aces in FSX however I do not see 'all' the issues that preview feature still displays getting resolved as some of them are linked directly to the fact that DX10 was a short stepping stone for DX11 and backwards compatibility is always going to be a 'gotcha' with many addons.

=============================================================================

Lets move into the hardware...

A Few Words About OEM and 'Preassembled' Computers:

HP, Dell, OEM "over the counter" computer systems that are purchased at outlets that market them as 'powerful gaming systems' and in fact rarely geared for true high performance and even with their so called "upgrades" which you will typically pay 100's and 1000's more that if you purchase the components yourself and build, these systems are usually highly limited unless you spend that huge chunk and will never display the same results as a tower that is specifically built for graphics and high performance rendering.

Alienware: This is a big marketing 'name' more than anything else! You could build one of those 'Alienware' towers for 1/2-1/3 the cost yourself, and probably end up with better components in the final build product, ... be very aware of that.

You can use this list with such systems but the limitations the motherboards and supporting components typically place on the hardware by the manufacture for cost cutting and profit margins can hinder the results dramatically.

If you are not someone who has the confidence to build your own tower you are FAR better off staying away from OEM computers and instead read the information provided below about hardware choices, then using a custom system builder, online or local is sometimes better, specify the parts to the builder and do not let them swap those parts with cheap replacements. Make sure the list you provide specifies exact component model, speed and timing values and then upon receipt of the tower, confirm what you ordered is what you received using Windows software to verify the components installed. CPUz (linked below) will provide that information.

Many times even the better system builders will not offer good memory selections and will sell you high timing memory at a outrageous price. Memory is not that hard to replace even by someone who has never built a system. Memory is simply a matter of remove and swap out, making sure it is properly seated in the right memory slots on the motherboard and then a few BIOS setting changes.

In a case where a system builder does not or will not offer decent quality memory but will provide the other specified components, buy the tower and have them build it with the cheapest cost memory they offer and then purchase new memory yourself and install it as soon as the tower arrives. All you have to make sure of is that the motherboard you chose from the builder will in fact support the memory speed you wish to run and will replace their memory with. You will then need to make changes in the BIOS of the system to enable the new memory setup. The builder will provide a motherboard manual which outlines BIOS settings.

Don't be afraid to learn about your system even if you did not build it.

If you are simply not willing to deal with anything technical, then seek professional assistance to help you though all the hardware installations and setting it up correctly in the BIOS of the computer. I will say this about OEMs.. we are entering a age of computers where the 'over the counter' computers will begin to be able to run FSX reasonably. With the release of Haswell and the next Intel steps as well as the video card technology coming in the next 2 years purchasing off the counter will a be a different story, although you WILL still need to be careful and know what to buy. Just remember that even with that change in technology those OEMs and over the counter systems will NEVER overrun a custom built system. Those computers will always be made for high profit and fast turn around or upgrade.





BEFORE CONTINUING ON: I wish to make it very clear that if you skipped the introduction to this document then you are already a loser with this outline . I understand that was a lot to read but lazy, impatient and lack of comprehension about what the real issues are may very well be what got you to this document in the first place! The information I posted in introduction is extremely important. If you skipped it, or skipped through it, or didn't like the truth in what I had to say about a subject , hang it up and stop here as you are not the person this outline was created to help If you go into a soup kitchen looking for a free meal you on the street for a reason. You are probably not going to get that meal without listening to a speech. It may be long, you may not be interested but here is the bottom line; that speech probably deals with how you got where you are and where you are going if you don't get your act together. ===================================================== I am going to start with a few statements I have read in forums over the years and then comment. "You do not need a larger cache processor. It will not matter to FSX." "Modern AMD will run FSX just as well as modern Intel but at a lower cost" "You can buy a 560ti (or other budget video card) and it will work just as well in FSX as the higher priced 580/680/780/<insert next high-end card here>" "You must be running 4.7+GHz CPU to be able to enjoy and use FSX" "This benchmark shows that memory speed and memory timing do not matter to FSX" "This benchmark shows... (add anything you like here) "Hyper-threading is useful and works in FSX" " You can use these 'calculations' to figure out Texture Bandwidth and other settings " "6 core processors will not do anything for FSX" "The video card is not important, the CPU is far more important than the video card" and my all-time favorites... "You must have at least <enter number here> FPS in FSX in order to see fluid results and enjoy the experience. I can see anything less than 35-60FPS on my screen" ..usually a 'gamer' who has their head in the sand and worships the frame counter. "I just tried this <insert any tweak(s) here> and I get <insert 'incredible' frame rate increase here> more and my sim runs".... and then adds any dialogue to their statement that suggests that their sim runs 'perfect' or 'flawless' in any way. This is the person who is lying through their teeth in order to try and make a point and the forums are full of these people. When, and if, you may come across such statements or variations of the statements presented above be aware that what you are reading, or what you are about to read, is nothing but a convoluted pile of... <comic relief/ON> There was a time many moons ago that I would scout forums and when I saw this nonsense posted would debunk it on the spot and put a stop to the misinformation. I do not do that anymore because I discovered there are far TOO MANY reinforced-concrete filled skulls in this world than there are sledgehammers available to crack them. So I gave up before I lost my sanity! <comic relief/OFF> That being said, there is a lot more nonsense I can list that is posted on a daily basis in forums but I think you get the point. Now lets move onward and upward... THE PREFLIGHT CHECKLIST: Following this list before starting the optimize outline will clue you to many critical items that need to be addressed before you begin to optimize Windows. These items will define the final result. Remember, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and this section is actually MORE IMPORTANT than the Windows 7 optimizing procedure! Some of them you may not be able to do anything about, such as hardware you have already purchased and can not afford to replace at this time or you may not be technically inclined enough to deal with a BIOS update. What you should understand is where the 'weak link' is or could be in your system so as you go through this list you will come to understand what it is you may need to focus on replacing or upgrading or checking down the road. This list includes strategic methods of setting up the storage system for how you use Flight Simulator. Changes in 'method of delivery' with respect to the storage system and using the hardware you already own can make a big difference by itself! The Preflight checklist is a key element to success. Past the hardware choices section, your goal is to review the information carefully in each section and make changes to your system based on the information provided. The Windows and storage system optimizing process has a direct connection to the preflight checklist. The changes you make based on the preflight list will define the level of success at the end of the optimization process. Be very aware of that. I am importing some biblical humor into this next section.. please don't take the dialogue I use the wrong way: no offense! Its meant to add a bit of 'fun' to the outline, nothing else. Lets get started!

