Hey everybody- was thinking of "bumping" my rig up a notch or two, and was looking for your opinions on the matter. This might be a bit lengthy but I am trying to be as complete as possible here, such that you hopefully will have all the info you need from this initial posting.Here's what I have running: (slimmed down to performance-specific hardware)AMD64 3200+1GB PC3200 RAMnVidia 6600GT 128MBVideo settings: 1024x748x32 4xAA 4xAF (My LCD is 1024x768 so that's the highest res I can run) -FS9 detail settings are pretty much maxxed out on all slidersBasically I see three options: upgrade the CPU, upgrade the RAM, upgrade the GPU. Upgrading the RAM does not make much sense to me at this time as 1GB seems to be sufficient. Or at least I think that the 1GB of RAM is not the source of my problems.That leaves the GPU or the CPU, (or both).Currently, my FS9 runs quite well in most cases. I have my fps limiter set to 25fps and I do hit up against the limit a lot. Flying GA aircraft away from the big city I can get 20+fps in basically any weather condition AS6 can throw at me. No problems there whatsoever, in fact flying these conditions are downright pleasant :).The problems begin when I start toying around with complex jet addons, complex airport addons, and flying into the city. Basically, I have a number of the popular scenery addons such as:Ultimate TerrainFlyTampa Airportscloud9 AirportsImagineSim AirportsSimFlyers' AirportsSimwings CDG 2005tons and tons of freeware airports and scenery locationsadd-on mesh (and lots of it- about 20GB worth!)etc.Also I have a number of the popular complex aircraft addons:PMDG 737PSS Airbus 320 series (merged to iFDG)PSS Airbus 330/340 series (merged to POSKY)PSS 777Wilco CRJ FleetWilco 737PICLago Maddogetc.Lastly -trying to sound as modest as possible ;)- I have a pretty accomplished AI setup. 2000+ repaints I am sure (several gigs of data), built into the Ultimate Traffic timetables. I have all of the latest generation AI aircraft (AIA, FSP, EvolveAI, etc) as well as a lot of the smaller stuff (Henry Tomkiewicz, Dee Waldron, UltimateGA, etc). I love simulating the busy skies of the real world and thus my traffic percentage is set at 98%. This is a very important aspect to me and I am pretty unwilling to sacrifice in this area. However, I do run a tight ship as far as textures. All of my AI textures are DXT1 w/mips so they are ~680KB each and display very fast in the sim. I have posted here before on the virtues of a DXT1 w/mips AI setup but that is besides the point. Anyways suffice it to say I have TONS and TONS of AI running around, especially in crowded areas and big cities. If I look at the TrafficSDK's Explorer in mega-dense areas like NYC or Dallas, it will come up with AI numbers that are something like 500 planes. Many big cities (like Seattle, San Fran, etc) will have 300-400 aircraft running around at once as well.Once I get all that going, things begin to bog down. I flew the approach into ImagineSim's Newark one time in the PMDG 737 and was flying final on like 7-9fps. I'd say that a typical value for approaches under these worst conditions are in the upper low digits/low teens (5-11 fps). Ideally I'd like it to be smoother, like 15-20. I should mention, however, that if you take one or two of the major factors out, the performance is fine. For example, if I fly a complex jet like the PSS A340 into a mid-sized airport like KSAN or TNCM, it usually is quite manageable. Since there is less AI traffic there or not as many scenery addons working at once, I probably get mid teens for fps on approach. Or if I take the default Cessna and slew it around the complex airports on a clear day, I can get frame rates in the mid-high teens at a lot of the airports, example at cloud9's KLAX. Once I use the complex jet addon and actually fly the plane in though, the performance suffers.That said, here are my theories on performance:1) I get low fps in the city because I have many addons there, coupled with a complex airplane and incredibly dense AI environment. Resultingly either I have too little RAM to handle this incredible data load and/or my CPU is too weak to "process" all of the AI and scenery. Therefore I need to upgrade the CPU in order to accomodate this extra load. Graphics is not quite as necessary because AI takes up RAM and CPU time moreso than GPU time.2) I get low fps because my graphics card has only 128MB of RAM. Complicated airport addons with high-resolution textures like FlyTampa and cloud9, combined with incredibly dense AI loads requires an enormous amount of GPU RAM in order to handle all the textures. Thusly, even with my DXT1 modifications, 128MB of video memory is too little. Therefore I need to upgrade my GPU in order to regain that lost performance.3) I have low performance because my graphics card is too slow. Rendering all of the AI aircraft combined with complicated aircraft (I should note that I am a 2D