Hi folk:I have an old Gateway P1000 computer dying a slow death and have decided to replace it. Just in time for 2004, he-he-he-he!!!!!! So, I had just about decided to spend the cash and get one of the highly touted Dell XPS. The system is advertised as a 3.06G, 2GB RAM, and a lot of bells and whistles. Well, I mentioned it to this guy at work who is pretty smart with hardware but doesn't know beans about flight simming (his words, not mine). In our discussion he said something like......you know, it just stands to reason that with the models, textures, windows, sounds, and everything else needed to simulate flight that it's probably processor intensive. For someone who doesn't know beans about flight simming, he sure has an intuitive nature, huh??Well, he suggested that I get a dual processor MOBO, two 2.4 GB processors, a gig of DDR and rob the drives and such from the old one. He said it'll be more computer than the Dell, stay that way for the foreseeable future, provide a lot better frames and less money than what Dell is wanting. Well, he got my attention. He also mentioned that my company's engineering used something called a Xeon processor and that it would be even better.Anyone run something like this to fly with? How does it work for you? Any complaints? What about heat? Can you recommend the right components and sources? I've been inside the box enough to be comfortable putting it together but selecting the right components is way beyond me.Thanks in advanceBobL

Bob,There was a lot of discussion on the subject of using the dual-processor machines for the FS on the old forum. I am not sure if old forum is still accessible so you could then read it all. But to make a *very* long story short - using dual CPU machine for FS will get you ZERO (or close to) benefit for considerable expense. SimHq made independent studies of the subject. The results applied to FS2002. Now with FS2004 we know that MS optimized the game for hyper-threading. So your best bet at the moment is to get yourself a hyper-threaded Pentium CPU AND make sure you go with 800 FSB meaning you probably have to get the 3.00 Ghz CPU rather than the 3.06 one.If you definitely want to burn all this cash for a dual-CPU make sure you install the Windows-XP Pro edition. Unless it is the "Pro" edition you won't realize any advantage from using 2 CPUs.But honestly - if you look how top-notch gaming systems are built (say by Alienware or Falcon-NW - and some of them are obscenely expensive) - none of them have dual CPUs - it is not a very cost effective arrangement even in super-high-end gaming systems. Michael J.(There is a lady lurking on this forum who specializes in building gaming systems for very reasonable price. Many report excellent results with their machines:http://www.progresssystemsinc.com)

michalThanks so much. No, I'm not dead set on blowing that money. So, I'll stick with the new 3.0Thanks again,BobL

MichalI was looking through some web sites last nite...Wonder what you think about the Xeon processor. My employer uses these in our Engineering Dept's machines and as you might well imagine are 3D and graphics intensive.Wonder if I would see a noticeable improvement in both frame rates and graphics rendering over what the 3.0 would offer?BobL

Bob,This is where my 'expertise' ends. I really know nothing about Xeon processors besides of course that they exist and are very high-end. In my last 4 years on this flight sim forums I don't recall a single post on this topic. Very interesting question, maybe someone else knows more.If you go to the site I included in my first reply there is a forum (very few people there) and this lady who is highly qualified (builds computers for living) may be able to tell you more....Michael J.

Thanks, but I need FS2000 not for gaming but as a visualizator of a simulator running in Matlab or in C based on Windows 2000 professional. So I need that two programs run togheter. In this sense perhapes I need 2 processors.What do you think about?

The Xeons have more cache and are scaleable...I won't put the money in them for gaming machine. AMD is picking up on this market by adding more cache and the opteron and is a bit cheaper.