Hi all, maybe some of you hardware savvy folks can tell me whether this upgrade I'm getting next week will improve my frames in FS9 significantly.I'm going from this:p4 2.8160 gig HD (IDE)1 Gig PC2700 DDR RamATI X800 PRO 256 MB (AGP)I'm getting this:Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86Ghz 2MB 1066Mhz (whatever that means)250 Gig SATA2 HD2 Gig DDR2-667 PC2 RAMNvidia 7600GT 256 MB (PCI-E)Also, could someone tell me if I should spend the extra cash and get the E660 Core 2 Duo 2.40Ghz 4MB chip? Or will they both show a significant increase in FS9 performance.Thanks,Jeff

Yes, that will significantly improve your frames. Keep in mind I say that based solely on reported benches, as I do not own a Core 2 Duo. I do not want to misrepresent in any way, but I feel it's safe to say that yes you will see a signif improvment in FS performance. You're moving forward about 2 generations of CPU's from your 2.8 to the Core 2 Duo.If it were me, I would *definitely* get the E6600 Core 2 Duo. You will thank yourself later. The E6600 is the best performance for the money.But either Core 2 Duo will give you quite a boost over what you have imo.Rhett

That's good to hear. looks like I'll spend the extra $$$ to get the E6600.Thanks,Jeff

Also the E6600 has 4 megs of cache (versus 2 megs on the E6400, etc.). If other parts of the motherboard/chipset/memory architecture are true to form, that 4 megs cache should make it a nice overclocker, too...if you should ever choose to do that. You probably will have so much speed you won't need to for a long time.Rhett

Hi Jeff, if you're running FS @ > 1024x, the 7600GT - despite having 256MB - probably is a bit 'low end' (it's 'only' a 128-bit card). Nowadays, 1280x displays are pretty common and for such resolutions I'ld recommend 256-bit GPUs (your X800 is a 256-bitter). Hope this adds to thoughts and kind regards Jaap

No, your update won't improve fps significantly. It will improve the difference between max and min fps, so make things look smoother. But FS9 has no facility to take advantage of dual core processors, so your processor will offset the improved architecture by slower overall speed in terms of CPU cycles.Sorry to be a dissenting voice, but if you think that your frames will double, you need to know they won't. But the sim experience will be imcproved. But that 7600GT card will be the new bottleneck as Jaap says.I've been researching an upgrade for some time and have come to the conclusion that it will be better to wait until the DX10 cards are in the market - not because I necessarily intend to upgrade to a DX10-compiant card (I'll wait to see what benefits this brings to FSX with Vista, 64-bit computing and DX10 before I'm spending that kind of dough) but it means that every card below the new cutting edge will suddenly be 20-30% cheaper, and there will be choice of a a whizz-bang topend card for littler money, or a chance to look at the benefits of SLI of `average` cards with FSX.Just IMHO :)Allcott

>Hi Jeff, if you're running FS @ > 1024x, the 7600GT - despite>having 256MB - probably is a bit 'low end' (it's 'only' a>128-bit card). >>Nowadays, 1280x displays are pretty common and for such>resolutions I'ld recommend 256-bit GPUs (your X800 is a>256-bitter). Hope this adds to thoughts and kind regards >>Jaap If you look at the benchmarks, the 7600GT is equal in performance to a X850 XT despite the 128bit limitation, so is much better than the X800.In fact, the 128bit only comes into play with very high levels of AA and AF, so at resolutions greater than 1024 x, you probably won't need high AA and AFI run at 1600 x 1200 with 2AA and 8 AF (and did so with my old 9800 Pro too) I very nearly did buy a 7600GT myself, but the X1900GT was only $50 more and too good a deal to turn down!

>>If you look at the benchmarks, the 7600GT is equal in performance to a X850 XT despite the 128bit limitation, so is much better than the X800.<< Maybe when using a Pixelshader3 game? With FS, I strongly doubt a 7600 is on par with a X850XT. Not to mention FSX once it surfaces... IMO, enthusiasts will want a powerful GPU at 1280x or more and 128-bit GPUs are history for hi-res gaming. Rgds Jaap

Allcott,I would imagine that there's definitely something wrong with the way FS9 is programmed if my upgrade doesn't make it run 80% faster or so.Like Rhett said, I'll be two generations of cpu ahead of where I was with the P4. I can run the very latest games on my current system with all graphics at max, with hardly a stutter in the action. All I can hope for is that FSX will run well. Jeff

That would mean an average of 30fps going to 54!Ain't gonna happen. If by `significant` you meant 30fps going to 40 then it might. And all the blog traffic from the MSFS development team is now busy explaining why dual-core will NOT be the panacea that cures all FS ills. So don't expect too much of FSX either. I'm sure it will run everything, but I think your expectations might not be matched by the results. Let us know how you get on - perhaps with some complex benchamrk that uses a lot of addons in a complex scenery area with repeatable heavy weather. That's the test.Allcott

Well my whole thing is, I can't fly the PMDG 747, it's just terrible (performance that is). I can't use any of Cloud9's airports, I get about 5 FPS with those. I can't use Mega Airport Frankfurt, it's just as bad. So if I can now use those and get like 22-24 FPS that's all I need to be happy. My dream is to take the 747 from LA to Frankfurt with fluidity. I'll let you all know how my new system runs.Thanks,Jeff

My new 7600GS 256mb PCI-e will give me a rock solid 30fps (capped) anywhere in FS9 on a fresh install with World Extreme mesh, FE, GE, British Airports series, the complete World of AI traffic (PAI yet to be added), whillst using Capt. Sim 707 Pro. This is at 1280x960, 8SxAA, 8xAF, max global texture size, max water detail, high autogen, high dynamic scenery, reflections on, etc, etc...Not bad for a

Look at the benchmarks....Not all of those games are SM3 titles.Every site you go to compares the 6800 Ultra with the 7600GT...saying they are identical in performance. AFAIK, the 6800 Ultra was competition for the X850XT (albeit slightly slower)Check out the image attatched for 3dmark06 scores.There is no doubt that the 7600GT is the budget king. It beats the X800 Pro, X800XL and is nearly on par with the X850XTAs I found out though, an extra $50 gets you a lot more (X1900GT)Glenn

Well, we all know what kind of things manufacturers do to look good in benchmarks... :-) And what do such benchmarks tell us about normal apps? Not much as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if somebody wants to use a card at lower AA/AF levels, it's up to him or her. Could well be I'm totally wrong with my assessment, but I would - like you - pay a little bit more and pair a high-end system with a decent GPU. :-) Cheers and kind regards Jaap

Just for fun Jaap,FS9 1600 x 1200 4xAA, 8xAF