What processor would be faster for FSX? AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4 GHzHT: 2000MHzHyper-Transport Support: YesL1 Cache: 64KB+64KBL2 Cache: 1MBMulti-Core: Single-CoreProcess Type: 90 nmSeries: Athlon 64OrAMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo 2.2 GHzHT: 2000MHzHyper-Transport Support: YesL1 Cache: 128KB+128KBL2 Cache: 2 x 1MBMulti-Core: Dual-CoreProcess Type: 90 nmSeries: Athlon 64 X2Virtualization Technology Support: NoI am having a new computer custom built but I am having a heck of a time picking a processor. I was originally going with the Athlon 64 4000+ because its cheaper and the specs seem good. However the shop "claims" they can't locate one and its discontinued. Its either going with the 3500+ if I wish to stay single core or opt for a dual core processor. At first I was thinking single core because my new computer is an interim machine and at this time FSX does not fully utilize dual core technology so my logic to just go with a fast single core. The shop seems to think the dual core will be superior no matter what. I have been out of the loop as far as computer hardware goes so I am just plain confused :-hmmm So what processor would really be best and is dual core better even if FSX does not fully support it?Thanks for the help :-wave

Hi, There is no doubt that the Intel Core 2 duo processors are faster than anything AMD offer at present. I'd go for the E6600 as the best bang for the buck.Have a look at the comparison charts at Tomshardware.com:http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/21/cpu...ts_summer_2006/and on the same site there's a guide to graphics cards.FSX supports dual core to a limited extent, enough to make it worthwhile. Certainly Vista will use dual cores. In fact both AMD and Intel have a quad core chips under development that may be out by Xmas, but I don't see much benefit in 4 cores until applications are written for them. Certainly not for FSX.Cheers,Noel.

>So what processor would really be best and is dual core better>even if FSX does not fully support it?Yes. It's got bigger caches and overall advanced architecture, which always helps. Of course both will work no miracles, but it definitely makes a difference.And although a long time user of AMD chips myself I have to agree with the previous poster: if you're building from scratch and not reusing old components, go for intel Core Duo at the moment.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

It might be to late as I specified AMD and the system is already built. We are just waiting on a CPU at the moment. However after doing some research the Intel Core Duo does out bench any AMD chip. Oh well as long as its faster then my old system I will be happy. My current system is an Athlon 64 3200+ Clawhammer with a ATI 9800XT 256. Even by todays standards its pretty quick and runs the beta 3 very well. Reason why I am having a new system built is my old system is dead. Likely fixable but I felt like a new system. I also was able to recycle many of the parts out of my old system keeping the cost way down. Including 2 gigs of Corsair PC3200 400 ram. I do need to contact the shop first thing. AMD just lowered the prices of the chips. The price they quoted me for the 4400+ is way high. I can now get the 4800+ for about $20 more then they are charging me for the 4400+. The 4800+ has the same per core performance as the single core 4000+. So in theory I should run the same as the 4000+ I originally wanted and offer dual core support in the future. So even though this was originally going to be an interim system I might be able to extend the life for longer and eventually put Vista and a DX10 card in this system. Of coarse historically by the time Vista is in full swing and DX10 cards are out the hardware will take a sharp turn and everything today will be obsolete anyway.

There is a user here, chuck, if I recall, who compared a 4000+ head-to-head with a 4800+ in FS, and he said the 4000+ out-performed the 4800+. So go figure. I think if it were me, and I was planning on keeping the machine for a year or year and a half, I would still probably get the 4800+ and be done with it. Probably about the same FS performance between the two.Maybe if you run add-ons like Asv6 or FSTimeKeeper or FSMovingMap you would see a real benefit of the dual-core 4800+, but I don't know. If a 4800+ drops to $200-$220 or so I will shoot for one myself. :)One thing about it, a 4000+ is very very inexpensive. Your shop should still be able to get a 4000+. They will still be available thru December, which is word-on-the-street last I heard.4800+ would be the fastest inexpensive dual-core you could buy for a Socket 939 board. FX60 is still $$$$$ and for sure not the best bang-for-the-buck for those of use sticking with Socket 939 a little longer.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

The Only problem is...As your shop has found....The 4000+...And the 4800+...are being discontinued... AMD is dropping all of the socket 939 and AM2 processors which have 1mb of LVL2 Cache from their line-up...The "FX" series are the only processors that will continue on with 1mb of LVL2 Cache...So I'm sure they're going to become harder and harder to come by...The last price I remember seeing at newegg on the 4000+ was in the nighborhood of $135...That's pretty darn incredable..he he...I think I paid $430 or so for mine...I thought I noticed a week or so ago..that the 4000+ was no longer listed at the egg??Mace is correct...I did do some comparison "testing" between to e 4000+ and x2 4800+...(To satisfy my own curosity)...There are a couple of threads somewhere below which I mention "MY" findings and opinions....In a nutshell....I dropped the newly acquired x2 4800+ into my established 4000+ system...Did a bios reset..and Clean install of the OS...And spent some time running various benchmarks and of course Flying FS9 to compare...The end result was the 4000+ felt snappier and more responsive during ANY task I perform with my computer...Most benchmark nunbers(ie Aquamark3, 3Dmark05 and 06 ect) were in the "ballpark" of each other...but with a consistant edge to the 4000+ in most cases...Soooo..Basically I concluded...At this time...The 4800 offeres "ME"..No advantage to any tasks I currently perform with my computer...And I preffered the snappier/more responsive feel of the 4000+...Sorry to ramble here...Good luck in your build...That sounds like a good approch to getting up and running again with minimal expense...And gaining some performance to boot...Take Care...

