Hi,The Quad core Q6600 seem like a smarter buy, however I know that neither FS9 or FSX will use the extra cores. They are in about the same price range. I run FS9, don't have FSX installed yet. Which processor would you recommend? I don't play any other games much...Thanks!

FSX uses multiple cores...that's been clearly documented....it's just not like other games youd see using the cores...you don't get like 4x the performance heheAs long as you overclock them, either one is a good buy....They are pretty closed ranked when not overclocked....of course you may get a little extra out of the quad due to the fact that it does indeed have 4 cores :)Either one will work very well with FS9....I'd recommend overclocking the one you get for FSX, to at least 3.2Ghz area...get a cooler too:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835154001

Hi,If you overclock both to the same processor speed the E8400 will return higher frame rates because it has a bus speed of 1333Mhz compared to 1066MHz for the Q6600.However, if you run several FS-related apps on the same machine as FSX (ASX, Radar Contact etc.) the Q6600 will give smoother performance due to the multiple cores, but lower frame rates.I have two networked PCs that I use to run my FS-related apps on via WideFS so the higher bus speed of the E8400 was more important to me.Hope that helps.

Thanks for the info. I have a single system setup and run ActiveSky, FSFK in the background. I got a Zalman CPU cooler from my previous setup, so will use that.I don't have FSX installed yet, so for a bit longer will run FS9 only. Q6600 seems to make sense more overall.If I get the Q6600 will OC to 3.2ghz, I am pretty confident the system will run FS9 well. Would E8400 run in better?Also, I am new to OC-ing. Don't want to push the system to extreme, but have been reading a bit on overclock.net. Where would be a good place to look for settings for getting the Q6600 to 3.2ghz with the Asus P5N-E?Thanks!

If you are going quad core (I would) and can spend a little additional money and wait a few weeks, get the Q9450. This is the quad-core 45nm chip (E8400, but quad-core, with an 8x multiplier).Great place to learn about overclocking is here:http://www.ocforums.com/Go to the Intel CPUs forum. With a good motherboard and good cooling, you will probably be able to get the Q9450 up to 3.4 or 3.6 ghz. I will be going for 4 ghz. You will want a motherboard that can do high FSB (I don't know how high the Asus goes), since the Q9450 has an 8x multiplier.

<If you're running addon programs I would go for the quad-core.Jack D's suggestion is worth considering. Either of your two processors will run FS9 with ease.But if you're not going to buy FSX now I would wait until you are and then look at processors and graphics cards. The market is very fluid at present.

Hehe, well I ordered all the parts last night except the processor. I though it would be a good time to go for the Q6600 provided Microcenter is selling them for $199. I just wanted to know how it would validate against the E8400 since I got FS9/FSX are not optmizied for multicores (and I am not sure I really use any other software that is).But I do a lot of multitasking.... For FS definantely ActiveSky, and FSFK, also NOD antivirus, and for those overnight flights (PMDG/Level D) I do (or rather should) run nightly backups with Acronis.I think it would be a big cost to try to RMA the MB, memory, all the good stuff, I just need to decide on the processor, or if really a big deal take the risk and wait (though it would be hard to RMA some open box stuff).

If your mobo is compatible with the new Penryn range (presumably it is otherwise you wouldn't be looking at he E8400) consider waiting. The Q6600 is an older generation processor. The Penryn equivalent quad-core will serve you better if you're prepared to wait a while.No need to return anything you've bought. Just think about the processor. The big risk is buying too quickly - not waiting. :-)

>If your mobo is compatible with the new Penryn range>(presumably it is otherwise you wouldn't be looking at he>E8400) consider waiting. The Q6600 is an older generation>processor. The Penryn equivalent quad-core will serve you>better if you're prepared to wait a while.>>No need to return anything you've bought. Just think about the>processor. The big risk is buying too quickly - not waiting.>:-)The Penryn quad coming out (two of them) will have 8x and 8.5x multiplier respectively. They are LOCKED at those multipliers.The Q6600 has a 9x multiplier.The Q6600 will run 400 x 9 = 3.6 ghz.The Penryns will run 400 x 8 = 3.2 ghz, or 400 x 8.5 = 3.4 ghz.Now, I'm not saying they will be slower. They will get more out of their 3.2 or 3.4 ghz than a Q6660 would. But I am saying that it's really questionable to me, as to whether or not a person would get any significant performance boost in real-world apps like FS.Maybe a person would. It's something I'd like to see compared here. But THAT is the reason why I am not very enthusiastic about the upcoming Pen quad releases.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

