After taking about a year off from the flight sim arena, I have been lured back in by aircraft like the PMDG stuff and the Level D 767, and therefore I am thinking of purchasing a new machine. After reading the horror stories about the 7800, how does the 256MB PCI express x16 nVidia GeForce 6800 act with FS? How about a dual configuration?Also, on processors, is the "Extreme Edition" Dual core really worth the huge increase in $$ compared to the 840? I am looking at the 3.2 GHz...or is it a mistake to go with the dual core and stick to the 6XX stuff?Thanks in advance,John

I too was out-of-the-loop and am only now getting back into it. So I have been doing a lot of research...How firm are you on going with an Intel cpu and an nVidia gfx card?The general consensus on dual-core is that it does very little with FS2004; and there is some debate as to whether it will make much difference in FS10 for that matter.The 6800's seem to be great cards fo FS, though people claim the ATI x1800x or whatever they are called have superior cloud visuals; the only concern that I am seeing with the 6800 series is that they will become dated sooner than the 7800 series. If past experience holds true with nVidia, I think the horror stories we see on the 7800's are as much to do with youthful driver compatibility with this card as anything else. nVidia seldom disappoints for long.

Thanks for the reply.I am not 100% firm on the intel/nvidia combo, but I lean more toward intel. The horror stories on the 7800 are enough to make you stop and think!! I have always used nvidia except for once when I picked up an ati 850X or something...I forget the letters, but it was an 850. The graphics were really bad. I had problems with the horizon and blue fog, etc... So I would tend to lean to nvidia. Which AMD processors would you recommend?

"...but it was an 850. The graphics were really bad. I had problems with the horizon and blue fog..."This was due to not configuring the card and sim properly.With regard to video card choices, it comes down to priorities. nVidia cards AA Alpha textures and ATI does not. This means that such things as trees, radio towers, etc. will look better with nVidia. The downside, though, is that clouds will be AA'd as well. So the performance hit with an nVidia card may be unacceptable to some. I stay with ATI because I can tweak the drivers to make the Alpha ground features look fine, and then I don't have to worry about a performance hit when clouds are present.About the choice of CPU, this test with FS might be useful in making your decision.Greg

Thanks for the site on comparing the AMD and Intel processors for FS9! I am rethinking my choice of Intel over AMD. Looks like AMD gives much better performance than Intel using FS9. Other games AMD is still very competitive.Airbus

Greg, I'd be interested in hearing more about your ATI driver tweak for textures ;)Airbus. AMD certainly is a good choice. I made the change from a P4 3.2 to an AMD X2 4400+ and have been very happy. I also stayed away from the 7800GTX cards and got an ATI instead.

Hi John,Sorry, but this will have to wait a few days. I'm just now headed out the door to take the family on a little ski vacation. I'll pick up this thread next week when I return.Have a Merry Christmas,Greg

Just an advice from an user. If you are going dual core, buy AMD, right now it is much better choice than Intel processor. Why? There is a lot of material on the web with comparision which will explain it better than me.As for FS9 and dual core. FS won't take advantage of it directly, but other software will. I run AISmooth, FSMetar and FSRealtime while I run FS9 and they use 2nd processor threads, so there is more power avaliable to FS9. You can even set affinity (assign explicit processor to a process), but it is usually not needed as system manages this really well.I used to have a 256 megs GF6800GT in this system and my frame rates were at 20-30 FPS (1280x1024) constantly with clouds at 70 miles and visibilty 70 miles/autogen at normal/dynamic scenery at normal, the rest maxed out, including ai traffic. I run Ultimate Traffic and Flight Environment and few other addons.I changed my card to 7800 and I gained 10 to 25% better fps, but now I run FS9 at 1600x1200 (native res of my LCD panel).

I'm extremely happy with my Athlon 64 X2 4200+, there is really no reason to buy Intel at this point unless you have some deep-seeded brand loyalty. They're slower and more expensive.If Nvidia fixes the 7800 driver issue I will wholeheartedly recommend it again. It's a beast of a card in every other game at the moment...

Thanks again for the replies.Its good to hear about the dual core issue. I agree with what you say about the 7800...kind of stinks about the driver issue. Thanks to all for the great input!John

>As for FS9 and dual core. FS won't take advantage of it>directly, but other software will. I run AISmooth, FSMetar and>FSRealtime while I run FS9 and they use 2nd processor threads,>so there is more power avaliable to FS9. You can even set>affinity (assign explicit processor to a process), but it is>usually not needed as system manages this really well.>This confuses me. I was told in another thread that dual-core won't even help with background apps with FS, such as FSMetar.....and that single-core, such as a San Diego 4000+, would be the better choice. Now I don't know...Advice welcomed!Confused Rhett

