not to long ago folks were saying that a fast single core cpu would actually work better for FS (FS9 at least) then a dual core of the same speed (or I think that is what I was hearing)does that still hold true today?

The single-vs-dual core issue is a bit of a red herring today. In the past the question pertained to whether or not there was a benefit to be gained from an HT-enabled CPU (dual virtual machines) on the older Pentium IV architecture.Now, your choice isn't between a dual or a single core in the same generation...it's whether or not to buy a CPU that uses the vastly improved architecture in the dual-core Intel CPUs, or to stick with an older-generation single-core processor. There are no "single core" Conroe CPUs...they're all dual (or quad) core, but the number of cores isn't the issue really, nor is it simply the clock speed. The dual cores themselves won't make much of a difference...neither FS9 nor FSX make much use of them. The architecture changes in the new dualies make the 2.93GHz Conroe a much, much faster CPU than a 3.6 GHz P-IV even if you constrain everything to run on only a single core.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL GUlfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

thanks for the info...In your opinion, what would be the highest performing CPU for FS9 at this point in time?what would be next best option if I could not afford the bleeding edge?I am just getting an idea about the direction I may head on building a new systems.thanks

Looks to be the Intel X6800 2.93 GHz Core 2 Extreme. The C2D 6600 and 6700 are both considerably cheaper and perform very well. I bought the very pricey X6800 for my new system to have the flexibility to work with an unlocked clock multiplier, a feature only available on the Extreme series of CPUs.Right now I'm running the X6800 at 3.6 GHz on air cooling with the FSB at 400 MHz and a clock mult of 9. It...kicks...serious...a$$!!CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

>Looks to be the Intel X6800 2.93 GHz Core 2 Extreme. The C2D>6600 and 6700 are both considerably cheaper and perform very>well. I bought the very pricey X6800 for my new system to>have the flexibility to work with an unlocked clock>multiplier, a feature only available on the Extreme series of>CPUs.>>Right now I'm running the X6800 at 3.6 GHz on air cooling with>the FSB at 400 MHz and a clock mult of 9. >It...kicks...serious...a$$!!>>Cheers>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300>Santiago de Chile>Just to be clear Bob, your FSB would be 1.6Ghz (4 x Bus Speed of 400Mhz).I have a Non O/C'ed E6700 as well as a P4 3.8Ghz system, and I can tell you, the Conroe blows it away!!!

>Just to be clear Bob, your FSB would be 1.6Ghz (4 x Bus Speed>of 400Mhz).It's a semantic thing...the FSB clock ticks at 400 MHz, but the data rate is 4x the clock speed, or 1600MHz. Rock stable and fairly cool at that speed too...not bad considering the stock speed is 266/1066. That's a 50% overclock on the bus and there's still room for more.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile