Hi allI currently run an E6600 dual core (o'clocked with stock cooling to 2.7ghz per core), 2gig RAM and a Radeon 1950XT.Am considering stepping up to a Q6600 Core2 Quad solely for a performance boost in FSX. Does any one have any experience with this CPU and/or any advice as to whether or not the upgrade would deliver a noticeable performance improvement?ThanksAndrew

I haven't done said upgrade, but I am also thinking about doing it. I think there will be very few people that will have upgraded from a C2D this way just yet, hence the reason for no reply to your question.I do, however, have a cunning plan! If anyone out there with a core 2 quad, a video card of at least ATI 1900 or nVidia 7900, and 2GB RAM would like to answer this question for the rest of us by running a little test I have put together, please either post here or PM me.It won't hurt, I promise ;)Gary

Also interested to see if any advantage in QUAD vs DUAL now that SP1 is out and making use of my 2nd core.

No experience with Intel,s quad core. I imagine it would run all cores fine.On my machine all four cores run close to 100% with FSX/SP1.I also noticed NO reduction in FPS with LDS's new FSX add on. JFK still gives me over 30 FPS with high settings, looks real nice and is fluid.LDS gave registered users a heads up last evening, was able to download the FSX-767 for $14.95, a heck of a deal!If your a registered user make sure to DLoad the correct coupon to a place where you can point to it during the install process.Instructions are on Level-D's site.The software industry is starting to wake up to the fact that multi core is a reality for desktop systems and will write software to use the core's.

Better take one for the team, then, and buy one and run pre and post install frametests (which I will post here).Thanks to those who replied - much appreciated.Andrew

I'm sure we can entice someone with a C2D quad core to do this test for us without you having to be a crash test dummy Andrew. We may even have to venture into the the bigger FSX forum, where posts are more regularly viewed and the chance of an unsuspecting volunteer are greater ;)Gary

yes there was a guy on the forum who had hopeless frame rates, he had a Quadcore mean machine and he was really fustrated, then he set the sliders to unlimited and he got 50-80 fps on FSX,this is true, just do a search in the forums on fsx.

Even though ACES has rewritten sections of the code to utilize multiple cores wouldn't the entire code need to be re-written as multithreaded to truly make good use of the multi cores all the time? My Core 2 Duo does get more usage since the SP1 patch but it is nothing like the difference you see in things like Cinema 4D (a 3d modeling package) where its render engine is actually written to be multithreaded completely and does result in closer to a doubling of the processing power and halfing of the render output time from my older single core P4.I am sort of curious if it is really better to use a multi-core Intel chip that runs at 2.x Ghz or a really fast single core or AMD 64 x2 6000+. Since FSX is coded as a primarily single threaded app if you are getting a machine for FSX as the primary usage I wonder if the higher speed would yield better results than one of the dual/quad core chips. I have seen several folks here with AMD 4000+ systems but really haven't seen one of the higher clocks reported their performance in FSX.

That doesn't make sense though as the C2D's are faster using a single core than any of the previous Netburst chips, regardless of the higher clock speed.It's all about the architecture....Just look at the original benchmarks when C2D was launched. C2D gives Netburst (and AMD) a hiding in every test, including single core apps.Glenn

Well, we will find out soon - i'm placing an order for the quad today and should have it in the next 48 hours, maybe less (my company can pay for it, which takes the sting out of the buy).Any suggestions for a good documented testing methodology or framerate test application that I can use to conduct before and after tests for the benefit of forum readers?Andrew

Ok, the quad has arrived and I should collect tomorrow unless laziness gets the better of me (live a fair drive from the city). Once I have it, i'll benchmark before and after, chart the results, post etc.Andrew

Hi Andrew,I'd use FRAPS for benchmarking. You can hotkey the start and end points, and when its done it produces some spreadsheets with min/max/ave, frame times etc.My benchmarking procedure is this:- Configure the settings you want and save them, including FPS unlimited.- Fly to the area you want to test, switch on the autopilot, switch to the view you want, pause and save the flight.To run a benchmark:- Load the settings you wish to test.- Load the flight. When it's done loading, I usually let the sim run for about 5-10 seconds to stabilise everything (e.g. make sure texture loading is up to date). Be careful with weather. When I have saved "overcast" in custom weather settings, it does not always reload the same amount of cloud cover when loading a flight. This could affect your results. After loading the flight, I always reconfigure the weather to make sure it is predictable.- Start fraps, sit back and enjoy!I try to avoid doing anything that could skew the results, like switching views etc during the benchmark.As well as the objective results in FPS, think about subjective observations too:- Any more or less stutters.- Any more or less blurries.It would be interesting to assess the following scenarios in your test:- Max scenery objects, everything else set left on the sliders, and fly over airport/city like Seattle, Heathrow, NY etc.- Max autogen, one in countryside (trees) and one in city (buildings)- Max AI traffic (planes, boats, cars, airport vehicles- Max weatherAnd then a real world scenario, e.g.VFR Flying. Max scenery, Max autogen, Max weather, some road/boat vehiclesIFR Flying. Max AI, Max weatherWater. Max Water, scenery, autogen, weatherI guess that's a lot of work, and reflects my areas of interest, and I'm sure yours will vary.If there's anything I can do to help I'd be glad too, and I'm very interested in your results. I'm starting to despair again concerning FSX performance!Simon

Andrew,PM me with you email address and I will set you up with a dynamic benchmark over Seattle, which you can use to do before and after tests. It will clearly show FPS-wise what benefit (or not) the extra cores will do for you. FRAPS will also be required and I can set you up with the freeware version if you don't already have it. Example output is below.Garyhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173566.jpg

Ok, picking up the quad tomorrow - been a bit ill so not been able to get it yet.I'll run pre and post benchmarks and post them immediately. I may also mess around with different affinity mask settings for different benchmarks to see if it has any impact.Andrew

Thanks Andrew.I have been looking for something like this. I have a dual core and am considering a Quad core.Manny