flyer for jets, I only use the VC in smaller airplanes because I find the VC's in heavy jet sims too difficult to read and access all of the necessary gauges and panels quickly) combined with complex scenery like Ultimate Terrain and detailed airport scenery such as cloud9 (not to mention weather) all add up to a very high load on the GPU's rendering power. Since my 6600GT is not up to muster, my fps suffer.4) My fps suffer when in these very scenery-dense areas because I do not have sufficient RAM to accomodate the data. All of the AI aircraft and textures, combined with complicated area-sceneries (like Ultimate Terrain) and complicated airport-sceneries (SimFlyers, etc) combined with complex jet sims like PMDG all gobble up my 1GB of RAM, and thus I am "swapping" out to my Hard disk. This in turn reduces performance.Naturally, I am sure the real answer is to a degree some combination of all of the above. However, which scenario do you think is the most likely and most significant impactor on performance? I.E. which deficiency should I try hardest to address via a hardware upgrade? My inclination is that my problem is most likely problems #1 and 2 put together. What do you think?A specific example of this might be: should I focus on getting a fast GPU (i.e. X1800 or higher) or go for a cheaper/slower GPU with lots of video memory instead (example: get a 512MB X1600 vs. a 256MB X1800). Should I get a really fast new CPU or only get a moderately faster one and also put a new GPU in at the same time? Things like that.Lastly- a note about budgets and hardware. I should mention that there is one very important hardware limitation and that is that I MUST get a single-slot video card. My case is an SFF-case and cannot support a dual-slot card. It's a PCI-E x16 slot but HAS TO BE SINGLE SLOT! Also, since my current CPU is AMD64 I need to get an AMD64 CPU as an upgrade, since I can't buy a new mobo for this SFF case. As far as I know, it will accept any AMD64 939-pin CPU, dual core or whatever.As far as budgets go, basically I am somewhat flexible on the budget as long as the money I pay has good value for performance gained. I'd say keep it under $500? That's probably the high end of what I would consider (considering I built the entire computer 16 months ago for $1000!). The goal here is being able to fly the complex addons (i.e. PMDG) into the complex airports (i.e. ImagineSim or cloud9) in the big cities running 98% AI and to be able to do so under any weather circumstances.Here is what I was thinking- tell me what you think:-Upgrade CPU to something in the 3800-4000 ballpark. Dual core? I'd probably go for it but is a faster single core a better and cheaper choice?-Also get a new GPU. Originally, several months ago, I thought seriously about upgrading my setup and had planned on getting the X800XL w/256MB. In the end though I decided not to upgrade. Now I am thinking maybe something in the X1800 range, as I feel that the X1600 cards are not quite fast enough to justify an upgrade to them. I am unsure as to whether or not a highly beefed up FS9 setup really demands a 512MB video card though- so I might allow myself more options by considering a 256MB card. Honestly, I would prefer to get an ATi X1*** series card, but it seems like everybody keeps recommending the nVidia cards because they have great value for performance. Perhaps I can be persuaded to stick with nVidia again...Whew! Okay that's enough info I hope. What do you guys think on the matter? I'd really appreciate any advice you have to offer.Ruahrc

wow that's a long post!I had the exact system as you and I chose to upgrade my vcard to a 7800GT. That upgrade made my FPS more solid, meaning I get much less low FPS situations. I talked to someone who had both a 3200+ and 3800+ cpu and he told me he saw absolutely no performance difference in FS9 between those two. I know you may be considering a faster CPU than a 3800 but I personally think nothing short of a FX55 or FX57 will give you real change on a 939 socket. Jason

Well you picked a Great time to consider such an upgrade!! AMD processor prices are coming down drastically due to a new line of Intel processor's slated to hit the market tomorrow...I think you are on the right track bumping up the CPU and Videocard...FS9 is processor dependant...You can get a 3800+ single core processor for $140!! to go along with the 3800 "Level" of processor I'd personally look in the ATI 1800XT/1900XT(No X1600!!) arena or the nVidia 7900GT on up...The only problem is the single slot deal with the ATI cards...If I understand your problem correctly?? Both the X1800/1900 will need two slots...I personally would not consider a lesser ATI card...Maybe an X850 but it's gonna need two slots too... Videocards are not all about the RAM...It is really a marriage of several things...The GPU, Core and Memory Clock Speeds and Rendering Pipes...512mb of RAM on a weak GPU will get you no