Hi,I know this is off topic and mainly a hardware question, but I am doing this almost exclusively for FS2002 PIC767 simming and I do value your opinions here in this forum.I am in a position to build a new machine. I am wondering if anyone has an opinion as to whether I would be better off building a dual 2.6G p4 or a single hyperthreaded p4 at 3G? The price difference wouldn't be that great between them. I am using XP Pro which does handle the cpu's. I don't believe I can specify which CPU a given task will run on, but I think XP will load balance pretty well for me. I am hoping that the OS will run on 1 CPU and the game (or other apps) will run on the 2nd cpu. I am still undecided between a GForce 4600 or a 9700 Radeon. I'm concerned about ATI's driver problems in the past. (Yes I guess that is kind of asking for a second opinion about video cards )Has anyone tried this and have an opinion? I would especially appreciate knowing of any good published tests showing the relative merits/shortfalls of each.Thanks for any feedbackKen Lavigne

I would expect XP to load balance just fine, with FS running primarily on one CPU and everything else on the other. Now, I wonder if FS2004 will be multithreaded and be able to take advantage of both CPUs. If not, the single, faster CPU will be faster for FS and the rest of your apps are probably not terribly CPU-intensive.Lee Hetherington (KBED)http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

Hi Ken,FS2002 with PIC767 is still what they call cpu bound. Therefore cpu performance is more important then a graphics card. The time the cpu has to spend on the OS is almost nothing compared to the time needed for the simulator. Off loading that to one of the cpu's (if possible) would not help much and I don't think that FS2K2 was developed with multi threading in mind.I would go for the single 3G cpu. Nicohttp://www.nicokaan.nl/

Thanks for the response.I think things just got a little more complicated. From what I can tell, you can't buy a dual P4 motherboard. The only ones I can find are for xeons. That's not so bad, since they are only $50-$100 more than their p4 counterpart at the same speed. But the motherboards start at about $300 and proceed upwards since they now have "Enterprise" and "Server" in the names. Still, it would only be $175-$250 higher for a dual 2.6GH as compared to a single 3GH. The 3GH is simulated dual cpu with the hyperthreading. I'm still leaning towards the real thing. I wonder if anyone has done any kind of side by side comparisons?

Except that the machine is always doing more than one thing. Just firing up VATSIM loads 2-3 additional programs which could run on the other cpu. Not to mention the services that are running in the background.

Hi Ken,don't let the P4 3GHz hyperthreading technology be the deciding factor, as the Xeon processors have that as well - see here: http://www.intel.com/products/server/proce.../xeon/index.htmFrom my observation, the amount of data to be processed has more impact on performance than the speed at which it is processed. Obviously, this statement can be construed as absurd, as higher speeds mean the CPU gets through the workload quicker... But what I meant is, that with optimal division of the workload between two hyperthreaded 2GHz CPUs, you should get far superior performance than someone with a single 3GHz CPU. As far as graphics cards go, right now I would go for the Radeon 9700 or 9800, as the 9000 series are the only cards that truly take advantage of DX9, and unfortunately DirectX is what FS is based on...I wouldn't be too concerned with the aleeged lack of driver support from ATI - over the last two years I've been using ATI cards, and support has improved a lot, plus with the new Catalyst drivers the update structure has become much more transparent, no more of the 'driver 49.365, Build 7.987, afternoon issue 6.7, prior to coffee break 2.1.1' stuff. I think it's just one of those legends that, although once true, just refuses to die...Cheers,Gosta http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

That's pretty much what I have been reading. ALso according to TomsHardware.com and elswhere, hyperthreading doesn't always prove a benefit. Sometimes it can slow you down some. The apps will have to be optimized for hyperhreading, which is really tricking the system into thinking there is more than 1 CPU. I just didn't know that the only way to get multi processing was with xeons. I thought you could do it with standard P4's but I couldn't find any mother boards for that. Right now I am leaning towards dual 2.4 or 2.6GH Xeons as well as the ATI9700. I was thinking about the NVidia FX, but I have a real problem with the wind tunnel cooling need. I don't think the ATI is nearly as hot running.

Hi Ken,as far as cooling goes, I have no problem with the 9700 Pro. If anything, my system lacks proper cooling and the card is running fine with the stock fan. Also, there are now a few 'powered by ATI' 9700s out, which will give you a lot more tweaking options than the original ATI one does (which is the one I have).Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Yes , I know, there are approx 18-20 services running in the background, but they consume hardly nothing compared to FS2K2...(you know they are faster then the big time sharing machines serving 40-100 people, 20 years ago)Then, you better go to a multi pc simulator and run SB and RW on another pc, this has the advantage that you have separate screens and a full screen FS2K2 window on your main pc.Nico