IN THE BEGINNING, THE USER CREATED THE SYSTEM ..... CHAPTER 1, VERSE 1

AND IT WAS WRITTEN:

- We start with properly researched and correctly specified performance hardware:

I was going to post this document months ago but instead decided to hold its release until the latest round of hardware hit the market and I could properly test it. In that, your hardware choices just got a lot easier.

This is a subject is that sparks a lot of controversy and opinions on the internet. You could wade through pages of forum discussions about hardware and user opinions as well as the 'Internet hardware and Flight Sim experts" and all their suggestions. What I am going to post here cuts through all the nonsense and gets right down to the meat and potatoes. You can take my advice or leave it, all I will say is that if you leave it then you will most likely lose because everything you do from this point forward with respect to optimizing Windows and tuning Flight Simulator stems from proper selection and proper setup of the hardware.

FSX does not require top-shelf server and military grade hardware to obtain good results, however, the better the hardware, the better the result. If the goal is to obtain excellent results running very large 'eye candy' scenery and aircraft addons then one must purchase the right hardware, there is no shortcut or low-budget way around it and given how some scenery developers do not care how much they pile into their products, even then you may find your system will struggle if you simply can't bring yourself to drop a slider setting. You can however make sure that you are in the best situation possible to render a flight and if you are on a limited budget that we place the funds into the right matched components regardless of the limitations they may display, the goal would be to obtain the best result possible with the class of hardware you can afford.

Hardware choices can be confusing and if an individual is not well educated on the subject. What I will provide below is a set of very simple guidelines to follow. Hardware changes about every nine to twelve months and there can be rare exceptions to rules however if you follow a well considered set of guidelines when selecting components you should find yourself in an excellent flight-sim position to start and build from. THREE BASIC RULES TO FOLLOW WHEN BUYING NEW HARDWARE

There are some basic rules I suggest people follow before they push the BUY button on newly released hardware.

RULE #1:

Be aware that when we purchase 1st generation (zero-day) release motherboards or video adapters they can come with new-product issues. If you are not somewhat tech savvy this could present an issue for you.

RULE #2:

Do not purchase hardware with the thought that you will upgrade with better hardware in 6 months to a year.

RULE #3:

Do not daydream about what is coming a year from now. It usually gets delayed and between now and then sitting there wishing and waiting will only provide another year of frustrations.

ABOUT RULE #1: New release hardware can have manufacture design flaws that get fixed in the 2nd manufacture run of the product OR some kind of compatibility issue between devices is present the manufacture needs time to correct. The Sandy Bridge motherboards that were recalled back in 2011are a prime example of manufacture design screw-ups and there are many more examples I can site. Being someone who has been around the high-tech industry for almost 50 years I can say without reservation that we are all are paying for research and development when we run out and buy that new product on day-one of release, and the hardware manufactures love us for it, but then we get to play with the goodies first too!

IMPORTANT: Buy a next generation video adapter and slide it into a older release motherboard, you could be asking for trouble and even if there are no issues with the product working in the system, I do not know how many times I have seen people assume that a new release video card is not much better than the old one it replaced simply because the motherboard was not designed for the new technology or has issues, or, the drivers are not ready for prime time and the user effectively spreads false rumors about the device out of complete ignorance.

Even if there are no design issues, most likely drivers for any new hardware are in their infancy. If you are not 'tech-savvy' give new hardware a good few months on the market and check up on it through reliable hardware review and support sites before hitting the BUY button. It is far better to buy a motherboard that was released at the same time or well after a new video adapter core design hits the market and make sure that new video card has gone through at least one or two driver releases (usually 2-3 months)

Sometimes a good source for information can be the direct support forum for the manufacture of the product. Keeping in mind customers are not experts and may not understand an issue may not be caused by the product but you can scout the manufacture support forums for common issues related to new release hardware and look for the 'gotcha' before purchasing. ABOUT RULE #2: If users buy with the thought that they can save money now and then upgrade in 6 months to a year, not only will they spend MORE than they ever would have if they had simply purchased the right components outright, but a user WILL sit there in a never ending state of frustration that grows and builds as they add more-and-more complex scenery and aircraft to their sim.

With technology available today if the right components are purchased from the start, one can expect to use and enjoy that system for at least 3 to 4 years. People should consider the right purchases an investment in their sanity and pleasure for that time period.

There are people who go out and buy the latest and greatest every development cycle. They pay through the nose for that hardware and can probably afford it, but the fact of the matter is the boost in performance they get from renewing every 6 months to a year is VERY SMALL for what they pay . You may read all types of reports about such hardware in forums.. be aware, people hate to say the money they spent produced limited results, on the flip side people who buy cheap hardware will typically defend that mindset by making ignorant claims about compares with the better hardware that are totally false.. human nature prevails.

