Which processor ?

[fxsttcb]

The i5 2500K is also a VERY solid processor.

...And, is still the most "Bang for the Buck".
Easy 4.2-4.3GHz OC on the stock cooler. With a luck of the bin purchase your mileage may vary, but, most go at least 4.5GHz.
Some are ticking it off at 5GHz+. Top notch cooling, and a GOOD motherboard, are necessary for the stratospheric numbers...Don

[CapitalBill]

The i5 2500k is good if your good at over clocking.

[nolatron]

just the other day I overclocked my i5 2500K to 4.5GHz. I used this guide for my asrock motherboard:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1198504/s...ck-edition/910

After the OC, I noticed my FPS are more stable when I takeoff and fly over downtown New Orleans with the US Cities X add-on enabled Where once it would stutter just a little it now stays smooth.

[poolep]

Thanks for all your help and suggestions. I have never overclocked and would prefer to stick to what comes out of the box.

I know that there are lots of similiar questions asked and it must get repetitive for those in the know.

Once again, thank you all.

[fxsttcb]

I have never overclocked and would prefer to stick to what comes out of the box.

If you go with an Intel CPU, do yourself a favor and get the "K" suffix version anyhow. It has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.
Once you learn how simple and safe it is, you will want the extra speed and FSX will love it.

Many motherboards have an instant 1 click overclock available in the BIOS. Great for those sessions when you want the extra oomph.
Read, read, and read some more! Narrowing down your searches as you go...Don

[dtmicro]

As far as AMD vs. Intel, it's because as a general rule an Intel core is about twice as fast as an AMD core running at the same GHZ when we are talking about the last couple generations. That is one reason the Intels run FSX better. Even in servers, Intels are much faster per core at the same GHZ rating as an AMD, but the AMD's are cheaper for getting more cores. A 12-Core Intel Server costs about the same as a 24-Core AMD server. Too bad all those extra cores don't do anything to help in FSX. Comparing GHZ to GHZ doesn't mean anything unless it is near the same gen of CPU, so depends on CPU generation, memory bus, and all kinds of other stuff. Comparing GHZ between AMD and Intel really means ZERO.

Most CPU's are shown here (some newer ones might not be here)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

The above performance won't translate exactly like that in FS terms obviously, but it gives you a general idea.

I am actually running FSX on a server CPU right now at 2.1 GHZ (it is basically equivalent to one gen before the i7 but with more cores).

I have an Nvidia GTX 280, only 2.1 GHZ CPU (but it is a fairly new gen), 8GB Ram, and FSX runs fine. I don't have every single slider up or gazillions of add-ons installed (although do have all the free OrbX stuff and TileProxy and some REX-like freeware). I don't know how many FPS I get, but over 20 probably 30+ in the wilderness, just depends how much junk on the screen. Most of the auto-gen stuff is off though.

I would assume that any of the newer generation Intel CPU's at 2.0+ should work fine and even better after overclocking. If you have some spare drives (3+), and do Raid 0 or Raid 10. Raid 0 kind of risky cause annoyingly if 1 drive goes you'll have to reinstall everything. You could get an LSI card (9260-4i or the newer one - there is another that is one gen up) with 512MB cache for $320. Not as fast as SSD for random access, but faster for large file throughput and a lot cheaper for a lot more space. Or just get an SSD drive then get RAID as the secondary drives. With the newer Raid cards, you can even make the SSD drive add to the RAID cache and then use the regular drives in the RAID itself. Never tested all these different configs with FSX, but all of them would help.