Hi,60C under full load is a good temperature.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

Gaaa! I spoke too soon. Just had two freezes within an hour, even at 1.45V. I'm sure if I bumped Vcore up to 1.5V I might get another few days stability, but I think this chip is heading for the big CPU bucket in the sky. I am downloading the FSX demo now and will run it for a bit with the X2 to see if dual core makes a poop of difference, then will yank it out and call Captain RMA.Oh well, dual core was fun while it lasted. Now how about those Core 2 Duo chips ......Thanks for everyones suggestions and comments (except that AMD sux tangent:-erks:-lol)Gary

Well Gary, here's your chance to test out a C2D for us. I'd love to hear how that performs.Cheers.

I don't have a C2D yet, but K Frederiksen over in the FSX forum does and ran a comparative benchmark against my A64 single core system (see sig). On the Ultra High setting, with in-game AA and AF enabled, his system had:1.9X higher min frame rate,1.6X higher max frame rate, and1.9X higher average frame rate than my systemHis system specs were:Duo core 2 E6600 @ 3200 Mhz.Asus P5B Deluxe wifi2 gig pc8500 ramGeforce 7900 Ultra 512 mbRaptor disks.Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumGary

Looks like FSX utilize dual cores quite well then :)

While dual core helps a little, the raw grunt of an overclocked C2D is what really makes the difference.Gary

Hi Gary, at the risk of sounding repetitive :-), you might want to have another look at the SimHQ tests? If I got it right, the difference between a top notch C2D and AMD64 seems to be somewhere around 15-20%. IMHO, anything beyond 30% at stock speeds is an illusion and shouldn't be taken serioulsy. Mainly because we neglect many system details which might lead to such results. Best would be, if somebody here would perform a one on one comparison like SimHQ did. HST, if you'ld come to different conclusions than SimHQ, I'ld certainly give YOU the benefit of the doubt. :-) I only wanted to add to thoughts with my remarks in the other thread. IMHO, benchmarking is all about procedures and setting the standards for them. For example; if AMD64 CPUs aren't set to the '1T Command Rate,' those AMD users are already missing ca 8-10% of their CPU's potential from scratch. Parallely - as you probably know - setting AMD64s to 1T can be very tricky... Case you aren't running 1T, the calculated 1.9 factor is theoretically already being reduced to ca 1.7... Etc, etc. Kind regards Jaap

The FSX benchmark I speak of was run under the same setup and game config conditions, with only the hardware being the major differneceThe SimHQ test for FS2004 at 1024x768 showed around 40% better frame rates out of an E6700 over an FX-62. K Frederiksen has his E6600 overclocked 20% higher than an E6700 and my A64 is at least 110% slower on core speeds alone. I'd give 10% to FX architecture over A64 and another 10% for dual versus single core. Not to mention that his 7900 is a couple of generations past my X800. IMO, it is completely conceivable that his rig would pull double the frame rates of mine in a new game like FSX, and it actually did, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at here Jaap.GaryPS. FWIW, 1T command is enabled on my rig.

>>IMO, it is completely conceivable that his rig would pull double the frame rates of mine in a new game like FSX, and it actually did, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at here Jaap.<< Hi Gary, Well, hopefully a constructive exchange of thoughts and ideas... For me, it isn't logical a CPU can produce almost twice the fps. With beta code, maybe..? Who knows? Factor 1.9 is in sharp contradiction with all the reports and benchmarks I've seen to date. IMO, you rightly question the influence of the GPU. Besides, you might have noticed in the SimHQ graphs that those differences become smaller as the resolution increases. IMHO, it would be wrong if the impression arises that a C2D can produce almost twice the fps compared to an AMD64. Honestly, wouldn't readers be ill-consulted if they take the 1.9 factor for a fact? FYI, I'm getting an Intel C2D FlyTendo too. But no hurries... :-) AIM, if you can present different conclusions than SimHQ, I'ld certainly give YOU the benefit of the doubt. :-) Kind regards Jaap

I believe you are completely missing the point that I am NOT comparing an A64 with a C2D at the same speed with the same video card. If you can't accept that point then there is no further use in discussing here (and I mean that in the most respectable way).Gary

> my A64 is at least 110% slower on core speeds aloneCorrection, I meant 10% here, not 110%.Gary

Hey Gary,I keep reading contradictions to whether dual core is actually going to be supported in FSX. I guess time will tell. But here's a general question in trying to understand dual core:If a piece of software utilised 100% of one core and Zero on the 2nd. But then by simply setting the software process in Task Manager to Affinity, you then get 50% utilisation on core 1 and 2. Does that mean that the software does not take advantage of dual core?

If you're not getting better overall performance than single core, then I'd say no.Gary

Hi GaryI totally agree that comparing AMD to Intel is philosophical and most probably not the source of your conflict. Last week I had to return an Intel 3.4 Dual causing a PC not being able to boot anymore, after I changed every single component as I couldn't believe, that a chip can be buggy. Also I gave back an Nvidia 7950 Dual chip card that gave constant blue screens, because the MB did not support dual chips on a single pci-e port. Apparently you're issue started with the new chip - all other components remained unchanged. If you can get the hold on your previous chip put it back to have at least a running system. I guess your dual chip is not entirely supported by your motherboard as updating BIOS and the NEW CHIPSET didn't do the trick. Nowadays, leaving a running system is tricky as PC component producers want to sell first before they test for compatibility. If I get a new chip I normally get a new modern motherboard or find the list showing all supported chips with that board.Good luck!Sam

Sam,Luckily I kept my old chip, so I am now back up and running. I did consider getting a new motherboard, but the one I have now still sells and is more often than not bundled with X2 chips. Also, because I am getting a new Core 2 Duo system by the end of the year, I wanted this to be aa cheap an upgrade as possible by only changing the CPU. If I have to start changing motherboards / RAM / etc, then it is too late for this system at this stage of it's life, particularly when it will retire and be used as the FS2004 rig when FSX fits the shelves, a job that it does quite well.Gary