July 22nd looks like a fun day. http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=789466Not sure if I want to go for the Quad @ 2.4GHz on the 1033MHz FSB, or the Dual @ 3.0GHz on the 1333MHz FSB. I'm sure the Dual will have much better OCing potential, and the higher FSB might benefit FSX quite a bit, but I just don't know yet how much benefit FSX will have with 4 cores over 2. Hopefully after SP1 someone will generate that data, though I don't suppose it is likely, or is it?

Dual 3 on the 1.3G bus. Bus speed very important FS9 can use dual to some extent, FSX less so (until patch ???),but quad does not help now and I don't think the patch will up the dominant threads to 4.Tom

Phil Taylor has said that SP1 will use dual and quad cores and even more once they are released.

ACES has said the more cores the better, but whether or not the two extra cores will offset raw clock speed we don't yet know. I would think I could clock the bus on the quad up to 1333 without much trouble, but I am wondering how high the 1333 bus will overclock, and what that 3.0Ghz chip will hit. I'm sure it will do 3.5Ghz or more quite easily, and the Quad will not even reach 3.0GHz.

SolarEagle, I think you're right on the mark when you say "we don't yet know" whether or not the two extra cores of a Q6600 will offset raw clock speed. Will additional cores be used mainly in the loading phase, or will they come in handy during real-time flying through dense scenery areas? How will higher FSBs enter into the equation? Fact is, nobody will know the answer until we can run actual hardware tests on SP1. Good news is, the wait for SP1 will be over within the next few hours, and the people with high-end systems can start reporting their findings to enable the rest of us to make more informed hardware decisions. With the imminent drops in CPU prices, and with Intel's new 45nm "Penryn" line just around the corner, things are looking very promising in FSX-land.

>Will additional cores be used mainly in the loading phase, or>will they come in handy during real-time flying through dense>scenery areas? How will higher FSBs enter into the equation? >Fact is, nobody will know the answer until we can run actual>hardware tests on SP1. I too hope that someone does this exact kind of test now.Quad-core vs. dual-core etc. etc. with SP1This will be of major importance for us all.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>I too hope that someone does this exact kind of test now.>>Quad-core vs. dual-core etc. etc. with SP1>>This will be of major importance for us all.>>>RhettAgreed. I think we'd need someone from AVSIM to help organize it, mainly for the sake of consistency. At a minimum, each flight would need to start from the same location in the same aircraft, and then fly a prescribed route where fps could be recorded. I wonder how hard it would be to make a "poll" where responses could easily be recorded by clicking radio buttons, etc.? The results would be interesting, to say the least.

Yes definitely. If it were clear how much two and four cores benefit over a single, it would help many make much more informed decisions.Does this website have the resources to aquire the HW and test a C2D with one core disabled, running two cores, and a quad, all at the same clock speed?Certainly somebody could make it happen, and it would be a great service to the community.

I see people on forum who have quads are faster than my dual with SP1. I will say go for the quad.

With the new affinity mask setting in FSX.CFG introduced by SP!, all we need is someone with a quad core to run an FSX benchmark using one, two and four cores by changing the mask setting to answer the mulitcore benefit question. ie.(JOBSCHEDULER) (square, not round, brackets here)AffinityMask=nwhere n num of cores scheduled1 = 1 core 00013 = 2 cores 00117 = 3 cores 011115= 4 cores 1111The FSX benchmark recently resurrected in this sub-forum would be perfect to use.Any quad core owner takers out there willing to try this?Gary

I am probably going to rebuild late this year with one of those 45nm process cpu's. Probably will be a quad-core too. Have to see how things pan out.We need quad owners like Buck Bolduc to weigh inRhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Well guys, I just did a little comparison of dual versus single core using my new found toy, affinitymask, and the performance results were surprisingly the same. I used the FSX benchmark in this thread http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=24071&page= and got exactly the same FPS whether I ran both cores (1 and 2), core 1 or core 2 (verified using task manager). Across multiple runs, the 60 second average result was always 20 FPS for spot view and 25 FPS for VC. I did notice that the second core was only being used sporadically over 60 seconds, but then later got a lot more use as I left the initial load up area, so I did a 5 minute FPS average measurement for single and dual core alike. Guess what .... the same 17 FPS was recorded for both :-hmmm The only conclusion I can reach is that whatever the second core is doing, it ain't anything in the FPS helping department. Perhaps the second core is counting sheep in the paddocks below. :-lol Gosh only knows what a third or fourth core would spend their time doing.Gary

What I find sitting at Rnwy 31L JFK, With 100% Traffic, Weather set to fair, I see 20-23 FPS either with the affinitymask set to single core (2) or Dual Core (3). However as I roll down the runway and get closer to the terminals, my fps will drop between 16-17 FPS while when it's set to dual core it holds a steady 20+ frame rate all the way down the runway and right over NYC. So while it appears they are both the same, to me it looks like dual core yields a more consistent result!!