Hi,I am thinking about replacing my Athlon 3500+ processor and would like some advice from you guys. My "thinking" goes like this: FSX is out, it doesn't really support dual core processors, next version will be out in three years or so. After my recent RAID0 crash I only installed FS9 and am likely to keep it for a loooong time to come. I would like better performance than this: FlyTampa Vienna, off the runway, facing the terminal area in PMDG B744 and TrackIR running and 100% AI I only get between 8-10fps in VC. (slightly overclocked with Gigabyte Easytune)Does it make sense to go for the fastest single core processor at this point? Like Athlon FX-57 (my board supports it, or so it says)? It still costs an arm and a leg, but is there another option? I'm pretty sure that the processor is the limiting factor on my rig.What about power supply? Will my 450W thingie be enough? My system: Gigabyte GA-K8NF 9, nForce 4 chipsetAMD Athlon 64 3500+2Gb Corsair RAM PC3200Radeon X850XT PE Creative X-Fi Xtreme MusicThermaltake water cooling2x 160Gb Seagate SATA HDs1x 80Gb Seagate IDE HDSaitek X45 (USB)ChProducts yoke (USB)ChProducts flightstick + rudder pedals (analog)(had to install an old sound card for the game port)Thanks in advance! :)Regards,Jure

I'm very pleased with the E6400 I upgraded to. Overclocked to 3.4 Ghz with the supplied CPU cooler. Very competitive with more expensive processors for sure. I still have to make slider compromises, but it was a massive upgrade from my Athlon XP.

If you want to stay with your current 939 socket motherboard and RAM, (like I am) and don't want to spend too much, check out the FX-55 OEM that is being offered at Newegg.com for $139. They also have the 4000+ for a great price, I think it is less than $100.I'm still running a 3000+ Winchester, and noticed a significant improvement by replacing my Nvidia FX5500 with an eVGA 7900GS O/C for about $165. I'm planning to move to a faster processor soon, too.

Depends if you want to keep your existing motherboard (socket 939) and ram.If so then the cpus aspenleaf describes are great bargains (4000+ or FX55) and will do better for you in the scenery you describe. I can't say that will be a major speed increase though. Your 3500+ is pretty good anyway.If you don't mind a new motherboard and ram then a Core 2 E6600 is the best performance-for-the-money right now.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Thanks, guys. :)Ya, I want to keep my motherboard for now and RAM which was REALLY expensive. I'd rather invest into USB rudder pedals so I can get rid of that extra sound card and analog stick & pedals.Besides, I've always been an AMD user. Only my very first PC was a Celeron when I migrated from the Amiga. It's probably silly, I know that the E6600 is on the top at the moment but gimme an AMD on an nForce chipset motherboard and I'm happy. I'm getting old methinks. ;)Jure

I agree. I have no plans to leave the AMD 64 platform any time soon. It's a reliable, fast system. Before you know it, the Core Duo 2 systems will be superceded by something else. I'd rather wait until an upgrade is a necessity, and get the most for my money at that time. I'm still hurting from paying over $3000 for my Pentium 166 system about 10 years ago.

Having just gone from an A64 to C2D setup, I would have to say that it is the most revolutionary upgrade I have ever experienced in 10 years of upgrading every year or so. The performance leap is phenominal, they overclock like crazy, they run cool as a cucumber, they are stable as a rock and the price is very un-Intel cheap ($225 for my CPU). It's just a pity that every other game and application but FSX uses it's full potential.Gary

I just recently upgraded from a 3500+ (forget which core) to a 4000+ San Diego (I went with the retail version at newegg for $137), and I think I easily saw a 5 fps gain, from locked at 20 fps (mostly 18-ish with regular dips into the low teens, probably ActiveSky) to locked at 25 with pretty steady fps around 24 with occasional dips to high teens. I don't use heavy add-on scenery, but this is with FeelThere ERJ-145, which I believe is kind of a CPU hog. I also upgraded specifically for better FS9 performance.Thing about the socket 939 CPUs, from what I've been reading at Tom's Hardware forums lately it sounds like the stocks are starting to dry up and there will be no more coming. The advice over there is to get them while you can.Mark KuebelerWestWind Airlineswww.flywestwind.com

If you can get an FX-55 for the prices Aspenleaf posted...I'd Definatly do it!!! OR the 4000+...Either way...I'd Highly Recommend you go for it...I'm Kinda Crazy..I have upgraded computers Allot the last few years...I have allot of socket 939 stuff and will probably keep it too..Along the way I made the jump from the 3500+ to the 4000+...One of my best moves ever...I later built an FX-57 Rig...I love it too...It runs FS9 superbly...I can say...Without a doubt...For $100-150 bucks...Your not going to be disapointed either way you go...FX-55 if you can get it at that price...4000+ would be a great back-up plan...I ran my 4000+ OC'ed to 2.8 for a long time...I've since backed it down to stock speeds as I've done allot of parts swapping/shuffeling latley...But I'll probably boost it back up to 2.7ghz once I get it back together...It runs real nice...I'm going to stand on the other side of the fence right now on C2D...My C2D Ain't All That...I mean it's nice...It runs FS9 Very Very Well...But so do my FX-57 and 4800x2 and 4000+ systems...My C2D has yet to impress me reguarding FSX...Keep in mind...It's still pretty new to me...I have very little FSX time on it thusfar...But...I have a "Gut Feeling" it's going to take allot more than this to make FSX run the way I would like it to...Good Luck with your decision's...

