Ok, i'm not even going to go to the trouble of putting together charts and posting them ... the in-game performance difference is not even noticeable (maybe one or two fps irrespective of autogen and scenery settings).The gain with the quad can be seen with much faster loading times which concurs with Phil Taylor's blog where he indicates that multi-cores are beneficial because they can spread the loading processes across all cores. Running the performance manager in the background, it is clear that all four cores get hammered at load time but once all is settled down and the game is running, the first core is maxed and the rest are barely in use.I ran some FRAPS benchmarks in-game using one of the stock files available and there was almost no difference while in-game - some improvement when the weather refreshed or the scenery changed radically due to a sharp turn etc (again, this is loading) but, apart from that, it was no different from my E6600 running a stock speeds.For me, a quad is still valuable because I use other intensive, multi-threaded applications like 3d modelling and rendering tools but if you are looking for an FSX performance boost only and you already have a decent dual core, forget it.Feel free to interrogate me further if you like ... I still have the dual core so can always go through a more rigorous benchmarking process if people are insistent that that is what they need to see.Andrew

I guess that's not what we would have hoped for. What were your scenery settings, in terms of mesh, scenery complexity, autogen, weather and AI aircraft and vehicles? Also do you have any photoscenery products to try out?You core utilisation is interesting. On my E6400 at 3.2Ghz the second core is always somewhere between 50% and 100% in flight.

I ran a number of benchmarks with scenery, autogen, mesh etc ranging from very low to very high with no real difference in results. Having read Phil's blog, this sounds like what Aces would expect - he points out that they were unable to multi-thread much of the rendering code at all but were able to multi-thread things like scenery and texture loading.Tomorrow I may mess around with affinity mask etc and see if I get a difference there and perhaps tweak my fsx.cfg to see if that has an impact.If anyone has any suggestions for forcing a greater load onto the non-primary core, please feel free to make them and i'll give it a shot.Andrew

Andrew,thanks for that info. I never expected FPS increase so no surprise there. After all there is only one thread used for the primary task. However could you please post the screen shot of "Windows Task manager (Performance tab)?What I was expecting is less bluries. If the quad core helps in that department then it has servered its purpose.Do you have Ultimate terrain running? Could you run FSX in a big city environment using a payware airliner like LVd-d and fly at greater than 250kts and Ultimate terrain and see if you get blurries? If that is possible. and a screen shot of the Windows task manager at that time.ThanksManny

I can certainly do that this weekend and will post by Sunday.Andrew

Hello Andrew,From your experience with both the E6600 and Q6600. Do you think the E6850 (2 x 3.0) will outperform the Q6600 (4 x 2.4) in FSX (in FSX only, when running the game). They will be the same price in July's price cut. For computing power, I think the Q6600 will take the lead. However, seems not many games or softwares will support or fully support the Quad core in coming up 2 years.To focus on the FSX performance, is it better to buy a faster dual core than a slower quad core for better performance?look forward to hear from you!Thank youAlkit

With the Q6600, are you getting blurries at all?If the texture loading is fast enough to eliminate blurries then I'm a happy camper.

Andrew did you find a difference in performance when using addons?I'd think that assigning addons like ASX or radar contact to a dedicated core might improve in game performance compared top a dual core cpu?any experience in that direction?thanks!

>Hello Andrew,>>From your experience with both the E6600 and Q6600. >Do you think the E6850 (2 x 3.0) will outperform the Q6600 (4>x 2.4) in FSX (in FSX only, when running the game). They will>be the same price in July's price cut. For computing power, I>think the Q6600 will take the lead. However, seems not many>games or softwares will support or fully support the Quad core>in coming up 2 years.>>To focus on the FSX performance, is it better to buy a faster>dual core than a slower quad core for better performance?>>look forward to hear from you!>>Thank you>AlkitI can't say for sure but I would have thought you would get slower initial loading with the E6850 but better in-game performance given the faster cores.Andrew

>With the Q6600, are you getting blurries at all?>If the texture loading is fast enough to eliminate blurries>then I'm a happy camper.No blurrries at all but I never had them with the dual core either.Andrew

>Andrew did you find a difference in performance when using>addons?>I'd think that assigning addons like ASX or radar contact to a>dedicated core might improve in game performance compared top>a dual core cpu?>>any experience in that direction?>>thanks!Still to test this properly - will do so today.Andrew

>No blurrries at all but I never had them with the dual core>either.>>AndrewVery nice! Does this include jets? I notice you fly the SF260 alot but can you fly the heavy metal without blurries?I love flying airliners but my blurry problem has kept me away. :(Thanks for everything, Andrew! ;)

Has anyone any info regarding the blurries please?I am running an Athlon XP 4000 2.4GHZ with 1mb L2 cache, I am upgrading this week to either the E6850 Duo or the Q6600 Quad.Would either of these kill my blurries when flying the Level D 767?thanksGray

I have some blur issue with Megascenery Hawaii, flying with GA. The texture will be loaded but at the later time. Not a serious issue anyway.But interesting finding is, for Hawaii, if i fly with default (quite high visual setting), fps with 13-4with same setting but with MegaScenery (waaaaaaay better in quality and realistic), the fps jump to 22-23Alkit