Wish more of these guys would use FS as a benchmarker. Hexus sometimes does, but X-bit continues a more mainstream conversation here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/displ...quad-q6600.htmlNote especially, their forward looking slant. And then a look toward the past. Intel has had this running since last February.http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33657/135/"One simulation Intel ran on a (single) Tera-scale chip of the future involved replacing a 130-processor e-commerce system with a single Tera-scale CPU. The real-world system was comprised of 63 boxes and 130 processors. Intel accomplished the same workload and throughput with 1 Tera-scale processor, which housed 32 cores and 128 threads, Bautista told us."I imagine software community is entirely aware this is where we are going . . . in very short order.If the Q6600 and the E6850 are about the same price, current FSX performances are within a smidge, it seems to me the (O/C'd) Q6600 is a vastly more rational choice.

Sam,I agree that if you can get a quad at the same core speed as dual for the same price, then the quad is a more rational choice. However if you take the non-overclocker, which frankly is average Joe out there, then the X6850 pulls 15-20% higher FPS in FSX than the similarly priced quad. The margin narrows if overclocking is thrown into the equation, with dual's still overclocking at least about 5-10% higher than quads, but then there's all that extra heat to get rid of with a quad.Don't get me wrong: quads, octs and mega-cores will definitely have their day with FS, but I don't reckon so for FSX. So IMO, those building a system optimised for FS right now, especially average Joe, are currently better served by a dual core solution. Gary

Thanks again Gary and Vic,The timing of your tests couldn't have been better for my upcoming build. I think I am going to buy the E6850, overclock it, and maybe replace with a quad core later; once DX10, Tileproxy, 45nm quad+ CPUs have developed.This being my first build AND overclock, I think the dual is a better choice for me.

Thanks for all the work. What vid drivers are you guys running? (or did I miss it?)scott s..

I was using 162.50 WHQL. I didn't bother mentioning it because, with the couple of different video drivers I have tried since owning my 8800GTS, I have not seen one make a difference in this banchmark yet. Same goes for the eight months that I used a 7900 GTO.Gary

Thanks. I have my new hardware on order, so I'm d/ling stuff I need and got the XP 162.18 and 163.44 beta to try out.scott s..

>Thanks. I have my new hardware on order, so I'm d/ling stuff>I need and got the XP 162.18 and 163.44 beta to try out.>>scott s.>.>Hi Scott - I was using the TweakForce 163.44 drivers(that's the old TweaksRUS group)VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/