>Having just gone from an A64 to C2D setup, I would have to>say that it is the most revolutionary upgrade I have ever>experienced in 10 years of upgrading every year or so. That sentence really surprises me. :) No, it really does. Especially considering some of the architectures we've seen over the last 4-5 years. I guess in your case, if you upgrade every year (which is more often than I do) the changes are more incremental. And in that case, I can see going from an A64 to C2D being quite a big step if you're used to small steps.My most revolutionary upgrade was going from a P4 1.8 to a 3700+. Hmm well maybe not.Or maybe 386SX/20 to 486DX2/66. But that was so long ago...I guess a person's most recent upgrade looms the biggest in one's mind...In terms of FS the 486 ran FS4 a little better than the 386 did but it wasn't night and day difference.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Thanks again, your comments and advice are much appreciated. :)I see that I will have to hurry if I want to get a decent processor. I will stay with socket 939 and my motherboard for sure. The thing is, I am from Europe and prices here are ridiculous. from 1000US$ to 1000EUR in Germany for the FX-57. In the US of A one can get one for app. 400US$. Why such difference? Thanks to Aspenleaf for the link to Newegg.com... they don't ship internationally, but starting from there I found a few online stores with decent prices that will ship to Europe. Will it be FX-55 or FX-57 or even 4000+ I am not sure yet and I'd like to ask:Is there really such a difference between the FX series and the "normal" 64 bit + series? Does the 1Mb L2 cache really matters so much? And, which processor of the three is best suited for overclocking? I don't intend to push it too much, but since I have liquid cooling and my 3500+ is running at 30 Celsius when under full blast from FS, well, I guess I have room enough. Jure

"Is there really such a difference between the FX series and the "normal" 64 bit + series?"The FX series have Unlock Multipliers...For Hardcore OC'ing this is a big advantage...For "Moderate" OC'ing it's not as big of a deal..."Does the 1Mb L2 cache really matters so much?"A short answer is NO..Not with the currently avaliable AMD processors...(Not sure about their future designs??)AMD's design doesn't rely on L2 cache for performance like Intel's design does...AMD's majic stems from the processors onboard memory controller...Intel had made the term "L2 cache" a buzzword...AMD basically added 1mb L2 cache to select processors in their line-up for marketing purposes...It wasn't a performance issue for them...All the processors you mentioned have 1mb L2 cache anyway..Don't they??"And, which processor of the three is best suited for overclocking? I don't intend to push it too much, but since I have liquid cooling and my 3500+ is running at 30 Celsius when under full blast from FS, well, I guess I have room enough."All of them should be very nice OC'ers...A "Slight" advantage may go to the FX's due to the Unlock Multipliers mentioned above...Like I say...I had a 4000+ running Very Sweet @ 2800mhz...Had I not taken the system apart for parts swapping reasons...It would still be running that today...I had NO Issues what so ever...It Ran Sweet...My Opinions on OC'ing:4000+ 2.6ghz would be very easy...2.75+ would start to get "HardCore"FX-55 I'd say 2.8 would be very easy..3.0 would enter into "HardCore" (I've never owned an FX55..)FX-57 3.0 would be very easy...I'm planning to take mine to 3.1 plus...I havn't done it yet so I can't offer many more details..Good Luck,

Let's see if I can back this up. Starting from 1996, I've upgraded in the following path:Pentium 120 (@ 133) -> Pentium 166MMX (@ 250) -> Celeron 266 (@ 400) -> Celeron 366 (@ 450) -> Pentium III 650 (@ 1000) -> Athlon 1200 (@ 1300) -> Athlon 1400 (@ 1500) -> P4 2400 (@ 2700) -> Althon XP 2500+ (@ 3200+) -> Athlon 64 3000+ (@ 3700+) -> C2D 2166 (@ 3600)This last upgrade is the only one where performance of CPU-bound games (ala FS series) has more than doubled in the process. As you can also see, I have a long history of OCing (haven't killed one yet!), and this one has been the best gain by far.Gary

>Let's see if I can back this up. Starting from 1996, I've>upgraded in the following path:>>Pentium 120 (@ 133) -> Pentium 166MMX (@ 250) -> Celeron 266>(@ 400) -> Celeron 366 (@ 450) -> Pentium III 650 (@ 1000) ->>Athlon 1200 (@ 1300) -> Athlon 1400 (@ 1500) -> P4 2400 (@>2700) -> Althon XP 2500+ (@ 3200+) -> Athlon 64 3000+ (@>3700+) -> C2D 2166 (@ 3600)>I would think that going from a Celery 366 to a P3/650 would have been a pretty major upgrade. But then I never ran a Pentium III so I can't really compare.Here's my progression from 1991-2006:386SX/20 --> 486DX2/66 --> P2/266 (@300) --> P2/400 (@450) --> P4/1.8 (@ 2.0) --> 3700+1991 --> 1994 --> 1996 --> 1998 --> 2002 --> 2006I don't think I am going to keep my 3700+ as long as I kept my P4/1.8.You can tell by my quick succession of upgrades in the mid and late 90's, that THAT period was where I was really into system building for both myself and others.Then later I got away from doing that.Now here lately I've been doing a little sys building on the side, I forgot how much fun it is...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian