Curious whether anyone had the ultimate experience with FSX on 8-core CPU systems? I was considering a Mac Pro as a replacement for the last remaining PC at home, and today Apple posted their new 8-core system with quite acceptable price tag and a variety of GPU options including 8800 GT (DX10 compatible?). so I was wondering if 8 cores is really a significant improvement over, say, 4 cores and how good Windows XP or Vista handle it? Cheers,Edit: I wasn't sure if this is more of "Hardware-related forum" question, so I'm sorry if it is...=S.V.=eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb S-ATA HDD/Windows XP Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19' 1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2

I am not sure, if anyone can comment on a current 8-core setup, because they really *just* hit the streets, but the new (and even the old 4 core) Mac Pro will surely bring your FSX experience to a new level.I just recently read a benchmark comparison between 2xdual-core and 1xquad-core setup and the quad-core won by a margin. So, theoretically the eight-core should perform even better, unless there are some thread limitations within FSX. I am not sure. All 8xxx nVidia GPU series are DX10 compatible.Pat

"All 8xxx nVidia GPU series are DX10 compatible."As long as the definition of "compatible" does not mean "problem free." nVidia has a ways to go to get the bugs out of the 8xxx driver set as it relates to DX10.

If fsx cant take advantage of 4 cores, how it it take advantage of 8?

FSX does take advantage of four cores as per published benchmark in Computer Pilot (12/2007).Pat

>Curious whether anyone had the ultimate experience with FSX>on 8-core CPU systems? >>I was considering a Mac Pro as a replacement for the last>remaining PC at home, and today Apple posted their new 8-core>system with quite acceptable price tag and a variety of GPU>options including 8800 GT (DX10 compatible?). so I was>wondering if 8 cores is really a significant improvement over,>say, 4 cores and how good Windows XP or Vista handle it? >>Cheers,>>Edit: >I wasn't sure if this is more of "Hardware-related forum">question, so I'm sorry if it is...>>=S.V.=>eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb S-ATA HDD/Windows XP>Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19'>1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2There is a video review somewhere on the Web that I saw with Phil Taylor running FSX on an 8 core machine and the guy doing the review was commenting how great the program was doing and asked Phil Taylor how much computer would it take to run it full blown and the response was that it could take 256 cores!!!

>Curious whether anyone had the ultimate experience with FSX>on 8-core CPU systems? >>I was considering a Mac Pro as a replacement for the last>remaining PC at home, and today Apple posted their new 8-core>system with quite acceptable price tag and a variety of GPU>options including 8800 GT (DX10 compatible?). so I was>wondering if 8 cores is really a significant improvement over,>say, 4 cores and how good Windows XP or Vista handle it? >>Cheers,>>Edit: >I wasn't sure if this is more of "Hardware-related forum">question, so I'm sorry if it is...>>=S.V.=>eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb S-ATA HDD/Windows XP>Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19'>1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2 Just curious as to why you double posted this topic?? One thread in hardware not enough??

Inbound to LAX on (any) STAR at 210 knots in the PMDG 744, Megascenery has my 4 cores ConStantLy into their 100% stop. If I want to show off my scenery to a passenger (at megascenery's max resolution), I still have to pause to let it catch up. I NeeD more cores. I expect if you fed it, it would eat.

>Inbound to LAX on (any) STAR at 210 knots in the PMDG 744,>Megascenery has my 4 cores ConStantLy into their 100% stop. If>I want to show off my scenery to a passenger (at megascenery's>max resolution), I still have to pause to let it catch up. I>NeeD more cores. >>I expect if you fed it, it would eat.Computer Pilot did an review on a 4 core machine in November. The system builder also supplied a 8 core machine to test.QUAD COREMotherboard - Supermicro SATA Bsckplane, X7DAEProcessors - 2 x Intel Dual Core Xeon [email protected] Cores - 4RAM - 2 GB ATP Fully buffered DDR2 667 FB1024-8A667Display - Saphire ATI RAdeon X1950 ProHard Drives - 6 x Seagate SATA II RAID 0Case - Supermicro SC743T-650WDOUBLE QUAD COREMotherboard - Supermicro SATA Bsckplane, X7DA3+Processors - 2 x Intel Quad Core Xeon [email protected] Cores - 8RAM - 4 GB Kingston Fully buffered DDR2 667Display - XFX GeForce 8800 640MB XXX EditionHard Drives -Seagate SATA IICase - Supermicro SC743TQ-650WVerdict 40FPS continuous settings on high on the quad core setup @ 1920x1440x3222-23 FPS on the double quad core setup at the same resoultion and settings as the quad.Both machines were clean builds with most recent drivers at the time of the build.So, either FSX has problems with eight cores or maybe a BIOS issue with the eight core setup.

>If fsx cant take advantage of 4 cores, how it it take>advantage of 8?In addition to the benches Pat mentioned, there are also actual real-world users reporting FSX using all 4 cores.I guess the big question is, would those parts of FSX that use all four cores (such as the texture loader), be able to use 8 cores? I thought I read in one of the ACES blogs where those processes would use as many cores as you have. ?? My memory is bad though. I can't even remember your name. Just kidding.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

> Just curious as to why you double posted this topic?? One>thread in hardware not enough??Thanks a lot for your replies.I posted in FSX and then read that hardware-related posts will be removed (meaning deleted, not moved). So I thought I was going to lose the post and reposted here. I'm just dumb today.

I saw that. I find it very believable. You'll notice all settings are very low even on 8-core.

Do you have a link?All I could find on YouTube was Phil Taylor the Dart Champion :)

Here's what the Quads look like during megascenery load events. This is paused approaching SMO (Santa Monica) and starting to load the LA basin. Note core 0 stays at 100%, trooping along to maintain 10FPS with the PMDG 744. Cores 1,2,3 fire up as the 'far' scenery comes into range. The 'near' scenery is already loaded at max res from a previous pause over Malibu. Nice view. One of my favs. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/183019.jpgThe load is now complete and cores 1,2,3 drop offline. That 'stand' of building out there is downtown LA. This load will get me about that far before another pause will be required. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/183020.jpgAs clunky as this may (still) seem, it is lightyears ahead of what I was getting with the old P4/HT rig. The pauses are < 30 seconds with sliders to the right in FSX. The old system needed 3 to 5 minutes with sliders to the left in FS9.FSX just reached out and grabbed everything I had available and put it to work, at least for the scenery loader. Intel's Skulltrail is all the rage at CES this week. Hopefully we'll have some of our well healed members on-line with the octi-cores soon. Wish I was one. I have a sneaking suspicion this identical Task Manager/Performance tab sequence would simply extend out for 4 more cores. Maybe, just maybe, it would finally actually keep up with a 210 knot approach.

>Verdict 40FPS continuous settings on high on the quad core>setup @ 1920x1440x32>>22-23 FPS on the double quad core setup at the same resoultion>and settings as the quad.>>Both machines were clean builds with most recent drivers at>the time of the build.>>So, either FSX has problems with eight cores or maybe a BIOS>issue with the eight core setup.Neither.There is a reason to put 4 cores (or eventually, 8) on a single chip: The timing overhead of dropping signals down to the MB to keep core caches on separate chips in synch is just huge and negates most of the advantage of the additional off-chip cores.Salutations to all.-jahman.