Hi all, in a never ending quest to increase FSX performance I was wondering if anyone has upgraded from a Core 2 Duo to a Quad Duo with similar clock speeds and noticed any difference with FSX performance. I was considering this upgrade however at the moment I am running an E6700 at 3.32 Ghz and was concerned that I may not be able to achieve the same OC with a Quad chip and actually lose performance.Terry

Oops, just found the answer in the FSX Hardware forum.Terry

Yep, no difference save for loading times. That said, if Tileproxy takes off then a quad will rock.Strangely, I applied the microcode stability update the other day and I could swear it has delivered more solid high-end framerates - this could be a placebo effect but i have since cranked numerous settings with no performance change whatsoever . It may be that I have never bothered to try these settings out properly but I dunno ... i'm getting 50 - 70fps rock solid at 1680x1050 with most sliders to the middle or right.Andrew

>Yep, no difference save for loading times. That said, if>Tileproxy takes off then a quad will rock.>>Strangely, I applied the microcode stability update the other>day and I could swear it has delivered more solid high-end>framerates - this could be a placebo effect but i have since>cranked numerous settings with no performance change>whatsoever . It may be that I have never bothered to>try these settings out properly but I dunno ... i'm getting 50>- 70fps rock solid at 1680x1050 with most sliders to the>middle or right.>>AndrewAndrew, I am running basically the same system- would you mind sharing your .cfg file? Thanks!Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

My .cfg is stock - i have not changed a thing.I have just installed the global Ultimate Terrain X package, increased my mesh setting to 19m and my FPS have gone *up*. I don't understand FSX at all.Andrew

>My .cfg is stock - i have not changed a thing.>That means you are running with at least some autogen, depending on what FSX gave you when you installed it. That is amazing that you are getting 50-70 fps with some autogen.I need to get me an E6700 or a Quad I suppose. :)How does your system do in a place like New York City with AI flying around?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 have only ever flown GA aircraft in Australia since acquiring FSX so can't comment on big US cities etc. No doubt, I would take a hit in places like NY.I have mnade some videos to demonstrate how FSX runs and looks for me but am finding it hard to find a working, freeware DivX or Xvid converter (the orignial .avi files as recorded by FRAPS are huge). When I do, I will post a link and host the video off my company's webspace.Andrew

Ok, here is a short DivX video (mainly external spot) of me (well, the autopilot) flying the Flight1 Cessna Skyhawk east of Perth in Western Australia - scaled down from 1680x1050, running Ultimate Terrain X and Active Sky X and XGraphics. I would have been averaging about 50-55fps throughout the flight.The file is 24meg.http://www.huntlyconsulting.com.au/fsx/fsx1.aviIf you want me to record something specific, let me know.Andrew

Andrew,Did you ever get a chance to run that dynamic benchmark I emailed to you?Gary

GaryI ended up passing the dual core onto a friend so i was unable to but I did run another benchmark I found here on AVSIM beforehand and there was no noticeable performance difference between the dual and quad core. However, loading times were significantly improved and, for tileproxy, my tile download rates went through the roof - up to 1000 tiles per second prior to in-flight and 200-300 tiles per second while in-flight.Andrew

And, Terry, the quad is nowhere near as good an overclocker as the dual core. Most review sites have found that and I certainly found I could not o'clock the quad anything like the dual core.Andrew

No worries Andrew. I find I get pretty good overall performance with dual core by setting CPU affinity for FSX to one core and let all other addons and system processes use the second core. Whilst this does extend FSX loading times (although you can delay setting affinity until after everything is loaded to take the full benefit of both cores), I actually get higher FPS and seemingly smoother operation across everything else this way.I still haven't worked out what the other cores actually give to the FSX gameplay experience while flying along. I've run my system for hours at a time now, with both single and dual core affinities set, and I can't see any discernable difference, whether it be FPS, autogen / texture loading or smoothness, between the two. If anything, there is a slight FPS advantage in favour of a single core setup, which is really quite bizzare. I'd really like to know what those other cores do while flying along ???Your comment in the following thread that the quad cores don't overclock as well as the dual core offerings is reason for concern for me, as I'm thinking that a higher clocked dual core would yield better overall FSX performance. My concern is because I am considering getting a quad core in the next six months or so.Gary

GaryAs far as I can tell, the other cores will get to work when new textures need to be loaded but that's about it. I, too, run any other apps bound to the core I know FSX won't use for rendering, AI etc although have increasingly tended to use my laptop as a Wideclient/SimConnect client for ASX, Radar Contact and FS Commander.The overclocking is worth considering - I don't o'clock as this is also my work machine and I can't afford any unplanned instability etc. However, I like to know what my CPU can do so always test a new one out and found the quad did not like running at 300mhz per core with stock cooling whereas the dual core had no problems with it.Unless you plan on using Tileproxy alot, I would suggest not bothering going to a quad (at least, not for FSX - as more multi-threaded apps and games are releases a quad will look like a much better buy).Andrew

>>Unless you plan on using Tileproxy alot, I would suggest not>bothering going to a quad (at least, not for FSX - as more>multi-threaded apps and games are releases a quad will look>like a much better buy).>Do you think your opinion might change in 6 months? 8 months? Or do you see this as a problem we are going to see for a while yet?I only ask, because the "next generation" of cpu's seem to be simply 45nm process versions of the current 65nm cpu's. They will run cooler and consume less power, but not really be any faster. At least that is the vibe I am getting.So do you think the same advice about Quad's will hold true in 6-8-12 months?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 personally don't have any reason to believe that FSX is going to benefit substantially from a quad, ever. Nothing I have read suggests that Aces is going to be able to magically put all four cores to use when in-flight. However, my knowledge is pretty limited so it would be much better to ask Phil Taylor directly, if possible. You never know - they may be able to split off part of the rendering code or the AI, for example.Andrew