Bottom Line: You are far better off planning, saving and purchasing the right parts at the right time and enjoying that purchase for the long haul. ABOUT RULE #3: And finally, there is always something new and improved in hardware coming down the road. When dealing with buying new generation hardware, do research the purchases and if all looks good set a goal for a purchase date based on new hardware release date and if design issues do not appear in a reasonable amount of time follow through with your purchase and don't daydream about what is coming in 4-6-12 months.. people wont get anywhere that way because they will be daydreaming about the release coming 4-6 months after the one they were dreaming about in the first round! There are two ways you can approach hardware choices and win with FSX.. the first way is buy the hardware that works and will not be beat by anything else. The second is to build with a good budget and with good components and when I say 'good budget' I do not mean a $800 dollar computer system! A MESSAGE FOR THE EXCEPTIONALLY LOW BUDGET USER I am not insensitive to this nor am I pushing anyone to buy hardware they simply can not afford. What you must understand is the FSX application is so demanding that if you purchase the lesser grade hardware you will have to accept what that hardware will allow.

At the end of this hardware section there will be a section for the low budget user. What I would suggest is that if you fall in that category you read and review the information below all the way through and that way you too may educate yourself on what it takes to build a system for Flight Simulator X and really get something out of the application for the money spent. After that, review the section about budget builds and then make the decision as to what you may be able to afford. In this process you may find out you can afford a bit more than you think.

Sometimes a little more spent in the right place goes a long way but one thing you do not want to do is mix the cheap hardware with the better quality goods. That could actually make FSX run worse since there is a fine balance between the CPU and video card that must be kept in check.



FAST AND FURIOUS - I WANT IT NOW For users who want "the goods" and simply need a fast shopping list as of the date of this posting, here it is: ======================================================= BEST FSX BUILD WITH HARDWARE ON THE MARKET TODAY (July 2013): As of the date this was posted, any user who is genuinely interested in being in the best hardware situation possible with FSX should obtain the following parts: 1. i7 4770k Intel Haswell processor. At 4.3GHz this processor is running the same or better than Sandy Bridge @ 4700MHz and at 4800 the Haswell is running better than Sandy Bridge @ 5300MHz. 2. A z87 Haswell motherboard that has the features you require and is not a cheap board (I do not suggest boars of under $180 USD for clocks higher than 4.3GHz) I suggest Asus for this as their boards are very easy to deal with and are second to none with AUTO features many boards require manual input to accomplish clocking goals. 3. Nvidia GTX780 - no exceptions to this and a high-end FSX tower with a Haswell 4. SSD drives for Windows and FSX Note: If you Flight Sim install is very large and need far more drive space that a SSD can provide, 1TB or 2TB Western Digital Black drives, or, for higher performance Western Digital Velociraptors. There is an entire section dedicated to storage systems/setups below in CHAPTER 1, VERSE 2

that you should review. 5. 2x4 (8GB) DDR3 2400 with a timing specification of 9-11-11-31 or lower. FSX wont use more memory than that! Two sticks of memory are far easier to clock high CPU speeds stable than four sticks. 6. A tower that support excellent airflow such as the Cooler Master HAF932 or the HAF-X with front, side, top and rear fans. Do not buy a tower for looks, buy it for airflow and cooling. 7. A well designed power supply that is rated for Haswell power states. Many already do. If you wish to use a PSU from a older build verify the PSU is rated for Haswell with the PSU manufacture. 750-850watt PSU is fine for single GPU systems, any more is total overkill. Clocking Haswell: 8. If you do not intend to attempt any overclock at all, or, any overclock of under 4.2 then the stock Intel heatsink will work however given the temps the Haswell processor runs, it may not be a bad idea to obtain a medium duty air or liquid replacement. H60 Corsair for liquid. 9. If it is your intention to run a clock higher than 4.3 then you will need a 'supercooler' class air cooler such as the Thermalright Archon SB-E x2, or, a higher class liquid system such as the Corsair H100 or H110. The air cooler will limit most Haswell clocks to 4.4-4.5, liquid will most likely allow higher, 4.8 is the max.

I have provided far more in-depth information about a complete Haswell build in this thread: http://www.simforums.com/forums/haswell-48ghz-on-air-building-a-haswell-system_topic46180.html ...which when complete will walk you though the process from start to finish. It will also includes a guide to modify C0 release Haswell processors at the cap to obtain clock speeds of up to 4800MHz on air (that section is only for experienced users). As of this date it is still under production but will be completed soon. If you want the goods and you want it NOW, the list above is the way to go as of the date of posting this outline. However as many of my past outlines lived online for years in which the list above will become outdated, and, there are those of you who are going to be budget limited this next section will help address those situations for you. ================================================================= HOW TO SELECT THE RIGHT PARTS FOR FSX: I am not going to be around forever to walk people through this and I am going to cut right through the nonsense and lay this out so you have valid information. So here is how to shop today or in the future: PROCESSORS

1. Skip AMD and purchase a Modern Intel Processor (that would be Haswell at this posting) and do not go for the cheaper class i.e.; i3/i5. If you have an older processor and can not upgrade at this time I have listed the processor below that work well in FSX even if they are older, however the newer the processor, the better the result and Haswell has taken that to an entire new level. 2. Six core processors can provide a better experience than 4 however that is only true if you are comparing a 6 and 4 core of the SAME CLASS of processor, not processors of the past compared to new. 3. Larger processor cache is better for FSX 4. Highest default clock speed if you do not intend to overclock (very important) NOTE: Serious flight sim users should always consider overclocking to at least 4.0-4.1. FSX will perform far better at 4GHz and above. 5. If you intend to overclock a lower default processor speed is OK but do not skimp on the cache or the grade. You will usually find the larger cache processors also sport the fastest default CPU speed.

6. IMPORTANT: When selecting a processor and deciding on overclocking be sure to purchase the correct video card for the CPU quality you purchase and the CPU speed you intend to run. The CPU and video card go hand-in-hand when it comes to FSX. 7. HYPER THREAD IS USELESS IN FSX I will briefly discuss each of the seven items listed above:

#1 - Intel vs. AMD in FSX - Ridiculous subject, Intel wins in FSX. End of story. However I will say this.. if anyone thinks they can buy a cheap budget Intel proc or a laptop with a i3/i5 budget solution, and put it up against a flagship clocked AMD tower, then they are also fooling themselves. Just stay with the right i7 Intel solution and let the silly fan-boys duke it out. Purchase the higher class i7 processor for FSX and not the cheaper budget class processor. You do not need an 'Extreme' class Intel processor as these are reserved for deep-pocket users and you can obtain results with the non-extreme class processor. There are advantages to the Extreme processors as those chips are the cream of the crop (speed-bin quality control) but those advantages with the cost (typically 800-1200 USD) will never be recovered in FSX performance. If you have the money and wish to play, go for it.

