Hi I'm currently getting totally confused about which dual core cpu manufacturer i should base a future upgrade around !!!Obviously, the choice is AMD or Intel but which one is best suited to the needs of FS both present and future ? Reading several posts on this forum, i get the impression that Intel seem to be the manufacturer of choice - particularly their Core 2 Duo E6600 because of its 4mb cache.However, is a system based around, say, an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ worth considering ?Your thoughts would be most appreciated Gary

I had the same Q and then asking here and reading about, I have short listed to the Intel Core 2 Duo.Within that... What processor E6600 (4mb cachse) vs E6400 (2mb cache) all depends on if you are into Overclocking. Some folks are able to overclock the E6400 to perform over 3.0Ghz. and the 4mb cache seems to have only marginal improvement (whatever that marginal means).But personally, I am leaning towards the E6600 as the best value at this stage. Manny

Although I don't have one(Yet)...According to most all review's and benchmarks...C2D all the way...I recently got a 4800x2...It struggles with FS9...It doesn't run as well as my 4000+ single core system does...I will eventually build a C2D system also...That's where I'd concentrate my efforts if I were in your shoes...Have Fun!!

Hi,I have an AMD 64x2 4200 and it runs FS9 extremely well. What are your computers specifications (video card, video card driver, ram etc.)?I run FS9 with all display sliders at max (except water at medium) and 100% AI. In built up airports (such as Malpensa, Rome etc.), I get fps in the 20 - 35 range and it's smooth. Other areas get better fps as well all with lots of AI planes. The only scenery which causes it to slow and stutter a minor bit is Chu Lai, Vietnam.What sort of fps do you get and how doesn't your system run as well as your 4000? I don't think the dual core 4800x2 is the problem.Also, do you have the dual core optimizer that AMD issued? I downloaded it a while back and have it installed on my system.Hope this helps.

I have a AMD 64x2 4200 as well, and it to runs FS9 with most of the setting maxed while maintaining mid 25-30fps. I aggree, something else may be wrong with the guys system, and that it probably isn't the x2 4800.I always put my flight simulator on a seperated dedicated partition, just for the sim. It's always on my fastest drive. I also use the BFG geforce 7800 GT oc with 2 GIG corsair XMS memory(hard coded in the bios to match timings, because otherwise, the auto timings feature sets my memory timings slowere than what the memory is rated.

I would suggest AMD if you had a 939 based system already. But since you don't, I'd go for the new Intel Core Duo. They are a lot quicker than the AMD CPUs. Also having DDR2 means any future upgrades will cost a bit less.

Hey yall..I don't wanna wind up hi-jacking this guys thread...But as far as my expierence with my 4000+ vs 4800x2..Here's the quick deal..."My Baby"(4000+ Rig)..Has been my main FS Rig for some time...I'm really familiar with it and have several hundred FS hours on that machine...It's been my workhorse since I built it(1.5 year's ago or so)...I usually wind up flying it more than my FX-57 system..he heSystem spec highlights..4000+, A8N-SLI Premium, (Single)XFX7800GTX OC, 1gb Mushkin Hi-Perf Lvl2 PC-3500, OCZ Powerstream 600w, 2x36gb Raptor's in Raid0, WD Cavier 250gb(Data Storage Only)..This system Rocks FS9...I had it OC'd to 2.8 for a while...Dropped it back down to do some benching before I made the swap to the 4800x2 so I had some good Data to go by...I also had it on Liquid(DangerDen Stuff)...But I removed the liquid system during the processor swap and it's back on air now.. My "Comparison Testing" was done with the exact same hardware...I just pulled out the 4000 and and replaced it with the 4800x2...Of course I re-set the Bios and did a clean install of the OS plus all other software...I've tested with and without the Windows Dual Core patch, AMD Dual Core patch and AMD Dual Core Optimizer...As well as some various tweeking tips avaliable in some guru forums I've seen...This was an intentional Head to Head comparison on my part..I just did it "Just to see" the difference with x2...When I say struggles with FS9..I'm sorry...That may have been a misleading statement...I can hold about 20-25 FPS also..Depending on the FS settings...However I'm not a big FPS counter...It's about smoothness and responsiveness to me...More like "How it Feels"...Glitches, Shudders, Studders, Texture Lag ect...That is what I pay attention to...I can say..I have seen over 300FPS with all the sliders maxed on my FX-57 Rig...What exactly does that represent?? Not much IMHO...My expierence has been...The 4800x2 does not run FS9 as well as my 4000+...No matter what I have tried...It basically won't hold a candle to the 4000+ in smoothness and overall responsivness which I get from the 4000+ or FX-57...I plan a C2xTreme system later.."Just to see"Sorry for any confusion..Again..Not trying to Hi Jack the thread...Have Fun!!

Wow. That clarifies it even further for me. I think I'll be keeping my 3700+ around for quite some time now. No point in spending even $200-$300 on a 4800+. Hmm interesting.But I wonder if this will be true in FSX, given it's design where some things are moved to the 2nd core. You MUST do a similar comparison once we have FSX. You MUST... :)RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

>Hey yall..I don't wanna wind up hi-jacking this guys>thread...>>>>Sorry for any confusion..Again..Not trying to Hi Jack the>thread...>>Have Fun!!No worries, yours and everyone else's inputs gratefully received.I believe from the repies, that the C2D does still seem to be the way to go. Many ThanksGary

"But I wonder if this will be true in FSX, given it's design where some things are moved to the 2nd core. You MUST do a similar comparison once we have FSX. You MUST"Ahhh...Seee...There lies the question!! I'm a bit anxious too...I feel like single core processors are a bit "Dated"..from a "Bleeding Edge" of technology standpoint...I mean..They will still work several years from now...They will run Vista..FSX..and all that sort of stuff...But...I do agree with the masses...in that future programs will probably benifit from x2 processors...FSX very well may be of of them?? I don't know for sure...But..If I were buying today...I'd buy a dual core processor basically from a Future Proofing standpoint...I would buy a C2D processor because they appear to be the "Leader of the Pack" right now...