I didn't realise you kept your old OS install. Still, if you do get to do a ghost and OS / FSX reinstall, it would be good to see your results. Per my other post, the benchmark is now up in the AVSIM library for you to download and use when you are ready. Note, if you are going to install Acceleration for SP2 testing, I believe that you have to have an activated FSX for the Acceleration install to work. Re core use, I've been flying some actual (non-test) flights of late using ASX, FSCommander and VATSIM off and on. At such times I have noticed my core use goes between 50 and 70% (ie. 2-3 cores worth) and it's all a very smooth experience. Note, I am using AffinityMask=14 with FSX, which gives core 0 to the OS and addons and cores 1, 2 and 3 to FSX, as I found during my testing that this actually results in the highest FPS and greatest smoothness in FSX compared to letting all apps fight over the first core.Gary

Yeah, I thought about the Acceleration activation factor.I'm problably gonna have to do the whole 9 in the long run. But that's cool, I'll problably have the time.p.s. I actualy read this a few days ago, but I was just too tired/didn't have time to respond.

Yes I would agree that multi is the next frontier.The thing I see is that if one were to get a Penryn dual now, they would still be "ok" to skip Nehalem gen1. Then for Nehalem Gen2, they would be in a position to upgrade to a quad or 8-core or whatever they have then.I just think that a person COULD in fact dual right now, and skip Nehalem gen1.In my case, I am inclined (at this time...that may change) to skip Gen1 of Nehalem for two reasons: 1) it will be the first QuickPath architecture cpu2) it will not correspond to my upgrade cycle, which is:early P4/netb. <-- here i upgradedlate P4/netburst (SKIPPED)late-gen A64 platform <-- here I upgradedGen1 Core2 platform (Conroe, merom,etc.) (SKIPPED)Gen2 Core2 platform (Penryn, Wolf, York,) <--- here I upgradeGen1 Nehalem platform (SKIPPED)Gen2 Nehalem platform <--- here I upgradeRhettAMD 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

Ahh, now we're thinkin'. That's the kind of analysis that'll make you money.I was at a hyperthreaded P4 and skipped the AMDs "1st gen Core2." My choice was relatively easy. Actually the Penryn is still "just" a 3rd gen Core2. Clock for clock. any AMD dual 64 is still competitive with any Core2 Dual. Consider this striking comparison. At default speeds, a 2 year old A64 at 3.0ghz (FX60?) will be only 30% behind that $1000 X9super-duper that just swept the world. I'd really be on the fence if I was not an O/C-er. It's our O/Cing savvy really makes the difference. That poor ol' A64 just won't go no more. The Core2s are going to the moon. The real strength of Intel's version of the AMD's A64 (the Core2) has never been a clock for clock advantage. It's been all about cost (for the masses) and O/Cing headroom (for us!)But remember, Intel has now stomped-on an O/C-ing limit with this dang 333mhz FSB nonsense. That allowed them to lower the multiplier. 450mhz is about all we want to run a mobo's FSB 24/7. That means 450 x X = our new Penryn top-clock. That means that Penryn does Not = a 4.0Ghz CPU speed. 4.0 is pie-in-the-sky unless we want to pay-up for that big multiplier, or live with a system on the edge of stability. Just more factors for the equation.

I'll tell ya something: My A64 San Diego core has performed better than I ever hoped for in FSX. So good, that this rig I run for FSX, was never really intended to run FSX! It was supposed to be my final FS9 rig. Look what it has done.I'm proud of the mighty little 3700+.It has clocked to 2.8 on air, and although I don't routinely run it there, 2.5-2.6 is easy, and nets me amazing FSX performance considering it's 2+ years old. Imagine mid-to-high sliders in FSX, and 20+ fps most places. Who'd a thought it?But, like all things, time catches up. Pretty soon, my personal tick-tock upgrade cycle (see previous post) awaits...And those plans do not include a G0/SLACR Q6600. In 4 months, I predict a person will be able to get the equiv Penryn quad at close to the same price ($266) as the Q6600 slacr is today.And that, my friend, ain't half bad.It'll be midway thru the FSX product cycle, not bad. I expect to framelock at 26, and stay there most of the time.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

>PLEASE ANYBODY CONFIRM OR REJECT the following:>>If using a non Extreme Penryn with fixed multiplier, IS there>a way to overclock by not putting memory over 400MHz and still>getting the CPU higher than "400 x fixed multiplier" ? I.E. by>using mem divider?You certainly can with 680i, and I'm assuming 780i being its essentially the same chipset. 680i only supports dual penryns, though 780i is said to support the quads. With the Nvidia boards you just set it to unlinked, that way you can specify FSB and MEM clocks independantly. I'm sticking with dual core into 2009, probably an E8500, as I highly doubt there will be a real need for quads before then. Since clock speed still rules in the realm of gaming, and you are essentially paying for a multiplier to obtain that, it makes more financial sense to stick with a dual for 2008... According to me. lol

Running a QX9650 at 4.12GHz (27% OC), 1.42 volts actual (1.44 set in Bios), 412MHz FSB, 10x multiplier, watercooled (Swiftech 1/2", 30cm radiator), 29C idle, 54C load, 33C case temperature, Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 board, Corsair DDR2 memory at 984MHz (2.4x, 2.1V), 5.5.5.15 timings (can probably extract better memory perfomance with fine tuning).I had to put a fan on the northbridge to keep it stable on a stock pipe cooler. Some suggest to redo the thermal compound or just replace the stock coolers (can get expensive, there are three of them). I was able to reach 440MHz FSB but ran into stability issues and I will not exceed 1.44V on the CPU. Some have pushed the QX9650 to over 1.6V and obtained >5GHz out of it, but I'd like my CPU to last.Still running benchmarks but this CPU flies, with relatively simple overclocking (the easiest is to keep the FSB at 333MHz and crank up the multiplier). With insane detail levels (read, sliders to the right), My Traffic X at a healthy 50% and Active Sky X set at 80 miles, I haven't dropped below 20 to 25 FPS on the ground in Denver in the PMDG 744X VC on FSX SP1, DX9 mode. This used to be a slideshow on an FX-60 OC'ed to 2.9GHz) on an 8800 ultra in the default Cessna in 2D mode.Etienne

Tom

Yea, I saw that too. Not looking good for the 6X0i.http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=6171Skipping the 1st-gen of anything is never a bad idea.

I posted Asus's Penryn support page if you missed it earlier, http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/Additionaly, HardOcp.com got a press statement from nVidia on the situation. http://hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjkzOTQs...HVzaWFzdCwsLDE=Basicaly the 680i reference board had sub standard voltage regulation where quad cores are concerned. Since most manufacturers just copied the exact design of the reference board and put their names on it, almost all of them are affected.GeForce 680i Motherboards Snub Quad Core YorkfieldHave you been hearing the rumors too? We asked NIVIDIA what was up with 680i motherboards supporting the new quad core Yorkfield processors and this was what they had to say:The (680i) MCP fully supports both dual core Wolfdale and quad core Yorkfield, but at the board level, a motherboard circuit change is required for quad core YF. So it seems that the 680i chipset has support for the quad core Yorkfiled (and dual core Wolfdale), but it seems that the 680i motherboards have been built in such a way that quad core Yorkfiled (and dual core Wolfdale) will not work on almost all 680i motherboards produced. So all in all, 45nm Intel CPUs are not a mix with the current 680i. NVIDIA stresses that we look forward to the next-gen chipset for support, which of course requires buying a new motherboard. All of this begs the question, at least in my mind,