I am considering building a computer to run FSX and I am considering my options carefully. I was wondering which of these runs FSX the best, the Core 2 Duo E6850, or the Core 2 Quad Q6700? If the Q6700 will run it better, is there a huge performance difference between it and the Core 2 Extreme QX6850? I know the first question may sound stupid but I have heard reports that the Dual Core runs FSX faster than the Quad and so I wanted to see if that was true or not. Thanks in advance!:-)

About the same. The Core 2 Duo's and Quads are very easy to overclock on stock cooling also so no matter which one you buy you can make one run like the other pretty much.If it was true that a Dual Core ran it better it wouldn't matter because you can easily force FSX to only use 1-2 cores if you wanted to (simply .cfg edit). Get the Quad Core. The Q6600's are very cheap right now.

Shouldn't the bus speed also be considered? The Core2 E6850 runs at 1333MHz but the Q6600 is only 1066MHz.I suspect if both are identically overclocked the Core2 will produce the faster performance.

Right now my Q6600 is set to 341x9, so my bus is already > 1333. On this MB bios, there is no particular settings for "1066/1333 strapping" so I'm not sure it will make a difference with an ident OC.scott s..

< 1333.>>I'm not sure I understand the arithmetic. 341 times 9 = 3069. How does that work?

><>1333.>>>>I'm not sure I understand the arithmetic. 341 times 9 = 3069.>How does that work?Ray - The mobo's are "quad pumped" meaning if it's set at 341 then the FSB is 341 x 4 = 1364. 341 x 9 is the CPU speed.Mine for example is 405 x 9 = 3.645 and the FSB is 405 x 4 = 1620.Since the tendency is towards more cores, it doesn't make sense to me to buy anything other than a quad. Duals are yesterday's technology and given that the prices are about the same, it's a no brainer.HTH,VicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.6Evga 680i A1 with P30 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioned for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

I would certainly go for the E6850 due to the higher clock speed. Clock speed is much more important. The benefit of going from two to four cores is not as great as the benefit from going from one to two cores. Phil Taylor has even stated clock speed is what increases performance, not the number of cores. In addition to that dual core chips will overclock better than a quad core.My new system is going to be an E6850, 680i MDB, and 2GB 1066 RAM. 680i is good as it will take the new 45nm chips next year.

Hi Vic,You pop up everywhere.;)Thanks for the clarification. From your sig it appears your CPU is overclocked 50%. Crikey! I would have thought it would start smoking when pushed that hard. I know the manufacturers build them all the same and then group them according to tests but that does seem extreme.I see you have liquid cooling. That probably helps with the heat ;-)As for prices being the same that certainly isn't the case with the E6850 (C2D) and QX6850 (Quad) with the latter costing nearly FOUR TIMES more over here.I'm still waiting for the results of FSX-SP2 before I upgrade - probably Jan or Feb. I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to overclock to that degree.Cheers,

>Since the tendency is towards more cores, it doesn't make>sense to me to buy anything other than a quad. Duals are>yesterday's technology and given that the prices are about the>same, it's a no brainer.Cores do not increase your FPS too much in FSX, as the multithreading is mainly used for loading data. If you want a faster FSX, you need clock speed. Its as simple as that.

What is the 680i MDB?

>As for prices being the same that certainly isn't the case>with the E6850 (C2D) and QX6850 (Quad) with the latter costing>nearly FOUR TIMES more over here.The E6850 is more often compared its similarly priced quad core cousin the Q6600, even if the latter comes clocked at 2.4GHz. For the non-overclocker, the dual core solution will net the highest FSX performance for the lowest dollar. ie. $270 buys you 3.0GHz of dual core action, but you have to pay over $1000 to buy 3.0GHz of similarly FSX FPS pumping quaddage.For the overclocker, the latest quads go nearly as high as the dual cores do (3.4-3.8GHz), even the value ones like the Q6600, hence Vic's recommendation to go for the quad. At least I think that's what he is getting at ;-)Gary

I just switched from AMD X2 2.4 to Intel Q6600 2.4 and let me say YES there is a difference. I'm finally enjoying a smooth sim with very good frames. I even get 20+ around NYC and for most PCs - that is not easy to do. Also - if you do go for the Q6600 you may want to look for the G0 stepping model which uses about 12 watts less voltage which allows for better temps and higher OC. I got a B3 stepping and am OC to 2.8 with stock voltage and have no problems what so ever. My temps are reasonable, around 58c with air cooling under full load.Good LuckTony

<>I must admit to having serious reservations about overclocking any future system and wouldn't dream of a 50% increase. This is not to say I doubt the sanity of those who do. ;-) I'm just not that brave.With FSX, quad-core processors offer very little improvement in performance over a similar spec dual core. Those are not my words but those of Phil Taylor (ACES).When FX11 is released we'll probably all need new processors and that's the time when quad-cores will come to the fore although I still believe FS will be limited in how much it can use 4 cores.Whatever offers me the best frame rates for what I'm prepared to pay will be my target.Cheers,

<>Sorry but most of that has gone over my head.:-eek I tend to rely on Best Buys in PC Pro - a well respected UK magazine.Overheating is rarely a problem in the UK.;-)

I think he means 680i chipset motherboard.As far as all of this in this thread is concerned, here's the bottom line as far as I see it:If you don't plan to overclock, a dual-core is best at the present time.If you plan to overclock at all, then quad is the best.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