where(IE a 512mb X1300 card)...Sounds like you realize that...I'm of the opinion you can ALMOST go by price...A good match IMHO for the level of processor your considering would be a $300+ - price range videocard...I'd say a 256mb videocard would be Kewl...Obviously 512 would work also provided it's a good GPU..One exception to that is...The nVidia 7800GTX vs 7900GT...The 7800 is older technology...The 7900GT is newer and out performs the 7800 even though it's a cheeper price...Going Dual core would be really up to you...I think from what I'm hearing..While FS9 is not really optomized for dual core processors...Folks seem to be pleased with their performance...I have not built an x2 system yet...My next one will be x2 for sure...I've heard dual core MAY help a bit while running allot of add-ons...I could see that ie ASV6 is a program running which is needing recources...If your flying online..all of the associated programs are needing recources...Over the last couple of years I have made several small steps in my quest to have a computer that would run FS as smooth as possiable...My personal opinion is that you should shoot for a CPU/GPU combo that "Compliments" each other...Both are an important part of the equasion with the processor being the key...The videocard cannot do it's job..no matter how good it is...Until the processor has given it the information...The Faster the processor..The Better...But they still must compliment each other...In my quest I have had Athlon64 3200+,3400+,3500+,4000+ and FX-57...Each time I upgraded the processor..FS ran smoother...The Most noticable step was when I got to the 4000+ and a 7800GTX combo...The performance differance between my 4000+ and FX-57 systems is noticable...but..In reality, I would not consider it worth the money...The 4000+ runs FS Great!! I would think the 3800 would also but I've never owned one so I can't say for sure..One Final Comment...I'm not so sure I wouldn't consider going to 2gb of RAM if I were you...Your FS is allot more heavily taxed than mine is(Right now anyway..he he..I hope to catch up soon..lol)...I think the CPU GPU upgrade would take precidence in my opinion...But If you could squeek some ram in there too I really do think it would benefit you...How about this(Just some Examples!!)...AMD 3800x2 $169http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103562AMD 4200x2 $199http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103547AMD 3800+ Single Core Processor $121http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103531AMD 4000+ Single Core Processor $225http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103529ATI X1800XT $250 (Problem: Single Slot Issue??)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814195019Saphire X1900XT $356 (Problem: Single Slot Issue??)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814102025XFX 7900GT eXtreme $285http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814150139Good Luck with your Upgrade!!Just My Opinions...

Thanks for the input guys. Here are some responses:Maybe I should further clarify my situation by saying the following... This computer was built specifically for simming. I don't use it for anything else. Therefore, buying components that are specifically suited for running FS9 and/or FSX is what I am all about here. Currently, my game plan regarding the transition to FSX is this: Upgrade this computer now (or sometime in the next couple of months)- really get FS9 to shine. Enjoy the final days of FS9 in smooth-as-butter glory. Then, once FSX is out, transition over, using this same computer to run FSX. I do not plan on upgrading to Vista on this PC- read further for more info. Pray and pray hard that my hardware at that time will be sufficient to run FSX at a moderately acceptable level, and bear through the tough times until such time as those fancy DX10 things come out. Once DX10 is out and is going good, build a new computer from the ground up that will run Vista and FSX like a scared cat. Currently, the timeframe I had in mind for building that new DX10 PC was going to be something like spring or early summer of '07 (that is, if DX10 tech is sufficiently established by then).With that said, could you please shed some insight on the following:Dual core CPUs- since FS9 does not see a large benefit from a dual core CPU, and most dual core CPUs are faster because they run 2 cores at a slower clock speed than the corresponding single, would buying a dual core for FS9 be a mistake? Example- if I buy a 4400+ X2 CPU since FS9 has little optimization for dual cores will it really run more like a 3800+ CPU? If so, then perhaps I should go for a really high-end single core CPU as to get the maximum benefit from FS9. However, since FSX will benefit from dual core, should I get a decent dual core CPU and just accept the performance I get in FS9, knowing that FSX will run all the better on that dual core vs. if I had gone with the higher clocked single? To reiterate: if I go dual core- I was thinking about getting that 4400+. If I stick with the single core CPUs, I would get a pretty high single (4000+ or better) or even get the FX CPUs. Question- can you explain to me what differentiates an FX CPU from a "standard" (like 3800+) CPU? There seems to be a pretty significant price difference, to the point at which low end FX CPUs are still more expensive than mid-grade X2 CPUs!GPUs (more specifically memory). 