Rhett,I recently built a system with an AMD X2 dual core.I went with it because I truly do multi-tasking on my pc outside of flight simming. I do photo/video editing which is power hungry and does benefit from dual-core processing.I don't think you can go wrong with any of the newer AMD processors, single or dual-core, they're simply kicking Intel into oblivion in gaming and multi-tasking (dual-core).I think the misconception that many people have about dual-core is that they are relating back to hyper-threading. HT was Intel's game and unfortunately nobody really cared for the rules of HT or wanted to play in that sandbox. As such, programs which take advantage of HT are extremely few and far between. HT just splits the processes into two threads on the sames chip.There are actually some programs that have to have their process assigned to one thread or the other before they behave properly - the Flight1 Piper Meridian is an excellent example of this because of the Garmin software is uses.Dual-core on the other hand is actually physically 2 processors on the same die. The processes are then split between the two processors and can be manually assigned to one or the other if the need arises.Unfortunately, the cost of dual-core can be prohibitive. If you look at the link above and check out the cost/performance ratio, you can see that single cores have a better ratio.What I normally hear people say about seeing no advantage in dual-core as a blanket statement is simply not true. If you run several processes and normally multi-task, you will be better off in the long run with dual-core. If you only run a few processes at a time, then a single core processor will suffice.Yes, programs can be written to specifically address dual-core processing but they don't have to be to see some benefit in a multi-tasking environment.In my case, I run an X2 4400+ and when flight simming, I also run Weather Maker, TeamSpeak, and TrackIR. With Ultimate Traffic @ 80%, all sliders on at least HIGH, and 100% 3D clouds, I can easily crank out 30-40 FPS ont the ground at KLAX with the DreamFleet A36. I didn't have to hack my FS9.cfg settings to get it and I can minimize FS9, browse the internet, open e-mail, whatever, and the system doesn't flinch.I guess my point is, you can't go wrong with AMD - single or dual-core. It just seems a little costlier to go with dual-core if you want to gain the multi-tasking advantage which as I said is favorable to me because of the other stuff I do outside of FS9. Also, given the advantages of dual-core, I think it is somewhat future-proof (if that's possible in the PC world) to go with dual-core. Also, several drivers and games other than FS9 are now taking advantage of dual-core processing.Dual-core in gaming in general is a hot topic right now. Google it and you'll get more information than you can stand to read. However, the general consensus seems to be that it does pay off unless you are looking as single core processors like the FX-57.And, yes, I'm a shameless fan of AMD at this point:http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.htmlHope this helps.Steve

Rhet - yes the reports ARE very confusing mostly because everyone has an poinion but you dont really know WHO is truly qualified to post the correct answers. From what ive been reading it seems that the only way a dual core cpu will improve performance is if the application you are running has been coded to support/recognize multiple processor threads. This special coding does not exist as of yet for 95% of the game titles out there, a very few have it but the vast majority do NOT. As for business applications, well thats another story because it is more easily found in that market.Now for the claims that some make regarding improved performance while running MULTIPLE apps at the same time...again i dont know the true answer to this...but it seems to me that this is a completely seperate issue and sounds like for this to happen the operating system in question would have to recognize and support/manage the dual cores in the proc...which again, is very different that supporting 2 individual procs...does WinXP have dual core support/management?...admittedly i have no idea (LOL)..but if it DOES then i can see you being able to gain an advantage as far as running multiple apps at the same time since the OS would assign each running application to whichever proc thread it sees fit. I guess this would give you a mild boost.Personally i feel a tad "raped" by Intel because i fell for that Hyperthreading crap 3 years ago when it first appeared in mainstream chips and even today still its all but useless and little or no benefit...in fact i leave it disabled all the time because in most cases it actually SLOWS single game and application performance...and i feel the same way about dual core thechnology at this early stage...prove it over the long run to me and then ill buy into it..but for now id say it's of little or no use for games.Until games can support either dual proc systems OR dual core procs, you're most likely going to benefit most from buying the absolute fastest single core proc your pockets can afford to buy...and i dont believe this will change much for at least another couple of years if not more.**EDIT: these arent easy times as far as building new gaming rigs with huge performance gains over our older systems..mostly because clock cycles havent improved much at all in the past 3 years and you will NOT see those huge number gains over your old system as you once did in past years. If your tiring of your old p4 3.06 gigger and build a new amd FX-57 youll see maybe a 50% fps gain on average (even though that chip is clocked at only 2.8gigs)...thats not a big gain if you ask me, especially considering all the money it costs to get there. I cant help but feel that for RIGHT NOW and maybe the next 2 years the best bet for GAMERS is to look into building an SLI system..yes you have to do tons of research to make sure it all works right when you put it all together, and even then it can be buggy at times due to some of those very complicated chipset mobos out there now..but to my way of thinking, until proc speeds get up to the 7-8 gig range theres no way to gain as much performance in a GAME right now short of the SLI graphics solution...but then again FS9 does NOT support SLI either...although most other popular games DO or will shortly.we really do need a solution for all of this...and id love to see all games supporting dual core..but its gonna be quite awhile till they all catch on to it in a mainstream kinda way.Dave

Dave-What do you view as the best video card out there for FS, specifically LDS 767 and the PMDG stuff?Is it worth it to go for dual cards?John

John...no...do not buy 2 cards in order to build yourself an SLI system if youre doing it for FS9. Why? because FS9 DOES NOT have any support for dual GPU's (SLI) and you wont see any performance gains..and in fact will most likely even see a DROP in performance if you try to run in SLI mode within FS9.That being said..it is MY experience and personal opinion that you really dont need anything more than an ATI 9800 Pro (or equivalent) for FS9 itself because FS9 is almost exclusively CPU dependant and doesnt care very much which graphics card you are using or how powerful it is because it simply doesnt need it or use it (GPU power)...what FS9 needs is raw cpu cycles, period..and its always been that way in all versions of FS so far...i hope that changes in the next version but who knows, i seriously doubt its possible in that sort of simulator.So unless your video card is truly ancient, forget about throwing your money away on the biggest baddest new vid card for fs9..you wont see much of a gain from it if any..maybe small gains but nothing that would warrant spending hundreds of dollars for...besides you have to remember that in order to gain all the benefits from a big bad GPU, not only does the game have to NEED alot of GPU power (fs9 needs CPU power, not GPU) but your CPU has to be just as big and bad or else the GPU ends up waiting on it, and then there goes that performance boost you were hoping to see.For fs9 spend ALL your money on CPU (for fps gains) and extra memory (for quicker loading scenery and 3d panels, etc.)...but if youre #### bent on a new GPU then just buy what will get you the most gain for your OTHER games (right now the fastest card is the nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX, and a new driver set has just been released from what i understand which fixes the curruption probs it had in fs9)Dave