List of processor that did provide or does currently provide the results with FSX from the highest to the lowest performance level with the application as of this date:

Intel 4770K (Haswell) - PCIe 3.0 support - DDR4 is about a year away and is coming next. Intel i7 3770K (Ivy Bridge) - PCIe 3.0 support - This is no slouch and is right behind Haswell in performance Intel i7 2600K, 2700K, and, Sandy Bridge-E (hex core) series - PCIe 2.0 support - on the way out but still good! Intel i7 920, 930, 940, 950, 960, and, 970-980 (hex core) series - PCIe 2.0 support - very outdated Intel Core2, Core2 Quad Series - PCIe 2.0 support - exceptionally outdated If you are currently running the last two class of processors, its time to upgrade. They are outdated and you will be far better served on the newer processors/systems with full PCIe 3.0 support and SB systems are not far behind now that Haswell has been released and new stepping of the processor will be coming along with DDR4 memory support just down the road. Even though a early revision of PCIe 3.0 boards were released as well as a registry hack to enable it, it is questionable at best that the same performance level is possible with a PCIe 3.0 video card on Sandy Bridge motherboard and E processors. My test show that if it is enabled, it appears it may not function at its full potential. Don't waste your money thinking Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge/Haswell are the same in that respect, they are not. Full PCI3 3.0 support requires Ivy Bridge or higher. #2 - Multicore and FSX: Although it is a fact that FSX will use up to 256 physical cores (if available) there is a diminishing return on investment past 6 cores. That is the part the MS marketing engine left out when it was announced how many cores FSX would run on. 8 core vs. 6 core: Six core processor setups have far more value in terms of threaded code in FSX than 8 core and a user would be spending a lot of money for a 8 core setup (by current offerings and pricing) they will never see back in performance and smoothness in FSX. Based on the terrain threads being processed, past 6 cores and the user is very much beginning to throw money out the window although with 6 core there is still an advantage but do NOT select a older 6 core processor over a newer class quad!

A quad core should be the minimum number for cores used for FSX.

In the future if 6 core processors become a norm for the non-extreme class offering, then go for the 6 over the quad. Although 8 core non-extreme class solutions could also become a norm in the future, anything over 8 cores, based on how much data FSX is threading really is a 'total' waste of money. Purchasing dual 'server' type processors and motherboards are efficiently throwing money out the window. Although under certain scenery conditions one could see small improvements, its not worth the extraordinary cost. I wouldn't spend my cash on such a rig as I can easily spend 500+ on the server grade motherboard alone not to mention a match pair of server processors, money I would never get back in application performance. Do understand that although FSX SP2 and Acceleration are multicore aware and will run threads, those extra threads are reserved to terrain and autogen calls. The first available core of the processor is what FSX will use to run the bulk of the code, therefore the faster the CPU speed and more efficient the processor per clock cycle, the better the FSX result which is why overclocking is very popular with Flight Sim users. It works, but done improperly it can also cause heat and error related performance issues. #3 - Processor Cache and FSX: FSX is not a game, it is a simulator and can not be classified, tested or benchmarked as or like any game on the market. Its code is very poorly optimized and places a ludicrous strain on the communication between the memory and CPU. Unlike typical games a larger processor cache is in fact beneficial to FSX as the application is constantly poling the CPU and memory addresses for data. If the processor is engineered for optimal cache performance, that adds to the benefit. Intel Smart Cache Technology is a primary design feature of modern Intel processors. As the system is used physical memory addresses are stored in the CPU cache. The smart cache technology specifically targets advanced read-ahead operations which optimizes memory address calls as the system is used and since FSX is a memory subsystem nightmare in programming design, as Phil Taylor from Aces confirmed years ago, the larger/more advanced the proc cache and its ability to optimally recall data from memory, the better the result. #4. - CPU Speed: For those who do not wish to clock a processor, the faster and more efficient the Intel CPU, the better for FSX. #5 - Overclocking the CPU: Although I will not be addressing the 'how to overclock' subject in this outline I will discuss hardware selections based on clocking since it is a very popular practice with Flight Sim users. When a user is building a system with the intention of clocking the right hardware selections can make all the difference.

Any experienced Flightsim user knows that overclocking a CPU will in fact increase the potential to render a visually sharper and smoother image with more complex addon scenery and aircraft. Its not a requirement but it will produce a better result with the application.

