I have read that fs2004 and fx10 was written for single core processors . So my guess would be that the fastest single core processor would be the best for flightsimulator ..Is this true?

Well you really have to compare each core type. Right now, clock for clock, the Intel Core 2 Duo's (& quad core) are the most efficient processors available on the consumer market (run either single or multi core).They easily blow away the older P4 Netburst architecture and are quite a bit stronger than anything AMD has to offer at the moment.I really don't see any advantage of owning a single core processor now as the foreseeable future looks to be multi-core driven and we'll see many more games and applications take advantage of it. http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

Jamie,Thanks for the response. Intel is the best for fs2004?

>Jamie,>Thanks for the response. Intel is the best for fs2004?Right now the Intel Core 2 Duo's and Quad Core extreme processors are the best for most applications. In most benchmarks they out pace anything AMD has out at the moment.

I agree... Intel is the way to go right now.While FS2004 & FSX may not take advantade of multi-core processing, they will perform better with the improved CPU architecture.I will say that I think the FSX team/Microsoft goofed a bit by advertising the C2D's along with the product.. This could have easily led anyone to believe that FSX had the ability to take advantage of SMP processing when in fact it really doesn't. Though I guess it could be argued that the C2D's are the fastest processors right now and would be the most appropriate choice to run FSX on at the moment.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

Out of all these CPU'S which would run fs2004/fs10 the best???1. Intel

#2 wins. #3 comes in second, but it's a real heat monster and FS doesn't put 4 cores (or even two) to use. #1 comes in third if paired with DDR2-8500 or faster RAM.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Bob,Thank you so much for the input.I think I will hold off a month before I do build my new system. which I will use #2 unless something else comes out better and cheaper.Thanks again to all that had input on this subject!

If you are wondering about price to performace ratio amd's opterons can't be beat. An opteron 175 is about $160 and could easily be overclocked to out perform most C2D.you have to remember though that comparing AMD clock speeds to Intel clock speeds is like comparing apples to oranges.

I currently own the AMD fx55 .After reading the coments from the other posters it clearly states intel is faster for fs2004 ???? I will go with amd or intel I just want to know what is the best for performance and price .I found these opteron cpu's .Are they any better then the others posted of intel? Out of all these CPU'S which would run fs2004/fs10 the best???1.Intel

The Intel Conroes (Core 2 Duo) or Kentsfield (Quad Core) will outperform any AMD CPU currently made. CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

An opteron(the 2.8 ghz), due to the higher quality materials used in making it, can easily be overclocked to outperform even the fastest C2D if you have an aftermarket cooler.My advice would be to stick with the FX-55 for now and wait until dual core and quad core comes down in price.

>An opteron(the 2.8 ghz), due to the higher quality materials>used in making it, can easily be overclocked to outperform>even the fastest C2D if you have an aftermarket cooler.I've never seen any credible tech review that agrees with this. The 65nm Conroes have exceptional overclocking headroom and at much lower thermal output than the Opteron. And the new architecture makes the Conroe considerably faster at the same clock speeds.No idea where this "higher quality materials" idea comes from. But don't take my word for it...there are plenty of credible performance reviews out there. Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Opterons are server processors. The heat output is consideribly lower then Athlons, which are alot lower then most intels. With any quality aftermarket cooler, you can easily acheive performance above C2D.I admint the new cores are more efficent then the old cores but fail to meet the same core speed to perfomance that intels have. The top end of C2D do meet up with and pass AMD. That Price to performance is not there. a E6700 costing $500 or an Opteron 175 + after market cooler for $250 which overclocked could get near e6700 performance.

>Opterons are server processors. The heat output is>consideribly lower then Athlons, which are alot lower then>most intels. With any quality aftermarket cooler, you can>easily acheive performance above C2D.I admint the new cores>are more efficent then the old cores but fail to meet the same>core speed to perfomance that intels have. The top end of C2D>do meet up with and pass AMD. That Price to performance is not>there. a E6700 costing $500 or an Opteron 175 + after market>cooler for $250 which overclocked could get near e6700>performance.The comparison isn't being made to "most intels." We're talking about heat output from the new 65nm C2D CPUs...all of which are 65 Watt CPUs, except for the 2.93 GHz C2X at 75W.Compare that to a dual-core 2.6 GHz Santa Rosa Opteron 2218 at 95W...or a 2.8 GHz Opty 2220SE at 119W.An overclocked 2.2GHz (95W) Opty 175 ($230) will get trounced by an equally overclocked 2.13 GHz E6400 C2D...and it sells for $220, not $500.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile