Searched this site and didn't find any opinions as to which is better for FS9 ( or FS10. )I see a lot of guys with AMD 64s and many with P4s.Your ideas please, thanks.Bill T.

>Searched this site and didn't find any opinions as to which>is better for FS9 ( or FS10. )Didn't find? Something must be wrong with your search because this is probably the most beaten to death topic here. You got to search the main MSFS forum (and two other hardware forums) and configure your user profile so you can search at least one year into the past. You should get more hits then you care or have time to read ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

I agree with Michael. I did a search using "AMD or Pentium" as keywords and came up with several hits. Here's a good one:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=vie...49&mesg_id=7049I have a Pentium, so I'd recommend the Pentium since I don't know that much about the AMD's. Heard they were nice too. Hope this helps.Jim

I have been mulling this Q too for a while too.Right now... AMD seems to have the best processor. The FX-55. Particularly for games...it seems to do very well including the P4-EE (Extreme edition). and Its 64 bit too (ready for the 64 bit OS)But.. There is always this but.The P4 has Hyper threading. If you are running any anti virus/adware programs or any other s/w it does not take away processing power from flight sim. With Adware/virus on my PC recently..I am not sure..If I can do without these background programs.Couple of days ago.. I was reading about this Dual Core Processor from AMD that is being released in a month or two for home computers. (Actually they have already relazed it for corporate servers etc). This one is better than Hyper threading. Its actually two cores within a single chip. Its like two CPUs. Yes there are no softwares out there to exploit this today. but It solved my one of problems with AMD that it has to share the processor with Adware/virus protection softwares.So I have decided to wait for two months before I build my hot shot system.http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/colfax_dual_opteron/"As for the typical consumer, two CPU cores will be enough and so we

If you do a search you should find the majority of post says.1. HT don

Hi P

I used to have an Intel chipset, which was fine. But my new system is great!Gamming System Specs: (Built this one myself)AMD Athlon-64 3000+ Gigabyte K8NS nForce3-250 Chipset 8x AGP Main Board 1GB DDR400 PC3200 Memory 160GB 7200 rpm Hard Drive 16x DVD-ROM Audigy 2ZS Gammer Sound Card5.1 Channel Surround Sound Speakers256MB GeForce-5700 8X AGP Video Dual 17" LCD and CRT monitorsCotytech Gaming CaseCH Products Yoke, Rudder Pedals, Throttle QuadrantSaitek Cyborg Gold Joystic for Helo's & Stick equipped aircrafteDimensional AudioFX force feedback vibration headsets & micWindows XP Pro SP2Home Network for using the Instructor StationFS9COF Sliders maxed with other settings at their best quality positionsI really like the Nvidia chipset combined with my Athlon-64 3000.COF performs great on this system.See the photos of my new system in the screen shot forum. Just search under my user name of scottpilot.Also check out ibuypower.com if you don't want to build a computer yourself.Happy Simming!Scott :-)

BillTee,Go to this website and do a comparison of the processors your interested in. http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.htmlPersonally I select my current processor in the "First Model" column then I select the processor I want to upgrade to in the "Second Model" column and then I select the "Unreal Tournament" benchmark since it is CPU intensive like FS. Once the selections are complete I look at which processor gives the highest performance boost over the processor I have now.Here is an sample of the output using my current setupFirst Model Intel 2.66Ghz 96fpsSecond ModelAthlon FX-55 171.7fpsBenchmarkUnreal TournamentTotal+75.5fps

Bill:First look inside your wallet and that will also help you decide what to get. The gods have smiled favorably on the AMD64 FX line of processors and they are troucing Intels fastest chips in just about all tests. The FX-55 pretty much beats all other processors.FYI, if you have the proper cooling you CAN overclock the FX-53 to FX-55 speeds. I've been running the FX-53 since before the FX-55 was available at FX-55 speeds. Then I caved and bought the FX-55. I say this so if you feel like saving a few bucks you have an alternative.As far as FS goes, the FX-55 gives spectacular performance. And I have just ordered the ATI 850XT Platinum so I am expecting that this setup (see below) will be as powerful a plaform you can purchase to run FS200x.So my humble reccomendation is to go with AMD64

The only problem with AMDs are they run pretty hot, so make sure you get a quality heatsink. The one that came with mine runs loud and only keeps the temp to around 53c. Anyway, AMD use to be "cheaper" than Intel but not they're the same price range. But even now the prices are around the same, AMD all the way. I threw down a good chunk of cash for my machine I put together but it is well worth it.

>The only problem with AMDs are they run pretty hot, so make>sure you get a quality heatsink. The one that came with mine>runs loud and only keeps the temp to around 53c. Anyway, AMD>use to be "cheaper" than Intel but not they're the same price>range. But even now the prices are around the same, AMD all>the way. I threw down a good chunk of cash for my machine I>put together but it is well worth it.Yes AMD runs hot however Intel runs hotter so I don

IMHO, INTEL FOREVER!!!But mind me, I'm just Intel hardcore user. Shortly said, never used anything else... But for that reason, I *never* had serious problems. If there were any, they were caused by ME. And FS9 and previous version have been running ONLY great. With current config, man, I can just say OH MY GOD. No problems whatsoever... 4.0ghz stable with temps going not higher than 67C on fullest possible load (room temp. about 25C).Might be that AMD are running "faster", or cooler or whatever. But I never really heard people overclocking AMD to such amount as Intels for instance...Somehow I just prefer Intel more...My 2 cents.

Hello guys,Thanks for all the comments.First, I must admit that I did the search on the subject above this one, MS Flight Simulator and then I found this hardware one, sorry.Secondly, finances are a consideration, I'm not able to spend $2K on a new system.I had heard that AMD and Pentium use a different instruction set, that is the reason that I asked the question.I'm using an AMD 2.4 on an ASUS MOBO with 796K of RAM. I do have three computers networked to use Project Magenta software along with the Aerosoft MCP hardware in my cockpit with goFlight modules. I usually have 2 or 3 other programs running with FS on the main computer ( PM and Aerosoft, sometime FSMeteo ) and would like to get better frame rates if possible. I have the rate set to 22 and usually get around 20 except on the airport where it gets somewhat stuttery ( sp? )As I said earlier, will the " different " instruction sets between AMD and Intel " make a difference " in FS ? ( If they are different )Many thanks for your answers,Bill T.

>IMHO, INTEL FOREVER!!!>>But mind me, I'm just Intel hardcore user. Shortly said, never>used anything else... But for that reason, I *never* had>serious problems. If there were any, they were caused by ME.>And FS9 and previous version have been running ONLY great.>With current config, man, I can just say OH MY GOD. No>problems whatsoever... 4.0ghz stable with temps going not>higher than 67C on fullest possible load (room temp. about>25C).>>Might be that AMD are running "faster", or cooler or whatever.>But I never really heard people overclocking AMD to such>amount as Intels for instance...>>Somehow I just prefer Intel more...>>My 2 cents.Yes Intel is great if you are fine with a more expensive, more hot running and slower system.You can