Overclocking is both a science and an art however in recent years it has become less technically complicated to overclock a processor safely using automated motherboard functions. There are many websites out there that address overclocking. If you intend or wish to overclock then when making hardware selections research the overclock ability and method of the hardware (motherboard and CPU) first. There can be boards on the market that are easier to clock than others. Also make sure you can COOL that processor and system with the right heatsink or cooling solution as well as the right tower choice for airflow. Better cooling can make all the difference even with a low-end clock! VERY HIGH CLOCKING: (4.5GHz and above) It is important to note that regardless of load tests or how long they are run, overclocking can still produce errors. There is no such thing as a 'totally stable' high-end overclock. The ODDS are far better after extensive load tests confirm there is no exceptionally unstable issue present and if a user knows what they are doing they will probably not see any issues, but be very aware regardless of experience you can pass every CPU/memory load test with flying colors and STILL not be 100% stable under 3D render graphic load conditions which may require speed or voltage adjustments to trim out. If a user is not well versed in overclocking this can also be true of LOWER end clocks. #6 - Processor Selection and Video Cards: Do not purchase a 4-6 core processor with the intent of clocking it to 4.1GHz+ and then buy the budget or even the mid-range video adapter. This is one area people screw-up big-time and they do not realize it. You must pair the processor power in use with the right video adapter or you will effectively bottleneck your system in FSX as you add more and more complex addons. If you do not intend to overclock and/or purchase a lower end processor, then purchasing a high-end video adapter can produce the same poor results! Decide now what processor and processor speed you intend to run and keep that in mind when shopping video cards. You WILL shoot yourself in the foot if you try any bargain-basement option (buy cheap now with plans to upgrade later) when paring the CPU and the video card. #7. Intel Hyper Threading: FSX has no code to recognize or process logical core hyper thread. I don't know how many times I have read some 'guru' has come up with an assessment that FSX will make use of or runs better with hyper thread enabled. This person really needs a sign! The REAL terrain 'guru' Adam from Aces as well as Phil Taylor specified years ago that FSX does not support any logical core threading (hyper thread). The reason you SEE logical core activity in the Windows CPU monitor window is because the physical cache is used for each logical (hyper thread) core. "logical" core means there is no 'physical' hardware core but the hardware cache in use is there, and, FSX is DUMB so a thread is spawned due to the physical cache in use, but the data is never processed and used by FSX! Don't buy a cheaper processor just because it does not include hyper thread support and you think you can save a buck. Typically those processors come with a smaller total cache and that is a mistake! Budget builders.. fine, buy the cheaper i5 but remember, you get what you pay for in that build.

CPU COOLING SOLUTIONS

If you do not intend to overclock the CPU, or, you may only clock very low then usually the Intel supplied heatsink will work. DO be aware that the Intel supplied unit is NOT designed for high efficiency and even with no clocking or very low clocking that processor will run far hotter than with a 3rd party replacement of some type.

Self contained liquid systems are becoming more and more popular. I tend to shy away from liquid for a few reasons. These reasons are my personal preference and should not influence your decision but I do wish to let them be known..

a. Most liquid systems are not quieter and are actually louder than many air cooling solutions. I demand silence around my towers when they are run for normal everyday use and even when they are under render loads I do not like excessive fan noise. Liquid systems have radiators with fans that must be powerful enough to push air through the fins of the radiator. These fans can be far louder than many air coolers at both idle and under stress.

b. Maintenance with liquid can be a pain and there is simply something about the term 'liquid' and 'electronics' that simply does not ring my bell! I have tried liquid, I really liked the temps! But hated the noise as well as had to deal with a connection that started leaking a tiny amount.. easy to fix as this was a custom built system and not 'self contained' off the shelf system but that experience was enough for me and I decided to revert back to air cooling.

OK now, on the flip side, liquid systems if they are made well and maintained can in fact keep a CPU cooler than air, no question about that. Leaks are not common although they can occur and many people use liquid now as opposed to air even for un-clocked or low clocked systems.

I can also pass on that if you intend to clock with Haswell above 4.2Ghz and you do not wish to risk a CPU modification then a good high-end liquid system will be required.

Having said that, for air cooling there are 2 classes of replacement cooling solutions, the typical medium duty which can be used for none or low clocking such as the Zalman product lines and the 'super cooler' such as the Noctua DH-14 or the Thermalright Archon SB-E x2. There are others in both classes.

What you need to watch out for with any air cooler is the size of the unit with the fans mounted and how far over the memory slots those fans extend. With air coolers such as the Noctua DH-14 the fans WILL block the first and sometimes 2nd memory slot, meaning, you can NOT use 'high-back' heatsink memory in such a setup.. this could limit your memory selection a great deal. The Thermalright Archon SB-E x2 does NOT block any memory slot with its fans. So when shopping for air coolers do be aware of the memory slots and not only ease of access to them, but more important better memory usually comes with high-back heatsinks in which some air coolers can limit that choice.

I really do not suggest any clocking, even low end clocking, be done on the Intel supplied heatsink unit. Users who intend to low-clock should probably consider a replacement that will work better than the Intel provided unit. There are low-end liquid solutions available such as the Corsair H60 that will work for such setups. You just have to remember, you are not going to be running 4.4+ GHz on such solutions.

VIDEO CARDS

ATI Video Adapters: I will not discuss or address ATi video cards in this document. Nvidia is the GO-TO card for FSX. AMD/ATi announced directly they will not develop nor will they make any effort to accommodate the older rendering engine MSFS uses and there are issues with the adapters and the older FSX render engine. If you use ATi with FSX and want 'the works' on the screen you may very likely end up being forced to install hacked shader files (3.0) from AVSIM in order to come close to Nvidia performance in heavy weather conditions which means you will effectively be forced to deal with nonsense issues to correct glitches that come with that hack. The hack is not full support for Shader 3.0 and Nvidia cards do not need that shader hack. Do not install that shader hack with a Nvidia video adapter! I am not a fan-boy as I was an ATi user at one time just as I was a AMD processor user before Intel released the Core2 series processors and crushed AMD with Flight Sim performance. If in the future AMD/ATi makes a change that eliminate the issues with their video adapters and FSX, I would certainly be open to using them again, until that time Nvidia is the card to purchase for a FSX system. This part is really simple as I have outlined not only what to buy, but how to upgrade a system based on what works and what doesn't. First, there are a few basic rules before buying a video card:

1. Dual Core Video Adapters: (one card with two GPU cores) will NOT improve FSX and can even make FSX run worse! Purchase a single core video card.

2. Professional 3D Video Adapters: such as Nvidia Quadro will not run FSX better than the standard game market video cards. They are made for professional 3D modeling graphics power and will have no influence on FSX or games. They are a total waste of money for a typical user.