>I thought I noticed>a week or so ago..that the 4000+ was no longer listed at the>egg??>Chuck, that's because I listened to you and bought the last 4000+ from them for $135. Haha! My FS9 runs smooth now at all time and it takes whatever addons I throw at it. (I don't abuse my FS though, careful picking what I put into it).When I can fly an approach with constant 24FPS (locked) into flytampa with LVD or PMDG VC, AI and heavy weather I know I made a great purchase.JasonAMD64 4000+ o/c to 2.6gHz | Nvidia 7800GT | 1GB ram | all CH stuff with track IR

I am not real impressed with AMD at the moment for discontinuing every socket 939 chip with an L2 Cache of 1MB. These chips offered a nice performance and price point. Still plenty of the 512KB socket 939 processors though. Just how important is L2 cache with a program like Flight Simulator? I tend to believe its pretty important and its one reason why my 3200+ Clawhammer was so robust. My shop lied and did not have the 4400+ in another store like they said (already sold it). So my new machine is sitting at te shop collecting dust and I am not happy. My choices are several chips but all with 512KB of L2 Cache. I told the shop that I can get a 4800+ at Newegg right now but they will not put it in or support it of coarse. At this point I am thinking of just getting a return on my deposit and my old hardware back and going in a completely different direction. Shop does not seem interested in doing this but they have defaulted on my specifications promised to me. So I believe I am within my rights to do so.

Maybe cut your losses (and you may be able to get your deposit back if they are unable to supply the product) and have a look at what is best for you now.

I think AMD discontinued all the 939s but the best ones were sold out first.Get the 4800+ while you still can or maybe the FX55. What do you need the shop for for a CPU upgrade anyway?

I've got a 939 board with a 3800 X2 and, frankly, I am waiting for the guys to start selling off the 4800's lol.

I might not need the shop for the CPU upgrade. However I am not sure they have formatted the hard drives or transfered data yet and I am not real familiar in doing so. I am having the files of my 2nd hard drive in my old computer transfered over to the 2nd hard drive in the new computer. Also I have never installed a CPU before and not sure what is involved with that. Especially with BIOS adjustments. I was just kind of hoping to have the shop do it all with full support. I guess there is a first time for everything though!!I think AMD was a bit premature in discontinuing so many processors at the same time. Usually processors are not discontinued until they are replaced but I don't see any real replacments being offered except the whole range of 512KB Cache chips. What if someone has a warrantee claim and they can't get a replacement? AMD probably thought hey had plenty of inventory to last but when people found out all these processors were being discontinued it created a frenzy. I notice most of the 512KB processors run at a faster clock speed. This might help of set the larger cache in some applications. It looks like the faster 512KB processors still out bench the slower clock speeds offered on the 1MB cache processors. Shop says (of coarse they want to seal the deal) when it comes to AMD processors cache is not as important as it is on an Intel chip. They did not think I would suffer any performance loss going with the 4600+. The 4600+ clocks at 2.4GHz vs 2.2GHz for the 4400+.

That's kind of a bad situation. I would find out if they have transferred the hd data to the new rig. You have a right to know what's going on, don't you? I would guess they have not xferred anything given there's no cpu in the new rig.It appears to me that AMD wants to promote their dual-core line, as much for marketing gimmick reasons as raw performance, rather than their single-core line, which is fast fading into history, at least for the mainstream audience.If your shop has transferred the data, I would get the pc as is, then order a cpu myself and put it in (it's not too rough, instructions are included with the chip). On the other hand, if they haven't transferred your data, you're kind of stuck. Any decent sys builder should build what the customer wants, with appropriate suggestions from the builder, of course.Otherwise, you can walk away, as long as you don't owe them any $$$. And then look into a Core 2 Duo system...very nice...RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

Wow they are disorganized!!!They do in fact have the 4400+ processor. It was pre sold but they did not bother to see who's name was on it. It was pre sold to me!!So the new processor is going in now and it supposed to be done in about an hour. Now that I think about it I kind of wish I just ordered the 4800+ online. Not sure if the 5% increase in speed would be noticed though. Again as long as its faster then my 3200+ thats all I care about. In benchmarks the 4400+ will score 88 fps and the 4800+ scores 92 fps on some games. Considering how much the frames on flight sim jump around it be would hard to know if one is really running faster or not. It does look like I can overclock my 4400+ up to 2.4 or even possibly 2.6GHz rather easily if I upgrade the cooling. I might go that route in the future. I don't know anything about overclocking though. Is it just a matter of changing the Motherboard settings? Thats what it was back in the old days. You just set the jumpers for the high clock speed and eith the chip could take it or not. Also going with a pretty high average video card. I am going with the Geforce 7600GT with 256MB DDR3 memory. That should also be noticeably faster then my old Radeon 9800XT card.

>It does look like I can overclock my 4400+ up to 2.4 or even>possibly 2.6GHz rather easily if I upgrade the cooling. I>might go that route in the future. I don't know anything>about overclocking though. Is it just a matter of changing>the Motherboard settings? Thats what it was back in the old>days. You just set the jumpers for the high clock speed and>eith the chip could take it or not. > If your 4400+ is anything like my 3700+, you should be able to get 2.4 ghz no problem with stock air cooler.Most modern BIOSes allow for overclocking from within them, and jumper-changing is not required anymore. You would start by slightly increasing the clock speed (in mine, 200 x 11 = 2200 mhz = 2.2 ghz) and then try 204 x 11, for example, and work your way up.>Also going with a pretty high average video card. I am going>with the Geforce 7600GT with 256MB DDR3 memory. That should>also be noticeably faster then my old Radeon 9800XT card. > That card will do you fine until DX10 cards are out in force.Nice system :)RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.