256 vs 512MB: Knowing that this machine is only used to run the flight sim, what do you think about the whole video memory thing? My running logic here is that the sims can be potentially very heavy on video memory, since extremely large amounts of textures have to be loaded especially at busy airports (a texture for each AI plane?, not to mention cloud textures, ground tile textures, and all the high-res building textures, etc.) What I would like to know is if you think a "high-end" FS9 setup can actually require the use of a 512MB card, or if the 256MB cards are still sufficient at this time to store all the textures one could possibly hope to load in FS9. And, thinking of the future, I am sure FSX will most likely benefit from the 512MB card, given what we have seen of the increase in texture dimensions (16x the size of current FS9 texture tiles). Therefore maybe I should pick up that 512MB card now, knowing it will be used in the future? Alternatively, I was thinking of just upgrading the CPU at this time, then right near the release of FSX I would get a new video card in preparation for the switch.To summarize the graphics card situation- I was wanting to get something in the X1800 line, it seems like the X1800GTO GPU is the only one available in a single slot configuration. I assume the X1800GTO is the "low end" of the X1800s, but it should still work pretty well for FS9, right? What's the difference between the X1800GTO, X1800XL, and the X1800? I can't get any dual slot video cards because they won't fit in my case. I see that the lowest end X1900's (the GT ones) have single slot cooling- are those a good value?Regarding the RAM: You're right an upgrade to 2GB might be a good thing but given the specs of my computer I don't htink it's the most effective way to increase performance. Also since I have 1x512MB sticks in my computer now, I'd have to get rid of both and pick up 2x1GB sticks to make the upgrade, which probably is pretty expensive to do.Ruahrc

All I can tell you is my personal expierence...I'm really not a computer genius or anything...I have just spent allot of money on computers with a goal to get them to run FS9 as smooth as possiable...I build my own systems like allot of folks around here...I tend to talk about *My* stuff allot..Sorry...not ment to offend people...I'm only trying to quantify my expierence whenever possiable...If I have no personal expierence on a subject I'll try to speak in the second person and pass along information I have read from trusted sources...Again I'm no computer genius!! Nor FS genius for that matter...I only use my computers for FS also...Ok...My biggest problem with you is I do not have Anywhere Near the Add-On's or AI ect. that you have...I'm slowly trying to get there..I suppose I'm running behind the times in that reguard...he he..I do have Ult Traffic, Ult Terrain, Active Sky along with a select few of the popular payware AC...I am totally weak on scenery and mesh...Unless it's an Aircraft Carrier..I don't have it..lol..That is the main reason I'm so weak on scenery..I spend all of my time out at sea on AC Carriers...he he I personally feel that your "Overhead"(so to speak) would really make you a good canidate for a Dual Core processor...But more on that later..In the past..I've been of the mindset that FS9 benifits more from a Faster Single Core processor...I have a couple of buddies from other sites who actually have allot more "Overhead" than I who have basically preached the same thing...In addition to the computer in my sig I have a pretty nice 4000+ system running a XFX7800GTX OC Videocard 1gb RAM ect...I have allot of FS time on that computer...It has been my FS Workhorse for a while now...It runs FS beautifully...I had taken allot of "Steps" or made allot of little upgrades to finally get to the 4000+...Once I built that system I felt I had accomplished my goal...I build the FX-57 in my sig pretty much "just to see"...The FX Rig was not worth the investment(cost vs performance gain..At that time)...Yes..There is a slightly noticable performance difference...However..In my case..It wasn't enough to justify the cost..I really don't run that system very much(I fly the 4000+)...Most of the FS "neuances" persist even in that system...Granted..Today it would not cost quite as much to build...It's wound up being more of a Test Bed than anything else...I've tried an ATI Crossfire set-up...and now I've switched to a