I upgraded from a $70 Celeron 3.2 GHz to a $90 P4 2.8 GHz chip. My frame rates in FS2004 have dropped significantly -- from 18 fps to 6 fps sitting on the runway at DFW in LD767. FS2004 also takes much longer to load..... 2 minutes 31 seconds just to get to the main menu.Yes, I realize I went from 3.2 to 2.8, but I shouldn't be getting THAT much slower performance... besides I thought the P4 was supposed to be much better for gaming.Should I return the P4 and reinstall the Celeron? Or does Windows need a driver for the new CPU to run right?Specs are: PC Chips P21G, P4/511 775 socket 1MB L2 cache, Via bus, 1 GB RAM, PNY geForce 6600 256K, AMI Bios, Arctic Freeze fan/sink. I essentially just swapped out the drive, thus the software config is exactly the same. Peak CPU temperature is 51C.Old CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819116225New CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819116235Tim

Tim:Why not download the Benchmark software mentioned under "Benchmark" thread in this forum and give it a test. Maybe it will help identify the problem. You have a faster CPU than I do, but your FPS is very low in my opinion....perhaps something is not setup right?

You probably thought of this already, but is the CPU reported with the correct speeds in the bootup screen / in the system tab of Windows?If not you might have to configure your BIOS correctly.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

Hi new guy to these forums but I am a bit of a Computer nut so this post caught my eye and it seems like a good palce to start.The reason your new CPU is not running as well is because you haven't really upgraded at all.The new CPU you have bought is a farily low spec 5 series non HT enabled 2.8GHz single core P4.The chip you used to have is also a fairly low end Celeron but the big difference here is that it was a 3.2Ghz and it was a Dual Core.If you wanted to see a gain you should have gone for the 6 series P4s, these are HT enabled and thus simulate the effects of a Dual Core system using only one actual Core. I know these work well with FS9 because I run a P4 630 3.0Ghz HT chip overclocked to a very nice 3.5Ghz.

>The chip you used to have is also a fairly low end Celeron but>the big difference here is that it was a 3.2Ghz and it was a>Dual Core.No it is not, a Celeron D is not a dual core.The speed difference is in pure number crunching from 3.2GHz down to 2.8GHz. The Celeron has a lower cache but that does not really play a major part for FS processing.Also, HT will have no effect on FS9.Saying that, those are low figures and may point to incorrect BIOS settings. A PIV 2.8 should have no trouble running FS9.

My bad I got the Celeron D mixed up with the Pentium D, however whilst a Dual Core wouldn't make a difference in running a single program it would make a difference if the user is running alot of background programs as well as Flight Sim.