I have been specing out a new PC and was looking at various dual core processors. Someone asked a very good question for which I don't have an answer... and was wondering if anyone out there could help to answer it.The question is: "with FS9 and FSX really being single thread wouldn't it make more sense to use a single core 3.8 GHz processor than a 2.4-8 dual-core?"Would a more powerful single core CPU be more beneficial than a dual core?Thanks!

For the moment--Yes. Absolutely yes.FSX doesn't support dual cores at all. I have the FX-60 (twin 2.6 processors) and it appears that FSX is is treating it like a single core 2.6. My suggestion would be to get the fastest single core you can afford, unless you are wanting to be ready for the many other games that will soon support multi cored computers. Going after a single core has two advantages: #1 its cheaper. An FX-57 will run terrific and is going for about $150 right now. #2 Unless you drop ALOT of money on a Intel Core 2, there isn't a dual core out there that will be able to run FSX as well. Many are reporting that the FX-57 is doing a terrific job with FSX. (Remember that AMD chips run at lesser speeds, but their unique architecture makes them comparable to Intel chips in the 3.2-3.6 range)Only drawback as I mentioned earlier is that the future lies with multicore computers. Vista will support them. And most games in 1-2 years will support them too. FSX missed the boat in this respect. But if FSX is your focus and money is tight, go with the FX-57 now, and upgrade to a FX-60 when the multi-thread apps start appearing. By then the FX-60 will be cheap anyway (and both the 57 and 60 run on the 939 Motherboard setup)One more thing to add: If you have the money, absolutely get the Intel Core 2 chip. They have a midrange chip for about $300 that apparently smokes even the FX-62. Remember too that when the FX-60 came out, it cost me $1000. So if you have the extra $150, go Intel (I've got tears rolling down my cheeks as I type this LOL)Hope this all helps!

:-hmmm I must admit you have confused me... I am not sure what you are recommending. You started by recommending a fast single core... but then you ended by saying "absolutely" get an Intel Core 2 (isn't that a dual core)?One chip I had been looking at wss the Intel Duo Core E6600, 4M sharing L2 Cache. Would your recommendation to get that over something like the FX-57?Thanks!

>:-hmmm >I must admit you have confused me... I am not sure what you>are recommending. You started by recommending a fast single>core... but then you ended by saying "absolutely" get an Intel>Core 2 (isn't that a dual core)?>>One chip I had been looking at wss the Intel Duo Core E6600,>4M sharing L2 Cache. Would your recommendation to get that>over something like the FX-57?>>Thanks!Maybe I can help....FS9/FSX - Yes, they are single core by nature... they don't FULLY take advantage of the 2nd core in a dual core setup. They DO offload a few tasks though, so the 2nd core can help a bit. LIKEWISE, with 2 cores, you don't have other OS-related tasks chewing up the valuable processing space of the 1st core while you're trying to get FS running full tilt. Having the second core allows you someplace else to do all the OS processing so FS can use as much of 1 core as possible.Now, with that said - if you do a 100% apples to apples comparison - an Athlon64 4000+ (single core running at 2.4 Ghz 1MB cache) to a 4800+X2 (dual core 2.4Ghz 1MB cache per core, so it's basically 2 4000+'s slapped together), the end result is going to be very similar, but the X2 will slightly outperform the 4000+ in FS.The Core2 Duo chips are faster than the A64X2 chips by about 20-30% at the same clock speed. So, a 2.4Ghz Core2Duo will outperform a 2.4Ghz Ath64X2 4800+ by about 20-30% (in most benchmarks). Does that clear it up for ya?In short, don't even bother with the old P4's or Pentium D's unless you want a cheap upgrade and your MB can take the chip without requiring you to buy new MB + Ram and everything else....--2002cbr600f4i

>:-hmmm >I must admit you have confused me... I am not sure what you>are recommending. You started by recommending a fast single>core... but then you ended by saying "absolutely" get an Intel>Core 2 (isn't that a dual core)?>>One chip I had been looking at wss the Intel Duo Core E6600,>4M sharing L2 Cache. Would your recommendation to get that>over something like the FX-57?>Absolutely that would be my recommendation.A Core 2 Duo is a whole new generation faster than an FX57 and there is no question that if you are system building now, for ultimate speed, the Core 2 Duo is the ticket.On the other hand, if you already have a lot of $$$ invested in an AMD platform, like a Socket 754 or 939 motherboard, then it is cheaper for you to get an FX57, 4800+ or something like that.BTW, FSX is in fact a multithreaded application, contrary to your statement in post#0. It just is not as multithreaded as we would like it to be. :) It's not multithreaded enough to make it worthwhile for me, for example, to upgrade my 3700+ to a 4800+. I'd rather spend the money on a 19" LCD--something I can use no matter what system I have behind it.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I can make it real simple for y'all. From the E6600 and above, the Core 2 Duo is faster in FS9 / FSX than any other CPU out there, dual core or not and regardless of how little these games use the second core. If you throw overclocking into the equation, even the girliest Core 2 Duo, the E6300, cranked to nominally achievable speeds will pants any other CPU out there!Gary

As of Today, OCt, Friday the 13th 2006.Go with the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4G ($320 or so) or the faster/expensive chip of the same family. E6700 2.6G and X6800 2.9GI have the E6600 with the ASUS P5W-DH deluxe Motherboard..and I have overclocked it to 3.3Ggz. You can also get the cheaper but good Gigabyte motherboard for this family of chips. $150 or so. So far $480 you could get a hotshot PC that would give you atleast 20FPS on the FSX with the sliders almost all to the right. :)Manny

I think I'm missing something...The question was a single core 3.8 GHz processor versus a dual-core unit (AMD or Intel, doesn't matter). Looking at the E6700, you have 2.67, or thereabouts versus 3.8 for the "old technology" P4. Considering the limitations in FSX in utilizing a dual-core processor, which offers the better performance for flight simualator, forgetting any other game application? The first response said get the 3.8, everyone elses response shifted to only dual-core technology as the way to go. Why?