3. Multiple Card Systems: SLi will not make FSX run better, only provide higher filtering support for very large resolutions. SLi is an expensive money hole for FSX and it is not very well supported by the title. If you intend to run SLi for other games run FSX in single card mode and do remember with 2 cards in the system and poorly considered motherboard purchase you can effectively reduce the link width and performance of the primary card down to x8 PCIe.

4. Matching it Up: Selecting the right video adapter for the platform is just as important to FSX as selecting the right processor, and matching their performance levels.

5. Video Memory: for single monitor systems should be at least 1.28-1.5GB. Very high video memory cards (2GB+) will not make any difference in a single monitor FSX system but do make a difference with multi-monitor setups. 6. Overclocking: DO NOT overclock video cards! Buy them clocked from the factory.

I will briefly discuss each of the six items listed above:

There is nothing else to say about #1 and #2. Its strait forward, don't purchase those cards.

#3 - Multiple card systems: I know there are users who run more than one video card which is usually done to allow more monitor support. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch with FSX. The more you draw and the higher the resolution, the more it costs. Multiple card users must be sure the motherboard they select: a. Will not neuter the primary card slot down from x16 to x8 or x4 PCIe lanes b. Will not create an excessive drag on the system from running very low PCIe lane link width. c. The CPU can deal with the cards as well as the scenery and displays being rendered. The motherboard selection for such systems is extremely critical. Many motherboards do not support full PCIe link width when more than one video card slot is used. They can also turn off other PCIe x4 and x1 ports you may require for addon cards. You must research the motherboard very carefully if you intend to run more than one video card in a system and to be quite frank, I would not even consider SLi for FSX. Using a 2nd card for monitors is one thing, using it for SLi in FSX is not smart and its costly. We are talking about a FSX tower here, not a "multi-game' tower. If your goal is to play other games and use FSX as well and you want to run SLi setups you will have to take the good with the bad in that. Dedicated FSX towers should not be setup for SLi.

#4 - Matching it Up: As I mentioned in the processor section above, when shopping for the video adapter the goal is to match the CPU ability and planned clock speed to the video card. This is not hard to do if ask yourself a simple question with respect to the selected CPU and desired CPU speed. Nvidia cards come in 4 primary class versions; Their top-end card, the medium grade step-down from the top dog, their 3rd grade performance line, and, their exceptionally low budget cards. Example: 1. GTX 780, 2. GTX770, 3. GTX 760 (could also be 760Ti), 4. GTX 750/740 NEVER purchase the 4th class of video card even for budget builds. If you are not building a 'low-budget' system NEVER buy the 3rd class of card. You will either purchase the top-class or the 2nd in line based on the CPU speed. Here is the rule of thumb: IF you intend to run 4.2GHz or higher, purchase the top-end card IF you intend to run below 4.2GHz, purchase the 2nd class card NOTE: With the introduction of Haswell the top-end card is the best at any CPU speed. If this trend continues in the future then the CPU tech is finally catching up to the GPU tech and this may very well hold true past Haswell. You can still use the same outline as stated above and not lose regardless. To make this VERY easy I am going to outline the right video adapter for each CPU from the 920 through Haswell. If you are looking to build NEW or upgrade, use this list:

Intel 4770K (Haswell) - PCIe 3.0 support ANY processor speed: GTX780 No contest. NOTE: if you are running 4.2 or less an on a budget a GTX770 can be used. It will NOT match a GTX780 at all. You could even recycle your old GTX680 but if you are building new and you want what this processor and system has to offer then do not neuter the Haswell and go with the GTX780 at any CPU speed. This is the first Intel processor that does not bottleneck the with highest end video card on the market running with a lower CPU speed and the 780 is the best card for this processor. Intel i7 3770K (Ivy Bridge) - PCIe 3.0 support Processor speed is at or below 4.0GHz - GTX680, GTX770, GTX780 Processor speed is above 4.0GHz - GTX680, GTX780 <---preferred Note: Ivy Bridge is similar to Haswell but with differences and a lower performance curve. This processor can easily deal with a GTX780 but at lower CPU speeds and on a budget the cards outlined will also work. Intel i7 2600K, 2700K, and, Sandy Bridge-E (hex core) series - PCIe 2.0 Processor speed is at or below 4.0GHz - GTX570, GTX670 Processor speed is above 4.0GHz - GTX580, GTX680 Intel i7 920, 930, 940, 950, 960, and, 970-980 (hex core) series - PCIe 2.0

Processor speed is at or below 4.0GHz - GTX570, GTX670 - Any one of these cards is fine Processor speed is above 4.0GHz - GTX480, GTX580 - Any one of these cards is fine

NOTE: GTX670, GTX680 is a PCIe 3.0 video card and will not run its full potential on any 900/2000K series motherboard. It can be used since the older model cards are phased out. A GTX580 is in many ways better that a 680 as it is PCIe 2.0 and does have certain specifications FSX will make use of the GTX680 does not have. Users currently running 900 series processors and systems should seriously consider a 'full system' upgrade.. its time. #5 - Video Memory: Typical single monitor systems that run a resolution of 1920x1200 or lower do not require nor will make better use of above 1.5GB of video memory, however, higher resolutions above 2000x as well as multi-monitor setups can make use of above 2GB of video memory. There is no 'frame rate' increase with the larger memory amount, the benefit comes in visual smoothness and panning. It can be exceptionally important to have larger video memory amounts for a large span of monitors. Newer video cards are now coming to market with 2 and 3GB of video memory standard. #6 - Overclocking Video Cards: I have run into this more that once.. A user asks me to look at their system since they are having strange performance issues and glitches to find out they are overclocking the video card and they think that's OK to do.. it is IF YOU KNOW EXACTLY what you are doing and don't go too far! Problem is, most users DON'T know what they are doing and they have no background in reviewing the design of the card to see how well it may be constructed to pull off something like that off STABLE and SAFE. Unlike clocking the CPU for FSX a video card overclock nets VERY LITTLE in FSX. It runs the card hot and overstressed for no reason. What users that do this do not understand is the CORE TEMP means nothing when clocking a video card.. its all the other components that have NO TEMP monitoring that you are pushing too hard and that the manufacture usually takes steps to improve the cooling around those IC's. You may see no issues at first! but then one day the glitches and the performance starts dropping and by then its sometimes too late. This is a very unwise practice. When you purchase a super-clocked card the manufacture has usually taken steps to upgrade the heat sinks or heat transfer components and they have also tested the changes and will certify them to be SAFE. Burning a card by clocking it yourself VOIDS the warranty, purchasing a card that is pre-clocked and running it by the manufacture set clock speeds does not. It also ensures you wont be running with glitches and errors! Clocking a video card is not worth the dangers or the tiny advantages one may see. If you wish a higher core speed, purchase the card pre-clocked so you do not void the warranty and get any advantage the manufacture placed into the card for heat dissipation. THE NVIDIA TITAN The Titan card should be reserved for the deep-pocket user .. the standard GTX 780 can be clocked to Titan speeds/specs and perform just about the same... Super-clocked 780s can be purchased that are fine for the job, certified by the manufacture and require no dangerous user clock changes. That is what I purchased, the SC model. It effectively runs Titan performance.



