I can purchase Dual Core Intel Servers for my Cockpit? Should I go with these new models or a DUAL 3GHZ they are selling for $999.00. I am just wondering how well these would work for my 3 displays on 3 DELL projectors and then my actual cockpit?http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/f...s=04&l=en&s=bsd

A server is meant to be used as a server, not as a gaming system (simulation is a "game" after all).I don't think MSFS (or any other sim for that matter) would have advantage from multicore CPU's, as they're not programmed to use multithreading...Just buy a descent CPU and some good GPU's (SLI or Crossfire maybe?)...Make the system yourself, just buy the parts.

There is nothing special about a 'server' - it is just a pc like any other - just usually bought configured with that purpose in mind and so is usually stacked with RAM and and a RAID configuration.Using that configuration would probably be overkill and the money could be spent better elsewhere on single PC configurations (e.g. A64 4000's boards with 1GB RAM and a 7800GT in them.)

I think you guys are misunderstanding my question. A Dual XEON processor with 1Gb of Ram for $999. If I put together a system now it would cost around $2000-$2500 to build an AMD system like the one above. I would just purchase a more affordable PCI-EXPRESS card and I now have 3 systems running for my 3 screens and projectors. If there is a more affordable option to run 1280x1024 with everything maxed out then let me know please.

There is a reason why they call it a server. Yes you can use it for gaming if you add a descent GPU, but it isn't meant for gaming. You get no extra fps from the dualcore or even multiple cpu's, the RAM may add a bit, but not much. Anyways, use the money spent on that dualcore on a good GPU and a normal CPU and you'll be much better off

Doesn't FS9 have to support dualcore, to be effective. I don't think it does.

It depends on what speed those dual Xeons are. You are still going to need a decent graphics card since a 'server' will only be supplied with the bare minimum card if not rely on an on-board chipset for graphics.Forgetting the cost of the graphics card (since it would be needed for both) a fast AMD A64 setup shouldn't cost anywhere near $2000 - should be no more than the cost of the Dual Xeon setup if not less.And there is really nothing special about a 'server' - it is just a PC spec'd for a different purpose.

FS9 does not support multiple CPUs. Sorry, but these won't provide you any advantage over an ASUS P4P800 with a 3.2Ghz processor (or equivalent), and indeed, will probably not perform as well. Also, I put together a system per the above for under $500 with a gig of ram and 120GB SATA drive. Check out pricewatch.com. If you are not up to building it out yourself you can get great deals on EBay, etc.From a server perspective, I beleive that XP have limited support for multiple processors, but only on the application level, meaning you really only see a difference in performance if you are running an app that is written to use them, i.e: database or other specialty apps designed to take advantage of a dual CPU architecture (SQL, ADREV, Oracle, etc.), or an operating system spcifically written to a server environment, like Win2000 Advanced Server or Windows 2003 Server. And NONE of the applications mentioned take advantage of multiple processors on the the client side, only the actual database software itself does (which runs, of course, on a server). I think that photoshop, Quark and some other apps may be supported in XP with multiple processors, but I'm really not sure.Hardware-wise, there IS a difference between a server and a gaming PC: Servers usually have redundant power supplies, SCSI interfaces for hard drives, RAID of some level or another, SMTP monitoring capability and other fault-tolerant features built in that of little or no use to a gamer. On the other hand, a gaming machine may have the above in ADDITION to qualities that are more like a graphics workstation - usually a high-performance chipset that is built to support quick data transfer to the AGP port, enhanced USB support, Firewire, etc. that is considered useless overhead in a server environment.

Regarding the server issue, my point was that a server is still, effectively, a PC. There seems to be this view that a server is one thing, a PC another.As I said, a server is just a PC spec'd for that particular purpose - that includes PSU redundancy, RAID, hardware monitoring etc but it's still a PC, albeit in a climate controlled rack or whatever. A gaming PC, as said, is spec'd for that task in hand. You can still have cross-over between the two if required or wanted, they are not mutually exclusive.By PC I mean x86 hardware/OS etc., not its strict meaning.

doesn't matter. The TS's question was: is this a good pc for simming. The answer is NO... easy

>doesn't matter. The TS's question was: is this a good pc for>simming. The answer is NO... easyUh, a dual 3GHz will surely run FS just fine if one sticks in a good videocard. Sure, FS will only use one CPU, but the server hardware might mean a fast disk, which is good for loading vast amounts of data in sceneries and textures.Also, if you run add-on programs for weather, squawkbox, etc.. those can then use the (mostly idle) other CPU for themselves.So it's not a total "NO-GO" here. Sure, for a wideview client that runs nothing but FS it has the extra cpu doing nothing.//T

"Also, if you run add-on programs for weather, squawkbox, etc.. those can then use the (mostly idle) other CPU for themselves."Sorry dude - not so. If only it were, there would be a much larger market for dual CPU machines. The CPU ID's that you see in XP when you go to taskman are virtual, not physical cpu's. Hopefully the long overdue move to 64 bit processors and enhanced support for programs and hardware to take advantage of these processors, the advent of Internet II and the next step in Moore's law (we're due, aren't we?) should prove FS10 to be a mind blowing experience on my P5-8Ghz machine with 64GB of RAM.Meanwhile tho - these servers are not worth the cost (FWIW - IMHO, etc.).

>Sorry dude - not so. If only it were, there would be a much>larger market for dual CPU machines. The CPU ID's that you>see in XP when you go to taskman are virtual, not physical>cpu's. Well, ok. Use Win2000 then, that should support multiple processors, then the point I made is valid. Never realized XP was handicapped in that way - though I dont have it yet, win2k has been serving my FS2002 and 2004 just fine..//T

You don't seem to get it. The program you're using must be programmed to use multiple cores. Doesn't matter what OS you're running, the program must have parallel threads, else it won't helphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicore

>You don't seem to get it. The program you're using must be>programmed to use multiple cores. Doesn't matter what OS>you're running, the program must have parallel threads, else>it won't helpAh right. Not SMP but dualcore.. D'oh.. Now it clicks :)//T