single 7950GTX as the CrossFire set-up didn't work out for me...Check out these deal's at newegg on the FX-55 and FX-57's..Now read carefully..You may have to click "Add to Cart" to see exactly what I mean...Then Cancel!! A pretty amazing offer to say the least..http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103527http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103558Yesterday..I went and got myself a 4800x2 processor...I'm going to drop that into my "Baby"(4000+ system)...The 4800x2 is 2.4ghz just like the 4000+...So basically..I should finally ba able to see for myself what..if anything the Dual Core processors do...I have allot of time on the 4000+...I know that system pretty well...The performance difference (If any) should stand out...I plan to leave everything as is and just swap out the processor...Another guy in a thread above did basically the same thing...He went from a single core 3800+ to the 4800x2...You may take a look at that thread...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=16567&page=I've wanted to build a dual core system for a long time...With the recent Price Drop of the AMD processors...I felt like this was a really good time to take the plunge...So sorry for Rambeling...In short..I plan to make this swap today or tonight..I hope to be able to offer some feed back soon...I'm kinda doing some mainenence on all of my computers so I'm not sure exactly when I'll get it fully up and running...Maybe the next day or so..As far as the Videocard issue's is concerned...I feel you should run a video card which "Compliments" the processor your running...You mentioned the 4400x2 or 4000+ on up...IMHO that is going to put you into the Upper Echelon of the videocard arena...I'd call the X1800XT about as low as I'd go...I'd personally shoot higher if possiable...No to the X1800GTO!! It's too weak..Same with the X1800XL....1800XT or better!!http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/919/I do not agree with this part of your comments: "Alternatively, I was thinking of just upgrading the CPU at this time, then right near the release of FSX I would get a new video card in preparation for the switch"Your 6600GT is going to bottleneck your new CPU...You will not be doing yourself any justice in a move like that...If your going to bump up the processor..Your gonna have to bump up your videocard to compliment...I can not say that I see a tremendious difference between my XFX7800GTX OC 256mb and my XFX7950GX2 1gb Videocards...Prior to the 7800GTX..I had a BFG6800Ultra OC 256mb card in the 4000+...Now when I made that swap..I definatly noticed a performance boost...So..Personally..I'm of the opinion the GPU and card design(pipes ect)is the Key...They take presidence over RAM on the videocard IMHO...Now I would not go less than a 256mb card...Nor would I discourage a 512mb or 1gb card...What I would say is the Latest/Highest Performance GPU you can afford would be my personal choice...256/512/1gb of RAM would be secondary in my decision...Your single slot issue will also effectivly limit your choices...Lastly..As you've noted..None of the cards currently avaliable will run DX10...We'll all be getting new videocards later..."Regarding the RAM: You're right an upgrade to 2GB might be a good thing but given the specs of my computer I don't htink it's the most effective way to increase performance. Also since I have 1x512MB sticks in my computer now, I'd have to get rid of both and pick up 2x1GB sticks to make the upgrade, which probably is pretty expensive to do"You don't have to get Super High Tech Ram...Some Good quality RAM 2gb *Matched Pair* really shouldn't be that bad...You don't need to worry about getting the Low Latency stuff...Just some Good quality 2x1gb sticks...One thing I am a stickler about is not mixing RAM...I do not agree with using say 2x256 plus 1x512 to achieve 1gb of memory(Not sure if that is how you have 1x512 or not)...you should consult your perticular motherboard manuel...I'll only use matching Dimm's...I prefer to buy it as a *Matched Pair*...While that may not be totally necessary..It's my personal practice...Sorry but more RAM is better...If you could squeek it in this upgrade...I think it would be worth it...Edit: OK..I just went an took a look at 2x1gb RAM kits...Your right...about $180...That's a bit more than I was thinkin'...I know your not going to like this...But I'll say it anyhow...If you are indeed mixing a 512 stick of RAM with 2 sticks of 256 to get 1gb...I'd personally change that...You really should consult your mb manuel...But I'd at least get a 1gb kit(2x512) and replace what you have...or if you can match your existing 512 stick and drop the 2x256's...and replace them with another 512 that is the same as your existing 512..That would be Great...I *May* be jumping to conclusions..You may not have this Mixed Matched RAM set-up...If that's case..Sorry... These are Just my Opinion's...

