I have been specing out a new PC and was looking at various dual core processors. Someone asked a very good question for which I don't have an answer... and was wondering if anyone out there could help to answer it.The question is: "with FS9 and FSX really being single thread wouldn't it make more sense to use a single core 3.8 GHz processor than a 2.4-8 dual-core?"Would a more powerful single core CPU be more beneficial than a dual core?Thanks!

STOP THE MADNESS!FSX *IS* a multithreaded application and *DOES* use the second core of a dual core system. Unfortunately, it doesn't use it to the degree that folks *wanted* it to be used. But your question does have merit:If evaluating a 3.8 GHZ single core processor of the same family as a 2.8 GHZ dual core, I would imagine the 3.8 would win with regards to FSX. The sheer power of the single core would outshine any benefits that the dual core support has in FSX. If you are looking at chips outside of the same family (AMD vs. Intel), then you will want to move to benchmarks on various websites... the Intel dual core offerings at "lower" clockspeeds than the AMD single core offerings are providing significantly faster performance due to the chip architecture. But if the two are from the same breed, in your case and with FSX in mind, I'd probably stick to a VERY fast single core, because brute speed is more important than dual-core finesse. (If you do any other processing on your computer, like video, photo, audio, or multitask with weather addons and flight tracking addons, throw more weight at the dual core, which can help offload THOSE processes to a different core than FSX's primary)Good luck! It's a complex world out there... hope I didn't make it worse!-Greg

>I have been specing out a new PC and was looking at various>dual core processors. Someone asked a very good question for>which I don't have an answer... and was wondering if anyone>out there could help to answer it.>>The question is: "with FS9 and FSX really being single thread>wouldn't it make more sense to use a single core 3.8 GHz>processor than a 2.4-8 dual-core?">>>Would a more powerful single core CPU be more beneficial than>a dual core?>>>Thanks!Greg is right! Not only FSX, but FS9 also uses both cores. Although I doubt they are programmed to take full advantage of them they do benefit. While diagnosing a system problem I have with my new Gateway E6600 Core 2 Duo system. (Half clock speeds) Gateway was claiming the system did this normally while the system was idle. I had to produce the following screenshot to show that wasn't the case. Even with both cores only clocking at 1.2Ghz, with a effective 533Mhz FSB (133.3Mhz Bus speed X 4) instead of the 1066Mhz (266.7Mhz Bus speed X4) it should have been, I was getting performance just slightly slower than my 3.8Ghz P4 it was replacing. Both processors were both active (about 50% each) with just FS9 running, I added MS Train Sim just to boost usage so I could demonstrate there was a problem and the system didn't adjust to the full 2.4Ghz like Gateway claimed would happen. Anyway you can see from the task manager both CPU's are being utilized fully.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159877.jpg

Greg and Tom are both correct with regard to FS9 and FSX's utilization of multithreading. Some of the members of the ACES team spoke to this issue during the AVSIM Conference last month. The gist of their comments was that the programmers had included as much multithreading in FSX as they could get to work at the time of FSX's release. I believe this was mainly in the area of scenery and terrain data. They said they'd like to expand FSX's use of multithreading, possibly as soon as the "Vista Patch" that's expected some time next year, but they cautioned that it's a more complex programming challenge to go beyond what's already been implemented -- so no promises. Multiple cores have a lot of promise for flight simming. It's largely a matter of working out the kinks in reworking the existing code to take advantage of the benefits of multithreading. While Greg is probably correct that a VERY fast single-core chip may be the best solution today, the balance may shift in favor of multiple cores a few months from now. Rather than speculating, it would be really nice to see some controlled comparison tests that can demonstrate exactly which CPU is optimal for FS9 and/or FSX. (At least, optimal for TODAY.) SimHQ used to do such tests, but I'm not aware of anyone else who has done them in the flight sim arena. Tom, I wonder how widespread your "half clock speed" problem is? I've seen a few other posts from FSX users who say the performance of their Core 2 Duo systems is not living up to expectations, and I wonder if this is the explanation. Does this issue occur in both FS9 (as in your screenshot) as well as FSX? Then again, maybe Microsoft just automatically clocks your CPU speed lower when you get the "OVERSPEED" warming in the Level D 767-300ER. ;-) A safety measure for your own protection! Anyway it would be nice to hear if you've found a solution.

Tom, I wonder how widespread your "half clock speed" problem is? I've seen a few other posts from FSX users who say the performance of their Core 2 Duo systems is not living up to expectations, and I wonder if this is the explanation. Does this issue occur in both FS9 (as in your screenshot) as well as FSX?Then again, maybe Microsoft just automatically clocks your CPU speed lower when you get the "OVERSPEED" warming in the Level D 767-300ER. A safety measure for your own protection!Anyway it would be nice to hear if you've found a solution. Interesting! If it is the same problem, they should be able to verify it with the System Properties, and information like in my screenshot. Other utilities, that will show it are CPU-Z (Gives the most detail info on the problem) Belarc Advisor.

>Anyway it would be nice to hear if you've found a solution. >Just a followup! After a week back and forth with tech support, and shipping the system back for repair (I had to pay to ship it there), only to have it shipped back to me with the infamous "No trouble found" and nothing fixed. It took 4 hours on the phone today, but I finally got a tech support person, who knew what they were doing! After initially dismissing my complaint (As everyone did up til now) as normal system behavior, He checked similar systems at their location, and when he saw they reported the correct clock speed, he finally acknowledged the problem. He then escalated the problem to a senior tech (Who also was very knowledgable on the subject!) who after a couple of more hours of sys diags confirmed there was a hardware failure most likely with the Motherboard. (Something I've been trying to tell them from the first day I reported the trouble) At first he was going to have an onsite tech to replace the MB/CPU, but after noting the system was just over a month old from the first time I reported this to them about 3 weeks ago, he agreed to replace the entire system. So it will take another week or 2 to get it, but hopefully this will end this saga once and for all.Thanks!