I installed the 940 yesterday and it was a straight forward install with no problems. My motherboard recognized it on startup.

I am at 3.792G with it and that seems like it is as far as it wants to go.

I found it to run in the comfort zone overclocked so was happy with that.

Running stock speed I had 31C idle and 38 loaded.

Overclocked it is still 31 idle but jumps to 44 with a load.

I have not had FSX loaded in a while so it is time to load the sim and see what happens.

I would be interested in hearing any comments from anyone else that runs a new Phenom II

Price wise it was also in the comfort zone, $375 CND ($307 US)

I think its time to let them go... they were a good friend for many years however they are pretty much dead and buried in the perf computing game unless some miracle raises them up


I took a beating on their stock when I dumped it..

richardd43 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:50pm:



I know Richard   

I would really like to see people stop upgrading AMD and make the switch with FSX systems. I know some cant afford to make a full switch and if their board and BIOS support the proc it may be a upgrade for them but with AMD and FSX its like that boat, a hole in the water you throw money into

If the switch is made to the right platform, the money added up in the AMD upgrades over time could have bought Intel

FS9 was a bear but FSX is a 2000lb Hog

I really do not expect hardware to ever catch up to the title when you start talking about cars/boat/ships/airport vehicles/default traffic and water shaders at nearly 100%

The title is a year 2000 rendering engine which got some fixes and a facelift from FS9 to FSX and resold

IF they had managed to get DX10 to a FULL INSTALL mode instead of a preview I could see one getting close in a year or so but still.. the base of this product is sinkhole of memory and CPU due to its age.

The bottom line to it is FSX is like a fully loaded 10 year old heavy duty tanker truck currently being powered by a common automotive gas engine.

The truck is so heavy and old I bet even the next 2 years wont deliver hardware able to run it flat out simply because the problem is hardware is going one way toward shader powered 3D engines and the FSX core engine is stuck in 2002



I really think people should start planning the full monty upgrade if they wish to move into 2009/2010 with any fun 

you get that high a score on your benchmark with an AMD?

look at my specs and I'm only getting 16,305 marks with my cpu and gpu both highly clocked

SubZer0 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 6:04pm:



isnt it funny how much of a crock 3D mark really is?

He has a shader engine video card

The 4000 series ATI cards rip through 3DMark like it rips through Crysis so the scores will always be better. That was my main point about FSX... the hardware is moving away from how FSX is designed and as it does FSX run worse on it even though the hardware is much faster and better designed.

If you really want to push the CPU use OCCT v2.01

The 1hr auto test will bleed the CPU till it screams 

OCCT nails the memory subsystem as well as the CPU caches

so if you crash on OCCT you probably are unstable somewhere

Its well known you can prime all day long and still crash on OCCT which is why its replacing PRIME as the preferred stability test

however this new processor may not be supported in OCCT like i7.. I did not think about that.. They are updating it now to v3.x so that may be a reason too