Unfortunately, top notch display adapters will do nothing to enhance FS' performance @ 1024x. Hence, buying into high-end will mainly result in enhancing Nvidia's or Ati's balance sheets. :-) FWIW, a while ago, I ran tests with 3 different Radeons (9600pro, 9800pro and a X800pro) on otherwise identical FlyTendos. Conclusion - and sorry for being repetitive - @ 1024x; no differences whatsoever. As of 1280x one starts to notice differences. Please note a.m. is only valid for FS9, I didn't try other games. :-) Good luck and kind regards Jaap

Thanks for your input Chuck. Contrary to what you might say, you seem to possess a lot of knowledge about computers, even if maybe much of it came from empirical observation :). Alas I can only dream about making so many hardware upgrades, maybe at a little later point in my life when my fledgling career is not so fledgling anymore haha.I'd really like to know the results of your little "Dual Core" test. You're right getting the 4800+ dual core is basically like adding a 2nd 4000+ since the clock speeds are the same. I do believe though that while it may be as close as you're going to get to the ideal "single vs dual" core situation, I think that slight differences in core revisions will throw the results off a little. How much? Unsure- but I doubt that they would throw the results too much.What do you think about this though: given your experience with AMD Processors in your "stepping journey" towards your final build- would you say that a moderately high end dual core (4400+ X2) would run FS9 fast enough to suit my needs (remember, the goal here is to allow me to shoot the big approaches smoothly in complex aircraft and challenging conditions), or will a specialized build utilizing a high speed single core processor be necessary? If the performance I get with a dual core is good enough, even though I am not fully utilizing the CPU, it might be the better buy in the end anyways since once FSX comes out it will undoubtedly significantly outperform the single, no matter the difference in clock speed. That said, would you say that the clock speed gain from 4400+X2 to 4800+X2 is worth the difference in price? I think that the price difference is pretty major (over $100?) but haven't verified for myself.Re: the FX Processors- am I correct in understanding that the FX processors are merely multiplier-unlocked versions of the standard single core procs? They are available in higher clock speeds than the standard single cores, but for example if you bought a 4000+ and the FX-55 (or whichever one has the same clock as the 4000+) and ran them both at the same multiplier (no overclocking) then wouldn't they perform exactly the same? Thus unless the higher clock speeds of an FX processor are justifiable given the performance increase- I do not feel that it is a good buy for a non-overclocker to purchase an FX proc. Do you agree? The bundle deals on the FX processors look quite good although fortunately I am not really tempted by any of them, given that I can't accomodate the mobo, don't really have a need/want for a bigger screen, and already have an iPod :) If one was hankering to buy an FX though, I would agree that now is as good a time as any!Regarding graphics cards- maybe your comments are a compliment in disguise in saying that the 3200+/6600GT combo I specced out initially was a pretty good matched pair, eh? :) Anyways, a new card would do good to move things along I think although I believe at this point that if I only had to choose one then the CPU alone would provide greater bang for the buck. I do agree with you Chuck that getting a "matched set" of CPU/GPU is important in order to draw the maximum efficiency from both components. that said, it looks like the card most suitable to me is the X1900GT. It's the "low end" version of the 1900's but it seems to be the fastest single slot card available. Looking at some reviews, it looks like it sits up there basically par with the X1800XT, maybe a little faster here or a little slower there. The lower clock of the X1900GT should also help its power consumption while still giving it good performance because of its more powerful core. This is going to be a helping factor in my SFF case as well. However, given my simming resolution I would argue that going to a new CPU on the 6600GT will still see a significant improvement in fps, although in order to really let the 4800+ fly I agree I'd need to bump the GPU too. The situation only gets more extreme if I down the road decide to upgrade my screen and run at a higher res.However, I should qualify that with the following: if you read the sim-related sites (specifically SimHQ) I think their FS2004 numbers and scaling behavior needs to be taken with a grain of salt. From what I can gather, they are running a stock FS9 sim situation, no addons. Therefore, when you consider the performance of FS9 enthusiasts' setups with their huge amounts of addons, graphics performance could become a moderate if not significant factor even at resolutions as low as 1024x768. Jaap- I don't know the specifics of your test cases, but it is possible that you were experiencing some of these effects in your tests? Case in point, if I toy around with AA settings on my 6600GT it seems like I can improve the fps by a little bit. This means that the sim is still being limited by GPU speed (working off the assumption that differing amounts of AA only really taxes the GPU and does not significantly