The only thing a GTX780 can not do over the Titan is provide the same high video memory frame buffer support and even then, that is a lot of money for a much larger frame buffer..



The GTX 780 comes with 3GB of video memory. That should handle multi-monitor setups but if you are deep-pocketed and intend to run a huge array of monitors you can bump up to the Titan... I can't say that will make a difference for you or not,.... it is your choice and your wallet! THE BUDGET VIDEO CARDS: You probably noticed by now there are no 'GT' or "GTX Ti" or 560/660/760 cards outlined above. That is because I have created this outline to make sure you get the benefit of my extensive experience and background and if you decide to upgrade you will actually get something of value for your money with FSX instead of frustration. My advice is stay clear of those cards with FSX using the processors and the processor speeds outlined above. You can take that advice or leave it. If you leave it, good luck. You may review the post that is linked here: http://www.simforums.com/forums/3dmark06_topic46244_post280558.html#280558 That post clearly shows what happens when a underpowered video card is placed in a system with a fast, efficient and overclocked processor as the speed of that processor increases. The budget video card effectively ruins the advancements the CPU may provide and user simply do not know what they have done to their system. The card may score great in a benchmark but the user has no idea what they did neutered the rest of the system.

MOTHERBOARDS

When selecting a motherboard there are 6 primary questions to answer:

1. Does the board support the processor and addon cards or devices you intend to run? 2. Is the board of current design and was it designed before the video adapter was released? 3. Does the board support the PCIe link width your processor and video card allow (2.0/3.0)? 4. If multiple video cards are desired does the board support full PCIe link width for more than one slot? If you intend to overclock (and most serious FSX user will)... 5. Does the board have good chipset and voltage regulator cooling? 6. Is the board design with high quality voltage regulation and filtering? To simplify this, if you do not intend to run multiple video cards and wish to clock above 4.2GHz with stability running higher performance components then the motherboards that typically cost between 180 and 250 USD will deliver all the goods. All you need to do is verify the features and what you need support for. A few exceptions: a. You are a very proficient overclocker and intend to run exceptionally high CPU speeds with exceptionally high speed enthusiast memory products. In this case and if you actually DO understand advanced BIOS setups and clocking, then the more expensive "full size and full featured" ROG class Asus boards would be better suited for your needs. These boards are built with top of the line components and made specifically for this type of use. Those who don't understand advanced BIOS setups and who should not be trying to run enthusiast class memory speeds or CPU clocks and purchase such boards thinking they will get better performance, are fooling themselves and spending a lot of money for nothing. These boards are made for pro's not amateurs or typical FSX users who clock. You would be buying a pretty paint job if the board is not going to be used as intended.

b. A user who intends to build a game system that will be running many games other than FSX and who needs multiple video card support for SLi or who needs extended support for higher end storage device PCIe devices running with multiple video cards, or a workstation. In your case, I honestly think you should build 2 towers, one for your SLi games or work and one for FSX, none the less, you will need either the more advanced multi-PCIe lane ROG board or the "Workstation" class board that allows higher PCIe link width for 2 or more video cards and other PCIe devices.

c. Mini boards can be used if they are of high quality but I will warn about this selection: Smaller means LESS HEAT can be dissipated quickly. Typically these boards are better suited for the college student dorm room or for the user who is making a home entertainment system and requires good performance in a very small space but will accept the limitations the smaller board may exhibit. Clocking these boards will produce heat and the last thing you want is more heat and less efficiency in getting it off the components.

I usually suggest the Asus line of motherboards. The Asus BIOS is usually very easy to navigate and the boards tend to have a track record for ease of use and stability. That does not mean you must buy Asus. There are other manufactures of boards on the market and users sometime become accustom to dealing with one company. What you should very clearly understand is the SAME holds true for any motherboard company: The CHEAPER the board, the LESS you get in component quality, cooling and features.

Purchasing a very cheap motherboard and shoving higher end processors/memory/video cards into them can and probably will come back to haunt you later! Don't be a fool, buy a motherboard for stability and long life use. Just because any motherboard is advertised and listed as "OC DDR3 2800" does NOT MEAN you will be able to run that speed! Its marketing and the only speed that motherboard company must guarantee is the Intel spec for the processor itself, typically DDR3 1600-DDR3 1866 max. SYSTEM MEMORY

One of the most overlooked and underrated aspects of system building is proper memory speed and timing. Regardless of the nonsense you may read about memory specifications and games (or FSX) DO NOT skimp on this area! Physical memory timing and speed quality does not effect FPS 'greatly' but firmly improves scenery loading and visual flight smoothness.

