The general talk seems to be that Intel has the advantage over AMD with regards to duo processors. I am thinking of buying, You can accept the certificate for the session. It will ask you everytime.https://secure.cbit.ca/retail_productdetail...dNo=CPU-I58-523 It looks like a fast processor. The motherboard I am looking at takes 2 PCI-E video boards as I want to hook up 4 monitors. 2 ATI cards.JimCYWG

Jim,I'd get the quad core Q6600 over this, should be about the same price... Future stuff is gonna benefit more from that than from a faster dual core.

Thanks for the info Ryan. I will do that.JimCYWG

Yes, a quad may benifit you more with the next FS version, perhaps in 2 years time. Until then, a faster clocked dual core will serve you better.Gary

The latest Intel G0 quad cores are going to 3.6Ghz. The top Intel dual cores get another 100Mhz to 3.7Ghz. This much is true: 1) Quads don't really help FSX. 2) There seems to a very real 1:1 FPS relationship between FSX and individual core speed. 3 Therefore, it's clearly true that a well tuned (O/C'd), current dual core will get you a ~3% general performance increase over a well tuned (O/C'd), current quad core (3.7Ghz vs 3.6Ghz). The question then becomes: If the price is the same between a 3.7Ghz dual and a 3.6Ghz quad . . . 1) Is the 3% performance increase (for instance, 20FPS to 21FPS) a dual might provide 'in the mean time' worth re-spending ~$300 later for a 'then required' quad? 2) Will the faster dual core's performance boost even be noticeable 'in the mean time'? 3) Or, am I willing forgo that 3% performance boost so when the software performance DOUBLE comes (Multiple cores are Fully enabled in Fry Cry, and Will Be be in FS11) I will already have those extra two cores freely available. Those extra 2 cores will not only be freely available, but will have been absolutely Free. Well, that's not exactly true. The quad will cost me a 3% FSX performance hit, pre-FS11. Others might be willing to spend $300 for an additional 3% performance boost to this "FSX Transitional Product," but that's just too rich for me. For a build right now, a quad core will be run FSX within 3% of anything available. When the software guys finally begin to achieve their Holy Grail of multi-core functionality, I will NoT have to re-buy hardware. I will already own it . . . and it cost me nothing! I like free stuff.I say go for the quad, now.

Most people don't overclock, so for them a dual core at 3.0GHz will serve them better in FSX than the a quad at 2.4GHz of the same price.Gary

So you are recommending that someone forgoes 20% better improvement over two years in the hope that FS11 brings in the bacon for those extra two cores that have been idle for so long? The real likelihood is that in two years time, the current quads will be just as old school as the duals of today, just like a hot Pentium 4 or A64 platform of two years ago is not in the game of high performance with FSX. And at that time, that $300 premium for the newest now will have dropped significantly lower to sub-$100 for an entry level quad or oct core system. So IF FS11 actually does benefit so much from extra cores, then the recovery price is acceptable IMO, especially considering you have benefited from 20% better performance for a full 2 years while waiting for this miracle to happen.I have been playing the computer hardware game for more years than I care to remember now, and the one historcal lesson that always repeats itself is that it rarely pays to buy hardware IN ANTICIPATION of what future software MAY DO.I still say for the non-overclockers with FSX primarily in mind, dual core is the way to go because of the guaranteed extra performance over quad core while you actually care.Gary

". . . So you are recommending that someone forgoes 20% better improvement over two years in the hope that FS11 brings in the bacon for those extra two cores that have been idle for so long?"Yes. Exactly. $100 per Frame-per-second is a simply ridiculous amount to give for current performance. A totally free, 200% increase in future performance (FS11, FarCry, and everything else between now and then) is simply too much to give up.FSX is at least a year behind the leader, Crytek. The future is clear and present. FryCry's release is next month. That means the software technology to enable this 'magical' multi-core capability is right here, right now. The future will be Doubles, then Doubles again, in CPU HP based on number of cores. Crytek is there, now. I assume Aces will be able to figure it out too. (Truth be known, I'll bet they already have.)The strategy I suggest looks for 10X (yes, 1000%) increases in CPU HP between builds. A quad now gets a 10X increase over a P4 anything. P4 to a C2Quad is the 1000% increase trigger point, N O W. - - - But this upgrade could also be forward looking, if one cares to look. This upgrade point might allow a user to forgo the next double . . . at least that's the plan. Let's look ahead. The double I'm suggesting a user forgo is "Nehalem." Nehalem will release on the Penryn's 45nm silicon, but will be an entirely new micro architecture. It will run on eight, hyperthreaded cores. This is not pipe-dreaming magic. It ran at Intel's latest IDF in San Francisco last month. It is scheduled for release in the 2nd half of 08. Also, it will use an AMD-ish buss system called Intel QuickPath Interconnect. The Front side buss will be no more. This will require an entirely new Mobo . . . and probably DDR3 only. Only an outdated Vcard will swap over from a current build. Next up will be "Westmere." Thus CPU will continue to use the same micro architectures, but will shrink circuit size to 32nm. -- That's when a user needs to start paying attention again, 2009-10. Are you ready for this? -- The Westmere shrink might allow another 8 to 24, HT'd cores to be installed. Yes, at this 32nm circuit size, this CPU has the potential to host 32, HT'd cores with with the (then old) Nehalem micro-architecture. How's my arithmetic doing? Four cores to 32 cores with a new micro architecture, plus a ramped O/C for good measure? That might just get me that 1000% (4 to 40, or 10X) increase in CPU HP over my then current Q6600. Time to jump again? There's not much on Westmere yet, but Intel's Israel team is on it. This IS the future. Leave Nehalem for the nooboos. This new Intel QuickPath Interconnect is gonna take some shakin' out. Thank goodness for our "gotta-have-that-20%" early adopters. (Hey, it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it!) By the time Nehalem's QuickPath Interconnect shakedown is over, we'll be sitting pretty with a well proven platform. Also, we might just (finally) have a mobo that will last through one CPU drop in upgrade. Why? Because Westmere's 32nm circuit size will not change, but will simply host (yet another) micro architecture upgrade (Intel's Tick-Tock strategy). Will it use the same buss format? Absolutely. Will it use the same socket? Likely. Will we be able to just drop in an upgrade. Geeze, who knows! ( . . . but it's a good bet.) The future is not just coming, it's accelerating . . . and it Can be observed. However if it just seems too hazy, the only correct, entirely rational choice is to go with what one Can see. If that's the case, then I would also say, wholeheartedly: " . . . for the non-overclockers with FSX primarily in mind, dual core is the way to go because of the guaranteed extra performance over quad core while you actually care."