impact CPU load).That said, as I mentioned earlier if I had to choose between a new CPU or a new GPU, the CPU would be the obvious choice. That alone should give me a pretty clean boost in speed. After that, the new GPU I feel would be a good "future proofer" meaning the CPU/GPU would be pretty closely matched, and thus there would be no severe limiting factor in the system at that point.Now for the really hard part: now that I have a good idea of what to pick out- I have to arrive to that same conclusion whilst looking at my wallet! :) The hit on said wallet, of course, might be lessened if I can find a good way to sell off the old hardware being replaced (along with this old 9600XT I have lying around too).Summary:New CPU: 4400X2, 4800X2, or 4000+? (this will depend on your dual core test results Chuck, but do you think the higher price of the 4800X2 is worth it over the 4400X2?)New GPU: X1900GT 256MB (fastest single slot card I can find... do you know of anything better? Also, can you dig up a 512MB single slot X1900GT?)P.S. regarding the memory: sorry it was a foolish typo on my part. I meant to type 2X512MB = 1GB total. I bought a matched pair of RAM modules when I built my computer. Since my computer is an SFF case, it only has 2 RAM slots in it. Therefore, if I want to upgrade to 2GB, I need to buy 2 new sticks- and much as you saw, it looks like about a $200 expenditure. Unfortunately I do not find it very cost-effective at this time.Whew, great discussion. Thanks for the input!Ruahrc

Hi Ruahrc, it's hard to tell what will help most. :-) Seeing you like loads of AI, I think more CPU could be a logical first step. OTOH, since you already have an AMD64 CPU, the benefits of upgrading will be limited. Although it's slightly outdated, the FS2004 graph in the following page might give you an idea what to expect: http://extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876715,00.aspPat's comments in the a.m. thread seem an excellent assessment what dual-cores do vs single-cores. The GPU tests I mentioned were performed over a year ago. Since they didn't include Geforces, I can't specifically comment. What I do know from past and again current Geforce experiences (one 6800GT operational now), they 'don't 'like' FS9's 3D clouds too much compared to Radeons. That could be a reason for seeing differences when playing around with AA/AF settings on your end? Do you see differences too when altering AA/AF levels without clouds? Anyway, my goal back then, was to determine how resolutions scale with various adapters. To my astonishment, the 9600pro even 'did' 1280x very well. However, only as long as I didn't activate clouds! :-) @ 1280x and with clouds, the 9600 collapsed big times and the framerates went down by roughly 40-50%. In the other direction, the FPS difference with all 3 adapters @ 1024x was zero, nada, zip, no matter which AA/AF settings, FS-addons, etc, etc. My humble conclusion therefore, if you don't plan to alter your resolution/display, anything above a GF7600 or X1600 will probably be overkill. IMHO-2, Nvidia's 6600-series were a bit of a rip-off and they weren't significantly better for FS than their rusty, old GF4-series. Hence, a 6600 would solely qualify as a 1024x adapter over here. IMHO-3, 1280x resolutions 'prefer' to be powered by 256-bit/256MB cards. Since such species usually have enough pipelines etc, they'll be able to 'do' the 1280x in an adequate manner. Above 1280x the sky (or wallet?) is the limit... :-) Hope this adds to thoughts, good luck and kind regards Jaap

I'm just now getting the 4800x2 system up and running in a few minutes...I was taking a break..Doing some surfing..and noticed this...I thought it was pretty dang interesting...Thought you may like to see...4000+ newegg link:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103529I'll be back..Maybe tomorrow morning sometime after I get the Old/New system going...he heHave Fun!!

Good luck and heaps of fun, Chuck. :-) I wonder whether your results will be comparable to Pat's? AFAIK, AMD's 1MB cache CPUs (incl the 1MB X2s) are to be phased out. If somebody positively wants to get one, do so quickly! ;-) Looking forward to hear more about your results. Kind regards Jaap

"I'd really like to know the results of your little "Dual Core" test"Still workin'..Havn't really got FS Running yet...I had the 4000+ liquid cooled..I elected to do away with the liquid set-up while I was making the switch to the 4800+...That's the reason it's taken me some extra time...I got it running last night but am still monkeying around with it a bit...I should get FS up and running somewhat tonight..AquaMark 3, 3Dmark05 and 3Dmark06 benches look very similar to the 4000+...Actually Aquamark 3 was a bit higher?? Not sure why..Maybe the 91.33 drivers I installed vs the 91.31's I had with the 4000 have something to do with that??I don't have enough of a "Feel" for the x2's performance thusfar...I Do feel it "seems" to be on par with the 4000+...I have yet to find a case where it dosn't perform as well as the 4000+...I havn't done enough to say it will excel over the 4000+ either...Pat's post leads me to believe when I get FS going with Active Sky, Ult Traffic ect there may be some advantages?? None of the benchmarks I've done are capable of pushing as hard as FS does...My expierence with single core's has been..every little step up I made..The sim got smoother...When I got to the 4000+, I felt the sim was about as