>I think I'm missing something...>>The question was a single core 3.8 GHz processor versus a>dual-core unit (AMD or Intel, doesn't matter). Looking at the>E6700, you have 2.67, or thereabouts versus 3.8 for the "old>technology" P4. Considering the limitations in FSX in>utilizing a dual-core processor, which offers the better>performance for flight simualator, forgetting any other game>application? The first response said get the 3.8, everyone>elses response shifted to only dual-core technology as the way>to go. Why?>>Intels latest offering..The Core2 Duo line of processors..you see everyone mentioning...Are the Highest performance..Latest generation hardware avaliable to date...Even the lower end C2D's offer as much or more performance than Anything AMD has to offer..Single core or Dual core...P4 technology is out dated...Prior to the release of Intel C2D...The tabels had been turned...AMD's line *was* King if the Hill from a gaming standpoint...Today...Intel Core2 Duo's are King of the Hill...This is from a raw performance standpoint...They happen to be dual core processors...The 3.8 "old technology" P4 won't hold a candle to the 2.67 "new technology" Core2 Duo..www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/Hope that Helps??

The Core 2 duo is not just two core. It is Intel's new "Core 2" processor architecture, the next generation of Pentium D. "Core 2" is the name of the architecture, and 'Duo' means two cores. Eventhough they run slower per clock speed, performance is high. The e6600 at 2.4GHz performs better than any thing on the market, be it AMD or Pentium D. Of course, except the e6700. On top of that, these new chips are very overclock friendly. The e6600 is regularly over clocked to 3.5 GHz or above. Just imagine that if a 2.4 GHz processor can out perform everything on the market, what can the same processor do at 3.5 or 4 GHz do. I say, definitely get a core 2 duo machine and over clock it by at least 25%. Or if you go with water cooling, over clock it by 50%.

"Now, with that said - if you do a 100% apples to apples comparison - an Athlon64 4000+ (single core running at 2.4 Ghz 1MB cache) to a 4800+X2 (dual core 2.4Ghz 1MB cache per core, so it's basically 2 4000+'s slapped together), the end result is going to be very similar, but the X2 will slightly outperform the 4000+ in FS"I did Exactly that...Another story...But the 4800x2 Did Not perform as well as the 4000+ in FS...

As the others suggest: Forget about the clock speed. A Core 2 Duo architecture cpu will be faster than a higher-clock speed Pentium 4.It doesn't matter that the Core 2 Duo is a dual-core cpu. What matters is that irregardless of whether the app is using one core or two, the Core 2 duo is the fastest line of cpu's on the market right now.So...if you are building from scratch, build around a Core 2 Duo. If you are upgrading an existing AMD setup, go with FX57 or one of their dual-core lines.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>I think I'm missing something...>>The question was a single core 3.8 GHz processor versus a>dual-core unit (AMD or Intel, doesn't matter). Looking at the>E6700, you have 2.67, or thereabouts versus 3.8 for the "old>technology" P4. Considering the limitations in FSX in>utilizing a dual-core processor, which offers the better>performance for flight simualator, forgetting any other game>application? The first response said get the 3.8, everyone>elses response shifted to only dual-core technology as the way>to go. Why?>>I know exactly what you are asking Jon. IF CPU processor is based on how many processing cycles... Why would a high number perform poorer than the one with a lower number. I have the same Q. I have no Answer. One of those mysteries of life .. very unsetlling indeed! Atleast until someone knowledgable comes by and set us all straight. :)Manny

I am not that knowledgeable but I think you will find it is because it is a 64 bit processor. All of the internal parts (ALU, cache etc) are much wider. If you look at any of the 64 bit CPU's they tend to have lower clock speeds than the old 32 bit items.The Core 2 Duo o/c'd has so much grunt that you can more or less run FSX with all sliders maxed if you have a decent graphics card and do one or two cfg tweaks. Mind you, I don't know what would happen with add ons.

>I know exactly what you are asking Jon. IF CPU processor is>based on how many processing cycles... Why would a high number>perform poorer than the one with a lower number. I have the>same Q. Because the one with the lower number just happens to be optimised to complete more instructions per clock cycle that the older technology processor. For example, if it can do twice as many instructions per clock cycle, having a new technology 2.4GHz CPU would be like having a 4.8GHz older technology processor, which of course would beat out an older technology 3.8GHz core.I'm not sure what the actual instruction to clock improvement ratio is going from P4 to Core 2, but given that an E6600 spanks every other CPU out there running at a measily 2.4GHz, save for its faster siblings, it's a pretty darn impressive boost! Gary