With the launch of the new Intel Core 2 Duo and the amazing price drops of the Athlon 64 X2's wouldn't it be a good idea to get some real performance figures in FS?SimHQ has paid FS9 some 'lipservice' during its review, but what needs to be seen is how the full line of Core 2 Duo (E6300 - X6800) stacks up against the X2 (3800+ - 5000+)There are lots of benchmarks out there for FPS games, but as we all know, FS tends to be very heavy on CPU usage. Most sites seem to be comparing the offerings based on the results from the FPS games.As FS puts a lot of pressure on the CPU for 'number crunching' would the new internal architechture of Conroe be better?Should AVSIM be doing something like this or should we be pushing the hardware sites to include FS more often in the benchmarks?Im sure there are a lot of us looking at the upgrade / new system build choices and are thinking about where the best value for money is.Thoughts?

Here Here!! I Second!! Yeah..What He Said!!

I would also love to see FS9 benchmarks, but given the variety of add-ons, it almost seems like an impossible thing to do. FS9 can run completely smooth with no add-ons and can turn into a slideshow in a heartbeat by simply increasing the percentage of a 3rd party traffic application.What could be interesting in the near future would be FSX "out-of-the-box benchmarks", but even they would be short-lived, because noone knows the exact implications of DX10 on CPU load. It could well be that CPU performance does not matter so much anymore with FSX/DX9 and FSX/DX10 by offloading the rendering to the GPU.However, a lot of people (including myself) get a better CPU ONLY for FS, so a generalized benchmark would be extremely helpful. Pat

It has to be an 'out of the box' FS, agreed. (or maybe with just one 'standard' complex aircraft add on)Even a vanilla FS9 can bring a high(er) end PC to it's knees with everything cranked up.I'm looking for how each of the mentioned processors deals with the 'flying calculations' of FS9 and which one does it better at which price point. From the most recent anandtech article about OC'ing Core 2 Duo, it would seem that they stack up as follows:X6800 Extreme - NO COMPETITIONE6700 - FX62E6600 - FX62 - 5000+E6400 - 4200+ - 4600+E6300 - 3800+ - 4200+All of these results however are from FPS games. How do each of these stack up when running FS9? As FS9 is very CPU dependent for 'number crunching' do these results still hold true?FSX maybe a completely different story of course........

Well, I just found my answer from MS directly via a report from AirVenture"I just got back from AirVenture here is a report on FSX: - A big improvement in scenery resolution, I think I was told 1 meter. The mountain scenery certainly looked better. - Selecting which plane to fly looks very different, basically it shows all installed aircraft and their variations in a thumbnail picture selection. - FSX will make use of dual core, but not 4 core processing. - The new Intel dual core processors hold a significant performance and price advantage over the dual core AMD chips. - They've finished fixing all know bugs - October Release. - The Garmin G1000 looked good, functionality was estimated at about 80% real world units. - Dual GPS functionality is not modelled. - Ability to view airfield from tower. - They are excited about DX 10 (aren't we all?) - They've modelled several large airports (KLAX, KORD, etc) in high detail, many others have been done in enhanced detail (better than FS9 default). - Missions will be easy to write with the SDK. (Deluxe Edition) - A 256MB graphics card and 2GB of system RAM was recommended. I talked with several of the FSX team members and got this information or overheard it from one of the other attendees questions. If I remember anything else I'll make another Pos"Notice the line regarding better performance on Intel Dual Core than AMD.If this is true, then I am certainly going for a Core 2 Duo system......

Sweet. Thanks for the report. Those are certainly some nice features that everyone will be drooling about.I am not sure that the Inter dual cores will have a price advantage. From a *CPU only* point of view, YES, without a doubt. What stuns me is the high price of the LGA775 mainboards along with the poor selection of chipsets and mainboard models in general, which are RIDICOUSLY expensive. Add the mainboard and some higher quality DDR2 and suddenly the price/perforance ratio doesn't look so good at all, at least for us AMD/DDR users.The entire mainboard/chipset situation will be very interesting in the next couple of months. nVidia/intel vs. AMD/ATI is certainly not a combination that anyone expected a few months ago. Especially with the excellent and extremely popular nVidia chipsets for AMD, it will hard to convince us endusers to use another chipset in the future. ALI, VIA, SIS? No, thank you!If nVidia comes out with a good chipset for LGA775 in early fall, I might be tempted to switch to Intel as well. Time will tell.Pat

Hi Pat,The new 965 Express chipset looks fairly decent for price. Just need more of them......Gigabyte have just launched a Core 2 Duo board here in Canada for $188 CDNRegards,Glenn

Back to the benchmark Q, I recall when FS9 came out some of the hardware sites did BMs, and came out with insane FPS, and concluded that FS9 was not good as a BM program, because it wasn't enough load. What I would like is something equivalent to a Fly Tampa airport, LDS767 VC, and ActiveSky weather. Throw in UT USA and some megascenery and 38m mesh.I don't think comparing FS9 OOB really scales to the complex aircraft and sceneries. A second problem I have seen is repeatability of the BM.scott s..

