than dual core processors for FSX with SP1 patch, which apparently will provide at least some signifcant support for multi-core? I know it's a stretch to be talking about exactly what practical effect SP1 will have on improved performance in multicore over single core machines since SP1 isn't out yet. But still, what do you think? Quad is good, or no?Now that there is something positive about FSX performance enhancement with SP1 I am contemplating . . . a system upgrade. FS has always driven system upgrades, and alas the iffy testimony caused me to not want to even get into FSX, until this new hope comes along. Yeah!Gotta love it!Noel

No, unles you aer in the beta team using quad core, you are jumping the gun so seriously. At this point, NO assumptions shoul dbe made about SP1. One developers blog says multi-core will be supportde3, another says here that it won't. When even ACES aren't sure what point is there in speculating? Come back in a month.Allcott

If you do decide to upgrade, get the fastest cpu possible.That would at present be a quad-core. Even if FS is only mostly using one of its cores, it is STILL the fastest boat in town.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

>No, unles you aer in the beta team using quad core, you are>jumping the gun so seriously. At this point, NO assumptions>shoul dbe made about SP1. One developers blog says multi-core>will be supportde3, another says here that it won't. When even>ACES aren't sure what point is there in speculating? >>Come back in a month.>>>AllcottWell, speculation is fun Allcott.

Really? I thought the E6800 could be pushed further/faster than the kentsfield...Are there any tests out there....I'm actually justcurious for myself...especially in apps written for the "old" single cores

The only benchmark I could find that compared my 3.06 Northwood vs the top quad and dual core extreme processors was PCMark05 on tomshardware. If I read it correctly, the top cpu would be roughly a 85% increase over my CPU. I don't know how much overclocking room there is with those, but if it's similar to mine now I can expect I guess about a 85-90% increase (in whatever PCMark05 is measuring. I guess it's several different things besides the CPU/memory but I don't really know. I hate to upgrade for less than a doubling of thruput in most programs I use. I'd like to not spend $4K on a system either which one could do with SLI and lots of good memory etc.

>Really? I thought the E6800 could be pushed further/faster>than the kentsfield...>I wasn't talking about overclocking...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Quad-core test using FSX, link below -http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/642Ray

A Core2 Extreme is beating a quad? That's really something else.It will be interesting to see if SP1 changes any of this.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case