I am in the process of buying a new computer since my Alienware Laptop with P4 3.8 went dead (SUSPECT A BURNED POWER UNIT).I LIVE IN vENEZUELA SO I can forget about fancy names like Alienware and the likes.Major Brands sold here are Toshiba (too slow) HPackard, and we have Sevice for Dell.BTW I had it with laptops. No matter how much you put in harware wise they are too limited, too hot, too heavy , very limited in HD drives for at least 7200rpm.So I am back to Desk top.So far I seem inclined to buy a Dell 600XPS with Dual core technology but 2X 3.0 Pentium D only.(They also sell one single core P4 3.8 but no SL. The paricular model I am interested has SLI for graphic cards and 2x250 7200rpm with raid o, and a 20" LCD screen.I am not much of a tecnical guy so I am very confused as to this dual core technoloy.My Questions:1) Does it means that I get the equivalence of 2X3.0= 6 mhz CPU with this dual core technology?2) How noticeable is the effect on FS2004 to have 2x256MGB on board for the NVIDIA 7800?). On the operating system I have two choices windows XP or Windows

Be carefull when buying a computer with all of those "extras", i.e. DUEL CPU's and Video cards, 64 bit processors etc. I've gone thru all of the above and NONE of them have helped run FS2004 better or faster. Three yers ago I bought a new , top of the line Falcon Northwest computer ($5300 U.S.) with DUEL CPU's.... FS2004 did NOT use Duel CPU's. Last January I bought the top of the line ABS computer($4200 U.S.) as it had DUEL Video cards and had the new 64 bit processor... again, FS2004 did NOT use any of this new tech stuff and I see it as a big waste of money for me. jerrycwo4

>4) Have never tried AMD is this CPU any good, I know is>cheaper than Pentium but runs hotter.AMD does not run hotter than Intel. I've never seen my Athlon 64 X2 go over 40 degrees C... I love my AMD btw, I've used their CPU for 6 years.

So overall we can say:no one cares, which PC one is buying. Especially the FS does not care. Above a specific system-power the FS WILL NOT get faster.I bought an Intel P4 3,4Ghz (Prescott) with 2GB RAM, MSI Board with 945 Chipset and a PCI-E ATI X1800XT graphics.My FS is not for a single frame faster than it was before (same settings, same addons).This is the first time, I bought a new system for a kind of "old" FS2004. My new system is at least one generation younger than the FS (more likely two generations younger). What kind of hardware do the programmers have in mind, when they develope their software? So let's tell the truth: THE FS IS LIMITED INSIDE!!!!Disappointing.Regards, Roger

>>4) Have never tried AMD is this CPU any good, I know is>>cheaper than Pentium but runs hotter.>>AMD does not run hotter than Intel. I've never seen my Athlon>64 X2 go over 40 degrees C... I love my AMD btw, I've used>their CPU for 6 years.Many AMDs do run hotter. That's why they need more serious cooling systems, to keep them at a decent temperature.

>>I bought an Intel P4 3,4Ghz (Prescott) with 2GB RAM, MSI Board>with 945 Chipset and a PCI-E ATI X1800XT graphics.>>My FS is not for a single frame faster than it was before>(same settings, same addons).>Well what did you have before?

>My Questions:>>1) Does it means that I get the equivalence of 2X3.0= 6 mhz>CPU with this dual core technology?>No. You get only 3.0 ghz speed. Dual core is 2 cpu's, each 3 ghz on the same die, not combining to 6.0 ghz. My understanding of it is that your only advantage with dual-core would be running multiple apps at once, in which case overall responsiveness of the system would be better. But FS fps would be the same as with a single-core 3.0 ghz cpu. You'll probably get about the same or less fps (depends on what else you ran with it) than you were getting with the 3.8 ghz mobile cpu you had!Example: Norton Anti-virus scan uses lots of cpu cycles. When you run a scan in the background with FS running, this kills your FS performance. Theoretically, (I don't have one so I can't say for sure) with a dual-core cpu, you could run FS and carry on a NAV scan in the background, with no loss of performance in FS. That is my understanding of it.>>4) Have never tried AMD is this CPU any good, I know is>cheaper than Pentium but runs hotter.>That is old info and was true 5-6-7 years ago. Of the info I have seen, generally most modern AMD's run cooler than Intels. I think the key is that the AMD's are not clocked as high. Usually, more ghz = more heat.I was away from AMD for about 10 years. I built a couple of AMD systems back in the early-mid-90's (AMD 386DX/40 and AMD 486/100). Intel always had more cutting-edge CPU's for all of those years...but at least for now, it seems that AMD has surpassed intel for gaming performance. The AMDs have the nice bus speeds and big caches...I think that is ideal for gaming.Intel seems to still be strong in business app performance, however. Photoshop falls into that category. In fact I specifically read a review of an Intel Pentium D cpu vs. the AMD x2 cpu, and the Intel beat the AMD by a lot on Photoshop. However, the AMD in turn beat the Intel in game tests.