FSX does not need more than 6GB - 8GB of physical memory! Be aware, adding more memory is not going to net you any better performance and if you do add more you may find that memory will run higher latency or could be unstable in a high CPU clock situation. Users who may need more memory than 8GB for engineering or A/V production work or 64bit applications, that is understandable but anyone who does not use their systems for much more than FSX would be foolish to purchase more than 8GB. Your version of Windows must support the amount of memory you intend to use as well. Windows 7 Home x64 is restricted to 8GB max. TWO STICKS vs. FOUR: What you must understand about this is that when we use more that 2 sticks of memory the load on the CPU memory controller or IMC goes UP. Therefore what users may deal with is LOWER stability in a HIGHER CPU clock with HIGHER speed memory. Typically you wont have any issues running 4 sticks when clocking 4.3 or below, above that it can become problematical as CPU speed and memory speed increases. How much depends on the motherboard quality and the luck of the draw with the CPU. Users who run quad channel memory CPUs will be running 4 sticks of memory. That does not mean its bad as they get the benefit of the quad memory channel operation, however users who do not run quad channel CPUs that do not require more than 2 memory slots populated should strive to run 2 sticks for maximum stability in clocking. Unless you need more memory for applications that will make use of it, in that case you will have to deal with any issues running higher CPU clock speeds. Just as some CPUs display the ability to run high clocks on low CPU voltage, the same holds true with their stability with more than 2 sticks running at very high CPU and memory speeds. HOW TO GET THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK OUT OF THE MEMORY SELECTION:

I know to some people this information may appear 'Greek' however follow this chart with the examples I show, and you cant go wrong.

SAMPLES OF MEMORY SPEED/TIMING Memory is specified in speed and timing. The first number, in example is DDR3 <speed> the values that follow are the timing values listed as: DDR3 <speed> CAS Latency - RAS to CAS DELAY - RAS Precharge - Cycle Time Example: DDR3 2133 C9 -11-10-28 The first value, CAS Latency, has the highest influence on performance. The lower, the faster.

The 2nd and 3rd numbers also influence the speed of the memory and this is where a lot of people get snookered by a memory company into thinking the memory they are purchasing is faster than a lower speed. In example: DDR2 1600 6-7-6-18 is FAR FASTER than DDR3 1866 9-9-9-24 Memory companies know people look at the speed of the memory instead of the timing and to take this example a step further lets try this again:

DDR3 2133 9-11-10-28 is FASTER than DDR3 2133 9-12-12-28 Even though both are the same DDR speed and both are CAS9 rated, the two numbers - RAS to CAS DELAY and RAS Precharge are higher in the 2nd sample and therefore that memory is slower and it could even be priced higher than the other sticks!

Cycle Time (the last number) does have an influence on the overall memory speed and it is always best to go for a lower value, however Cycle Time is not as critical to memory performance as are the other values therefore I have not included the Cycle Time value in the list below.

Here is a list of memory timing per speed a user should strive for. Lower timing memory is typically expensive and hard to find, which is what you pay for.

DDR3 SPEED - HOLY-GRAIL TIMING - ( EXCELLENT TIMING you should buy)

DDR3 1333 - 5-5-5 - (6-6-6)

DDR3 1600 - 6-6-6 - (6-8-6 best or 7-8-7)

DDR3 1800/1866 - 6-8-6 - (7-8-7)

DDR3 2000 - 7-7-7 - (8-8-8) Intel 900/970/980 series 'stable' limit

DDR3 2133 - 8-8-8 - (9-10-11) Sandy Bridge 'stable' limit, can go slightly higher

DDR3 2400 - 9-9-9 (9-11-11) Ivy Bridge and Haswell 'stable' limit, SB-E 'may' run this too but not very easy.

DDR3 2800 - 10-10-10 (11-14-14) Haswell can run this, can go higher but you are now into 'tech experience' level speeds and not suggested

DDR3 3000 - 11-11-11 (12-14-14) Any of the processors will run the lower memory speeds of 1600-1866 but if your processor is able to run stable at higher speed, always shoot for that stable speed limit with the timing.

The timing values shown in (parentheses) above are what you should use when shopping for memory at the defined speed. Older systems such as 900 series processor will typically struggle to run any memory speed above 1900-2000. Sandy Bridge will run 2133, no problem, but may struggle to run 2400. Ivy Bridge will run 2400 but will usually struggle above that speed and finally, Haswell will run memory speeds from 2400-2800. Haswell can run memory speeds far above 2800 if the user knows what they are doing and the motherboard is designed for that purpose (ROG). I do not suggest this unless you are experienced with clocking.

When we look for a memory speed upgrade we try to keep the same CAS (if possible) and if a higher number is required we try to move at LEAST 256MHz higher in DRAM FREQUENCY or DDR3 speed before we take the next higher value for CAS. That's not easy to do unless we are talking coming from DDR3 1600-1866 @ C9 to 2133. That is why C9 from 2133 to 2400 is a good bump as long as the other values are no higher than 11-11. You are basically moving 267MHz higher with little change to the timing going from 2133 to 2400 and no change to the CAS!

Remember if you can find memory that runs at the DDR speed specified above but at a LOWER timing than what I posted above, then the memory product is faster than what I posted above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORY CLOCKING: WARNING - This is an area I do not suggest the typical user experiment with and I am simply adding this information for the more tech savvy individuals in case they would like to experiment at some point. If this type of clocking is attempted, it is ALWAYS the last clock setup after all software has been installed and CPU clock has been established FIRST. Never do this on a new system before software is installed. I will not be getting into this subject here 'in-depth'. Testing different speeds and timings past the manufacture specification can be done and sometimes we can find values that work and are stable that provide a better (lower) latency and will run faster. However in that process it is very possible to corrupt Windows or data. Unstable overclocks of the processor can cause such corruption too but with memory clocking crashes there is a far higher danger in rebooting to find Windows no longer boots up. If you wish to work with testing memory timing and speed changes past the manufacture specification DO make sure you have a full backup of the Windows install in case of disaster. Thi