Yes, this is why I said you'll want a motherboard that can do high FSB (DFI, etc).The Q6600 will run 400 x 9 = 3.6 ghz, but that's about as fast as you can push it on air because of voltage/heat issues with the 65nm process.The Q9450 will run 400 x 8 = 3.2 ghz, but it has more clockspeed headroom because of the 45nm process. So if your motherboard can do more than 400-425 FSB, you will probably be able to equal or surpass the Q6600 in clock speed. Of course, you'll want to read some of the overclocking reviews to confirm this before you buy the Q9450.I have a DFI P35 motherboard. It got the E8400 over 4 ghz very easily (460 X 9 = 4.14 ghz). I am hoping it will get a Q9450 close to 4 ghz (say 480 X 8 = 3.84 ghz, or maybe 500 X 8 = 4 ghz).I want 4 cores so I can have the textures load faster. Even with the E8400 at 4+ ghz, when flying low and fast, I get the blurries at my FSX settings.Clock for clock the Q9450 will be about 2 to 15% faster than the Q6600, depending on the application. But the main reason I'll go for the Q9450 is the headroom and lower heat.So in summary, the Q9450 can get you more performance than a Q6600 on air if you have a motherboard that can do high FSB (450 to 500). Also, note that a lot of motherboards need a BIOS update before they can recognize the Q9450 (or any other 45nm Penryn).

>>I have a DFI P35 motherboard. It got the E8400 over 4 ghz>very easily (460 X 9 = 4.14 ghz). I am hoping it will get a>Q9450 close to 4 ghz (say 480 X 8 = 3.84 ghz, or maybe 500 X 8>= 4 ghz).>Wow, are you doing 460 x 9 = 4.14 ghz using DDR2/800 memory?If so, what DDR2/800 are you using that allows 460 fsb?I might have to get whatever memory you are running.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

I am using this memory:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...&Tpk=20-231-145Freakin $99 for 4 gigs DDR2/1000 memory (I paid $115). So at 460x9, I was running with the 1:1 divider = 460 mhz for the memory. The memory is spec'ed at 500 mhz.I am running the E8400 now at about 420x9 with a 6:5 divider = 504 mhz for the memory. The DREAM is the Q9450 at 500x8 with a 1:1 divider = 500 mhz for the memory. We'll see.This is on a DFI P35-T2R LanParty LT board (the one without the heat pipes).EDIT: Oh you probably saw the DDR2-8000 in my sig and thought it was -800 memory. It guess I should say PC-8000 or DDR2-500. I'll change my sig.

> Also, note that a lot of motherboards need a>BIOS update before they can recognize the Q9450 (or any other>45nm Penryn).>Hey that reminds me. If you buy a motherboard that doesn't recognize your Penryn, how are you going to update its BIOS? Plug in another 65nm Core2 ? ...and if you don't HAVE a 65nm Core2? :) I guess RMA it is all you could do?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

Haha. You go get a 65nm Celeron, boot it, flash the BIOS, then install your Penryn. You then sell the Celeron on Ebay (if you can return it great, but most places won't allow this).

For FS9 only? - go for the E8400 without a doubt! FS9 will lap up that extra clock speed and while more cores usually means a better load spread of the game + addons, FS9 only ties up one core leaving you with plenty of spare CPU capacity in the second core to run those addons in.FWIW, my son runs FS9 on an E4300 (dual) overclocked to 3.0GHz and I run FS9 on my Q6600 (quad) overclocked to 3.5GHz, with both FS9 settings maxed out and with plenty of addons. Both systems are pegged at the 30 FPS cap we have set most of the time and it is a struggle to tell the difference between the two performance-wise. IMO, anything more than a 3GHz C2D dual is wasted with FS9 (caveat - if FS9 is your only gaming vice).Gary