I am thinking of buying either processor for fs9, and of course will be using it for fsx as well. "AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+", or " AMD Athlon 64 FX-55" To me they look good and are very affordable. Will this improve fs performance, mainly when in the vc is when I have frame hits, they seem to be processor related.

The only real difference with the FX's are that their multipliers come unlocked so they are nice overclockers. If you do not intend to do that stick with the 4600. Thats a good chip and will serve fs well

If you can splurge on a new motherboard, I'd suggest going with an Intel Core2 Duo (aka Conroe) processor. If you don't mind spending a little more, these processors have the best performance.

I was hoping to buy an amd because they are cheaper and seem better for the price.

I have a pentium 4 single core that is 4 years old and it is 2.6 gigahertz, will the athlon 64x2 dual really make a significant difference that would justify an upgrade?

One other question I have is will fs be able to take advantage of a 64 processor over a 32? And will I need to re-install xp for the 64 processor?

>I was hoping to buy an amd because they are cheaper and seem>better for the price.I'm a long time AMD fan but Core2 is beating AMD's price/performance ratio. I went with AMD as I was on a tight budget.The Core2Duo E6400 out performs the X2 4600 yet it's actually cheaper.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103751http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819115004Not that the performance difference is huge, but the E6400 is still over $20 cheaper than the 4600+. Here's some benchmarks compairing the two.http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...2=467&chart=167

Thats odd, I would expect the amd to be higher performing because the clock speed it higher. And would this processor really make a difference from what I have now in fs2004? I have a pentium 4 ht 2.6 ghz. I have heard that these dual cores wont really effect fs because fs wasnt designed to take advantage of them.

First of all, I'ld be cautious to take Tom's mentions for granted. IMO, THG is an overly biased institution. Other sites like Anandtech, ExtremeTech etc are much more objective and reliable. FS9 itself makes little or no use of multi-core CPUs. OTOH, if you want to run additional software like virus scanners or particular FS-addons, a multi-core could be helpful. AFAIK, ATI's Catalyst drivers also support multi-core for example. Hence, there should be a benefit from now onward. Re performance; AMD64 CPUs were a neat leap forward in terms of CPU-power (they came with the memory controller integrated into the CPU). To give you an idea, my 3200-AMD64 outperformed my P4-3GHz by roughly 40% in extremely dense environments. My guesstimate is, a C2D will outperform their AMD64 counterparts by ca 20%. Perhaps also note, the higher the screen resolution, the smaller the difference (acc to SimHQ tests). Perhaps because of other limitations (i.e. GPUs)? Hope this adds to thoughts, good luck and kind regards Jaap

I own an ati x800 xt pe, does that mean I will see a big performance boost in fs? Thats all I want liquid smooth no matter what.

Well, a better CPU will certainly do your GPU justice. OTOH, your current GPU likely has an AGP interface. If you don't want to spend too much money, my choice would be a nForce3 mainboard and a s939 CPU. Like this you could continue to use most - if not all? - of the other components minus your mainboard and CPU. Case this is an option, your power supply will require a special look (a 350W/quality PSU with ca 18-20A on the 12V lead is usually ok). I have a very similar combo over here and it 'did' the FSX demo - without AI and autogen - just fine. The specs (FWIW): AMD64-3800, Epox nForce3 mainboard, 2x1GB RAM & a 6800GT GPU. All in all and as usual, it depends on the budget and your general upgrade intentions. Hope this adds to thoughts, kind regards Jaap

Thats what I was looking at, an agp mobo, and a s939, but Im still skeptical on whether or not it is going to give fs a major improvement. And if i go with a 64 bit processor will I need to re-install the os and everything, because it wont be win32, it has to be win64 then, right?

AMD 64bit chips are backward compatible, they work on 32bit XP too, if you do go to a 64 bit dual core, install a fresh copy, its not needed as some people say, but the vast majority who does a fresh one get the least if not any problems. Better to do some work and best to be safe than sorry afterwards when lazy

I agree with Davis, you should be able to exchange/add the drivers of the new hardware and carry on. Personally, I always do a fresh OS-install when fundamental hardware changes occur (i.e. mainboard, RAM amount). I don't re-install the OS when swapping GPUs i.e. Again, whether it's worthwhile or not, depends on your plans in general and - obviously - budget. The performance increase should be pretty dramatic. Over here, a P4-3GHz to an AMD64-3200(2GHz) swap ca 1.5 years ago resulted in roughly 40% more performance Since those 'low-end' AMD64 CPUs are becoming rare and you can get 'more for less' (& you're coming from a lesser CPU than my ol' P4), I'ld expect a >40% performance increase. IMO, nForce3 platforms work best with winXP32. Good luck and kind regards Jaap

Well thanks for the replys, I'll certainly consider it. Im still skeptical because of all the posts about fs not programmed to take advantage of dual cores. There is still alot I dont understand about processors so im sure there are other factors that would speed fs up.