smooth as it could be...The 3500 I had before the 4000 struggled somewhat...When I made the change to the 4000+ I had a BFG6800 Ultra OC videocard in the system...I still felt ther were some minor Issues...It was the day I installed the XFX7800GTX with the 4000+ that I felt I had got there...There are still some neuances I feel are part of FS itself...You have to do some tweeking..But I feel the combination of the 4000+ and 7800GTX got me about where I wanted to be...I built my mother a 3700+ system and put that 6800Ultra in it...I have learned allot since the 6800 day's..What I need to do is go over to her house and install FS with some of the tweeking I've learned...I'd like to see how that would work out...My opinion right now/today is...It's a marriage of videocard and processor with some tweeking thrown in there too(Finding the right videocard settings..ect..)...I have only ever flown at Higher resolutions...1200x960 or 1600x1200...I also have not backed the sliders off their right hand stop's in a long time...I know if you'll back off on AutoGen and Terrain Mesh Complexity you can pick up FPS...But that is not what I was looking for...I wanted smooth flight, quick texture loads and the best image quality I could get...I don't really care about FPS...I do think the 4400x2 is going to be about there in terms of horse power...But I will maintain it needs to be coupled with a higher end videocard...It very well may be that my chosen resolutions are the reason for my emphasis on a strong GPU??I believe the complete paragraph about the FX processors is pretty accurate...I do plan to overclock that system once I get through tinkering with it..he he..In reality...I feel they are not worth the money...I expect the FX prices to take a pretty strong nose dive soon...Somewhere in another thread guys were talking about that also...Don't know if this helps or hurts...I was hoping to have some good quality FS time by now..Oh well..Soon I hope...

Went away for the weekend... pondered the upgrade some more.I am beginning to suspect that you will find the performance of your 4800+ X2 to be very similar to the performance of your 4000+ in FS, with a slight edge to the X2 once you really get the addons going (ASV, AISmooth, etc). If you look at the results from the extremetech link that Jaap posted up above, you will see that they found the 4800+X2 and 4000+ to be for all intents and purposes identical in performance.Your early results seem to reflect this trend, perhaps the slight edge went to the X2 on Aquamark3 because some of the windows overhead might be being pulled off to the 2nd core, leaving just a wee bit more processing power left over for the benchmark. Or could be drivers, or just could be simple statistical variation. How big was the difference?I think if I do get this upgrade, it will be the 4800+ X2 and not the 4400+, as the performance gain I don't think will be that huge on the 4400+X2. I'd like to ask you though- is it just me or did the price of the 4800X2 jump astronomically during the couple days that I was away? I could have sworn it was in the high $200 to low $300 range, and newegg has it listed for $429!?!?!?! That's beginning to look pretty steep....Ah well it's only money right...? I've been kind of itching for an upgrade lately.Ruahrc

Anyone who really wants the best bang for the buck for FS9 (highly CPU dependent) or FSX, really needs to think about going with the Intel Conroe 2. All the major hardware sites and magazines say the new Intel chip absolutely demolishes (up to 70% faster) anything AMD can through at it right now. That is a huge technological leap. I mean HUGE! Plus, they are reported to be highly overclockable. There is a thread over at Sim Flight being reported by one user who got a Conroe, reporting NO MORE stutters and blazing speed. I report this to you being an AMD a really excited user and owner of an FX-53. If you want to upgrade now, and not wait another 6 months for DX10, then I would go with Intel for your first upgrade, then graphics card upgrade second. You wont need more RAM until Vista comes out.Brian S.

Hi Brian, Well, Intel probably needed some 'demolishing' news after being 'demolished' by AMD the past 2 years... :-) Certes, the C2D's technology look pretty impressive, but IMHO, we shouldn't forget a couple of things. I.e: As the resolution increases, the performance differences apparently become less dramatic. Intel still wants to sell off a lot of their 'old' technology and the shift will be slow. C2D availability is low and the platform itself is new aka hardly matured. Not to mention the relatively high pricing right now... My last point may be a bit philosophical, but here we go. :-) The hardware industry (HI) is having a hard time waiting for Vista and many potential buyers are probably holding back. The HI's counter measure is to create a hype and pump vast amounts of $ into their marketing efforts. Anybody who buys a new system now, intends to run Vista/DX10 and is looking for high-end will at least find him/herself getting a GPU replacement in the next 6-12 months. I have a lesser system than you, have virtually no stutters and run FS at fairly high settings. Seeing or reading such 'no stutter' mentions makes me think something was wrong with their setup to start with. Specially if they upgraded from an AMD64 FlyTendo. HST, unless you run an extremely high resolution, you shouldn't be seeing stutters either. :-) Kind regards Jaap