Right, but the more add-ons you have to benchmark, the less benchmark results you'll have available, because not all of us have all the add-ons available. Throw in just one more add-on and the benchmark will be useless.However, the benchmarking feature in Vista Ultimate will simplify things a lot, because you'll have a more generic benchmarking index in Vista that takes all of your hardware and resources into account.It's certainly not easy ;)Pat

But even OOB, you could still gauge how the different CPU's measure up in the FS 'engine'Even if you got 200 FPS with an X6800, where do the others come in?180 FPS, 150 FPS ???????? It's all relative.......Glenn

Well, I guess it is probably true that if OOB processor A is 200 and B is 150, A will probably always outperform B. But if with addons it is 20.2 vs 20.1, that might make you go a different direction, like a better graphics. And there is no guarentee that the fall off will be linear with higher sliders or addons. Plus, you need to consider IQ, not just frames, and that might not be just a graphics issue. I think it helps to understand the slope of the FPS curve at different load, not just an average at one load and also a sensitivity analysis.scott s..

>I am not sure that the Inter dual cores will have a price>advantage. From a *CPU only* point of view, YES, without a>doubt. What stuns me is the high price of the LGA775>mainboards along with the poor selection of chipsets and>mainboard models in general, which are RIDICOUSLY expensiveAMD have recently had to slash the prices of CPU's to compete on a price/performance comparison.LGA775 boards are not any more expensive than other chipsets. Granted, they are relatively thin on the ground at the moment until the new revision 5 nVidia chipset boards come out.

One thing that comes out of this is to confirm that right now is NOT the time to upgrade - there is partial information about FSX optimisation,yes, but we are a long way from knowing whether the money is best spent on an Intel dual core and a new mobo with an SLI/Crossfire solution; or whether more RAM scales performance exponentially; or whether FSX is better off with a single-core CPU and a massively capable dual-GPU solution. Then there's the possibility of the new Physics chips having an impact on a cost/performance basis. We just don't know enough yet!What we have no is not even half the story. But it is becoming clearer, slowly. Personally, Windows Vista requirements and capabilities - and that certain knowledge that DirectX10 compatibility requires a whole new GPU tells me that now is not the time to be making decisions about upgrades. As far as benchmarks are concerned, the important thing is that they are consistent and repeatable. Requiring addons on top of the basic package introduces too many changeable elements. The only benchmark I want to see is FSX with dual processors and dual GPU versus FSX on a dual core and a single GPU, versus FSX on a single-core and multiple core GPU, all with more or less RAM. And with DirectX10.Nobody is in a position to do that yet, so I'm holding back.Allcott

Now is the perfect time to upgrade if you purchase smart. That is, make your plan now and purchase items as they become avaliable. (I suspect October will be the best time to make the final purchase). Here's my recomended list:Here's the system information I'm targetting:CPU: 1x Dual-core AMD (64) or Intel (Core2) CPU.-- FS is extremely CPU-intensive. Unlike most games a good dual-core CPU will assist greatly with FSX. Especially with the game utalizing multi-threading. Right now there is no doubt that the Core2 processors are -the best- on the market in terms of raw speed, energy used, and price. My recomended CPU at this time is the E6600 which is a 2.4 GHz with 4MB of L2 cache. Review of the Core2: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795Mem: 3GB DDR2 RAM-- 2GB is the min currently for optimal gaming experience. 3GB is a precaution to allow you 1 year of time with this computer. If you plan to overclock, buy the quality RAM (~$400 for 2GB)Motherboard: NVIDIA nForce 5 with SLI. For AMD make sure you buy the AM2 models. DFI-Lan Party or ASUS brands recomended for quality of componentions and support.-- You want that integrated 1 Giga-bit ethernet and the nForce's superior memory bandwidth and SLI ability. Expect the nForce 5 in September.Video Cards: NVIDIA (unknown). Wait for DX10 compatibility.-- Buy one just behind the bleeding edge (See the 7800 GTX for $500 and pick up the 7800 GT for $350. You win). Purchase your second card in 6 months and run them in SLI mode. Expect these cards in October both from Ati and Nvidia.HD: SEAGATE 300 GB Min or Greater. SATA1 or SATA2-- Your PSS, CLS, PMDG, Reality-XP, Wilco and FS-Build add-ons eat up space. Don't be afraid to wait for a Fry's sale and pick up the 500 GB Seagate monster for $205. Hd speed means little for someone running 4-hour flights. Seagate is currently regarded as the highest quality vendor.OS: Windows Vista Home Premium (minimum) / Ultimate (max)-- You want DX10? You want the best effects? Be ready to shell out another $300-$500 for Vista... or purchase it along with your system.Extras: Creative Labs X-Fi Sound Card-- Best hardware acceleration on the market combined with the worst drivers released. Creative will have to work hard to maintain their Green vendor rating when Vista releases. 128-hardware accelerated 3d sound channels means less CPU-overhead running 5.1.This is my current recomendation for a 2006-October 2007 system.My purchase order is as follows: This month (August) NXZT Apollo with an extra 120MM fan ($60). 600 WATT Dual-Rail 12V CoolMax SLI-Certified ATX power supply ($140)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16817159057Substitute a 700 WATT model for $170. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16817159058Next month: Memory: CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) ($300) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16820145038Motherboard: NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI (~$200 for ASUS/DFI)October: 2nd-highest quality NVIDIA DX10 card (~$400 retail upon release). Any time: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 with 4MB L2 cache. Expected price: $316 per Intel Road-map. No price-drop expected.That's the system I'll be purchasing over the months until October when the first video card purchase is made. Pick up the second one a month or two later for SLI performance.

Agree. Just ordered Core 2 duo E6700, 2 Gig DDR2 667, 7800 GT and 150Gb 10000rpm Raptor on a Gigabyte 965 chipset. This should work a treat for the last few months of FS9 (at least as much grunt as an AMD FX62). As FSX is optimised for dual core it should work okay for that as well. I can then just upgrade the graphics card when the second generation DX10 cards arrive.