I understand that multicore CPUs won't help FS9 performance alone. However, if you use programs like Active Sky 6 and Radar Contact in the background, will a multicore CPU help?Thanks,RH

Yes. For me, AS6 and FSBuild run at top speed without having to minimise FS9 to free up CPU cycles for them.Gary

Thanks,If that is the case, I will probably wait and go for dual core CPU instead of the FX57 I had my eye on.Thanks,RH

IF you have the Dreamfleets Baron which uses the Reality XP Garmin 530, The GPS trainer runs on the second core. OR you can force it to run on the second core with the affinity setting.The first additional core does come into use for non FS9 stuff. Manny

In this case, is Active Sky 6 and Radar Contact considered non FS9 stuff (programs used on the second core)?RH

Yeah..those are two seperate programs as far as Windows XP is concerned.Manny

I wonder if a quad core would help with four or more add-ons running in the background in FS9. From the logic presented here, it certainly would.RH

Hi,Oh yes it does!As6 and FsFx running like a dream!HP E6400 2GB Ram ATI 1500Makes landings a lot more nerve jangling as ground just screams by!Wings flexing, 300 feet on approach, weather at real, look out passenger window over wing of default Airbus 321, and its fantastic!This is without Vista, if it ever appears!

>I wonder if a quad core would help with four or more add-ons>running in the background in FS9. From the logic presented>here, it certainly would.>>RHTheoratically yes. But AS6 and Radar Contact require so little processing time. Even if they all run on 1 core, it would still only use a small portion of the additional core. Its an overkill for each of them to have a core.Maanny

Thanks for the information. How about third party air traffic programs (i.e., Ultimate Traffic) that are supposed to put a performance hit on FS9? Do you think a dual core processor could help with that? I think the answer to this question will seal my decision. Thanks,RH

Nope.. UT traffic bgl files are used within FS9/FSX.Manny

Thanks, It looks like I will upgrade my Athlon64 3800 (2.4Ghz 512 L2 cache) to an Athlon FX 57 (2.8Ghz 1Gb L2 cache). I'll avoid the expense of the X2 FX version.RH

>Thanks, It looks like I will upgrade my Athlon64 3800 (2.4Ghz>512 L2 cache) to an Athlon FX 57 (2.8Ghz 1Gb L2 cache). I'll>avoid the expense of the X2 FX version.>>RHRH,I am not that familiar with the AMD series. How much would your AMD upgrade cost? if its anything close to $400, I would recommend go with the Core 2 Duo+MBManny