>Hi I have a Intel Quad Core 6700 with gb ram and Vista>I don't what you are upgrading from, be in single or duel core>or duo.>But I went from Duo core cpu to a quad last April, didn't help>at lot until I downloaded a hotfix for Vista and also the SP1>for FSX also help as part of that SP was to help FSX use>mutiple cpu's>And the hotfix for Vista also help Vista utlerlize mutiple>core cpu's overall, not just for FSX.>>I also like to pan around and view from outside, look at AI>traffic etc and I can say from my experience I do not get any>stutters and I have settings pretty much maxed out.>>Of course since SP2 came on the scene, the decison to run the>DXT10 preview came about, if you have a DXT10 capable card,>use the preview, as there is a noticable difference in>performance.>>Cheers>Phil MIt doesn't surprise me..in fact a couple of post down from my original post, some chap is saying how it makes a massive difference to blurries etc. having a Quad even though FPS are unchanged.This is my point entirely...this post suggests it not worth going for Quads as "performance" is not affected: no, FPS may not be...but other elements of performance will certainly be...!!!!So I am definitely upgrading from a Duo at 3.4 to a Quad at 3.6 -with water cooling and I may even splash out on some DDR3 - just to minimise loading times of textures when chamging views - for me these aspects are just as important as FPS.

>Did you know that we can turn cores on and off "on the fly.">Try it. >>Set Get a flight stabilized over known terrain. Try a jet with>the A/P engaged at 200knots and 5K'. That will provide a>stable platform that can stress FSX's terrain loading>capability. Turn AI and autogen totally off. We want to look>only at terrain loading capability. Get the frame counter>going. Now pop up task manger and watch how your cores are>responding. If you have a single monitor, get into window's>mode so you can watch both FS and TM (or zoom down to BB and>grab another monitor. It's a great excuse!) >>Go outside and AlSo get a feel for how well the terrain>resolution is keeping up with the airplane. You will likely>notice terrain blocks loading through several resolution>increments in some proximity to the airplane. No need for a>statistical analysis. Just note FPS and the character of how>the terrain is loading. >>If you have a quad core, shut one core off, then 2, then 3.>Task Manager > Processes > Rt Click fsx.exe > Set Affinity >>Check and un-check cores as desired.>>Now back into the game. How is the terrain loading responding?>>>My experience is that my 4 cores (Q6600 @ 3.6 / 4g-O-ram />8800GT@1920 x 1080 res) can just about (but not quite) keep>up with max settings at 200knts and 5K'. Core 0 is always>maxed out and the rest of the gang are always rocking in and>out of 100%. As I shut down cores my terrain turns into a>blurry mess. >>. . . . but FPS remains unchanged. >>As I re-enable cores, the terrain resolution catches back up .>. . and still, FPS are unaffected. >>Try the same drill with autogen and AI both totally off, then>full blast. The extra 3 cores of my quad made no difference.>The FPS did not change between a single core v quad core with>full autogen and AI enabled, nor did the autogen visuals>change.>>It really appears the reason those 2 v 4 core benchmarks are>similar is because only OnE core is delivering FPS>performance. I expect the same test suite would display>similar FPS performance with a single core.>>The quad most certainly provides an richer game experience,>it's just NoT related to FPS. It appears that FSX's Frame per>Second performance is based on a Single core. Even a dual core>won't help, much. It's no wonder that a quad provided little>benefit by use of this measurement metric. >>(imHo) A singular FPS metric provides an incomplete analysis.> Well I'm glad these two confirm my hypothesis. Too much importance and discussion is attached to FPS....above 25FPS - who cares ? But stuttering and blurries do make real difference.

not one setting is the tiniest bit left. All MAX.

Why not share some screenshots in the Screenshot forum?We want to see pretty!

"So I am definitely upgrading from a Duo at 3.4 to a Quad at 3.6 -with water cooling and I may even splash out on some DDR3 - just to minimize loading times of textures when changing views - for me these aspects are just as important as FPS."With the Q6600, water cooling won't get you any more CPU clock. 3.6Ghz is about it under any circumstances . . . and a good aircooler will get you there. Also DDR3 is a non-player. it will provide No discernible performance increase. Plain ol' DDR2-800 is the stuff to use with an O/C'd Q6600. Save some dough. As it appears, any FPS increase is only based on the O/C of a single core anyway. The other 3 (only) provide other important functions. If you want additional FPS, it can cost an additional $4K. That's $1K (additional) for a Q9650 and $3K for the required cooling. It appears this Entire FPS expense is incurred to increase a Single core's clock. But how much additional help can (just) additional cores provide? For instance, would 7 extra cores help terrain loading keep up even better? Let's find out. "not one setting is the tiniest bit left. All MAX."If you could, please snag one of those Skulltrail setups and check it out for us. It's that new dual, Quad Core system (8 cores, total). Two additional $3K CPU coolers would also be necessary to get the single core FPS performance up to something comparable to the Q9650's single core FPS rate @ 5.7Ghz. Ya never know which of those 8 cores FSX is going to pickup as its primary CPU. Better safe than sorry. It would be interesting to see if 7 extra cores loaded scenery any faster than just 3 extra cores.http://wing-fell-off.blogspot.com/2008/01/...ltrail-fsx.htmlNot only is this the only Intel chipset that will do SLI, but it will do a Quad SLI. So, next pre-Christmas when Nvidia's 9800GTX becomes available, a 4 card SLI array will be buyable.

Sorry i cant get a skulltrail ive spent so much money on my current rig and spending another $10000 i just cant do. Two processors is no different to one apart from it costs more and in many cases people have has their performance halved. 8 cores will not improve FPS anyway. Besides the more cores the harder to overclock. And i dont think the 9800GTX comes out pre christmas it is actually febuary/march. Jourdog

Sorry to have wasted your time. Looking forward to your stuttering and blurries benchmark. Good luck in quantitatively measuring those puppies!Gary

Sam,It is important to note that limiting core use by setting core affinity through windows task manager compared to setting core affinity through FSX.CFG are NOT the same thing. The former has FSX thinking it has all cores but then you take them away at the OS level - FSX gets shortchanged on what it thinks it has as available cores = BAD blurries. The latter is the correct way to do it for blurry / stutter testing - FSX doesn't try to use more cores than is available.Gary

Again, this is good data. Over the next few years, this sort of data will come in handy as I make the change over to FSX. Keep up the good work!RH

Hi,I am going to buy a new computer. I would like to use Fsx on line, with some addons like Utx, some environment textures and pay airplanes and before purchesing it I would like to know if it works. This is the configuration:Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.50GHz, 1333MHz, 6MB)Memory 3GB Dual Channel DDR2 800MHz [2x1024MB/2x512]Hard Drive - 500GB (2x500GB) DataSafe Local Hard drive solution16X DVD+/-RWSINGLE 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTCould you kindly give me all information as this configuration work?Thanks Algeggi

Hi AlegeggiSystem sounds fine to run FSX and even with Sp2 and DX10 previewSimilar to my system, except you have a newer quad core cpuYou ram is better even though I have 4gbI gather your using Vista?I'll be interested in how it performs on your system and what frame rates you can get.Most of what you have I'll be getting another system very similar in a couple of mths, soley for gaming and mutilmedia and seperating it from my current Dell XPS I use for both work and home.Why were talking systems, Dell has gone onto selling ATI Radeon cardsinstead of Nvidia latest 9000 series, I know opions will varyBut do many see much difference between the Nvidia 9800 series compared to a ATI Radeon

bump :)

The ATI 3800 series cards have been widely reported to have performance issues in FS with Clouds. I don't believe it's an issue though with the 4800 series. I myself use a Nvidia 9800GTX, which I like very much!

HiDo you have the SP1 installed of VistaAnd if yes, are you using either of these two latest drivers from Nvidia I have used, yes improvment in performance and frame rates in FSX sp2 Acc Dx10Drivers are versions 175.16 and 175.19Don't use the driver windows update finds, it effects performance and frame rates, that is driver Verison 169.25 dated Dec 2007I have the 8800 GTX card.On Video cards by Nvidia what are these Ge Force 200 series cards, are they newer than 9000 series, I've never noticed them before at Nvidia's site.

gary, i have read your findings and found them to be very informative, actually a bit over informative, LOL. I plan on getting a new system specifically for FSX using the following add-ons: UTX, GEX, FEX, WOAI, FSG mesh and LC. I also use TH2GO. i have figured that in duo VS. quad more GHZ is better so a 2.4 quad is not as fast as 3.0 duo but if they are say both 3.0 ghz, the 2 extra cores will help with smoother texture loading and add-ons. i am a believer that 22 FPS and smooth flying is better then 40 FPS and stutters and slight blurries; smoothness is more important then FPS.i was hoping you may be able to dumb down some of your finding to answer a question. what would be the top 3 or 4 reccomendations (ex. 3.16 E8500 with Vista 64 or q6600 OC to 3.2 with XP) thanks, Kyle