I'm trying to decide which processor to buy. Choice 1 is the E8500 Dual Core and choice 2 is the Q9450 Quad Core. Bothe are the new 45nm technology. I am more interested in getting smooth consistant FPS rather than high FPS. If I could get 20-25 FPS at bigger airports I would be happy. Also which MOBO can be used with the 45nm processor? I am also looking at the P5KC P35 775 ATX Motherboard as it seems to have plenty of overclocking capabilities as well as it can take DDR2 and DDR3 ram. What would you guys suggest?

>If I could get 20-25 FPS at bigger airports I would be happy.jwenham,Your FPS within FSX will entirely depend on how you have your sliders adjusted, addons, and particular aircraft you are flying. When it comes to FSX the more clock cycles you can throw at it the better. As an example, with my particular system, addons, and particular settings, and depending on the aircraft I choose I can achieve 17-20 FPS at KSEA or KLAX.After having both a dual core and now a quad core, on my system, the quad core has made huge difference in the overall smoothness of the sim. Again, I say smoothness and not big increase in FPS.The Asus P5KC P35 775 ATX would be a good choice for a motherboard. However on the point of it being able to take DDR2 or DDR3, a factor that you must take into consideration is that it will support 4 dimms of DDR2 memory and only 2 dimms of DDR3 memory.

Thanks for the reply. Seeing smoothness is more important to me I think I'm steering at the Quad. A smoother 18-20 or so FPS flys better than a jerky 25-30. What scenery and autogen slider settings or tweeks are you using? Also what do you have traffic set at?

jwenham,Here are some screen shots of my particular settings. My settings are set to my preference and what I perceive as framerate and graphically acceptable to me. These are some of my addons; MyTraffic-X, ASX, X-Graphics, GEX, FEX, FTX, UTX-USA, UTX-CAN, UTX-EU, Scenry Tech Landclass, Cloud9 Landclass, and FSGenesis Mesh and Landclass.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186778.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186779.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186780.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186781.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186782.jpg

I get that performance with an E4500 and a 3 year old videocard (a GF7600GT)...If you can't get it with either one of those either there's something wrong with your settings or your system is reducing its own speed to prevent overheating (some support this).

I have not upgraded yet. I was only listing FPS speeds as a goal to what I wanted to achieve at airports such as KLAX or KORD (the big hitters). I find it hard to believe you could get 20FPS at KLAX on a 3 year old system unless the sliders were all way low. The 2nd poster said he was now getting 17-20 at KLAX which I think is pretty good seeing the settings being used.

With that system (CPU 4 months old, GPU 3 years) I get consistently 20 or so fps all over the world (locked at 20) with everything turned to medium/high.That's flying the LDS 767, with 45% traffic provided by Ultimate Traffic, 30m mesh from FS Global, Ultimate Terrain, FScene textures, and ASX weather.I'd say that's a pretty loaded system :)But I have a top motherboard (P5L1394), 3GB of RAM (PC4200, not the more modern PC5300 or faster), and am running at 1280x1024 rather than 1600+ wide (which no doubt has a positive effect on performance using an older videocard).Just goes to show that you can get decent results without breaking the bank on $500+ videocards and CPUs.

>With that system (CPU 4 months old, GPU 3 years) I get>consistently 20 or so fps all over the world (locked at 20)>with everything turned to medium/high.>>That's flying the LDS 767, with 45% traffic provided by>Ultimate Traffic, 30m mesh from FS Global, Ultimate Terrain,>FScene textures, and ASX weather.>>I'd say that's a pretty loaded system :)>>But I have a top motherboard (P5L1394), 3GB of RAM (PC4200,>not the more modern PC5300 or faster), and am running at>1280x1024 rather than 1600+ wide (which no doubt has a>positive effect on performance using an older videocard).>>Just goes to show that you can get decent results without>breaking the bank on $500+ videocards and CPUs.Jeroen,No doubt that is great for your posted system. Now try running your system at my posted settings at 1920x1200.jwenham,I forgot to mention that when in the air and away from one of the above major airport I'm locked at 30FPS.

Sargeski,Are you saying you run your FPS at unlimited when on the ground and when at major airports and then lock it at 30 when you get into a less demanding area?

No sir, I always leave it locked at 30 FPS.Just because the framerate is locked at 30 does not mean that you will actually consistently hit 30FPS. So at a major airport like listed above an actual 17-20FPS. Once up and away 30FPS.Hope this makes sense. I apologize for not making myself more clear in my previous statements.

I don't care about your specs.He wants a system he can run at decent performance, I tell him he doesn't need to break the bank (which you tell him to do) to get that.

So what are your thoughts on the CPU, Quad or Dual Core? Both the processors I mentioned have the same FSB speed but the Dual Core runs a little faster. I think I could probably OC the Quad to at least the stock speed of the dual core.

As one who is about to "break the bank"...Thanks Bob for posting your sys specs and settings... is very helpful to me personally.

>I don't care about your specs.>He wants a system he can run at decent performance, I tell him>he doesn't need to break the bank (which you tell him to do)>to get that.>Jeroen,Actually I could give a flip about your specs as well.I gave the OP a valid answer regarding his question. No where did I tell him what to purchase or what he needs to purchase to "break the bank". There you go making assumptions again. I made some statements regarding dual core versus quad core. Where does the OP state he wants decent system with decent performance? Do you know what the OP considers as a decent system? There you go making assumptions again. The OP did however inquire about two very specific processors to which I replied and the OP asked about my settings to which I replied.Hmmmmmmmm. Have I done something to offend you??? or are you just having a massive case of envy of some sort??Oh, and btw just thought I'd let you know, I'm now using the 174.xx beta drivers to correct my Vsycn problem with Vista SP1. I'm letting you know so that next time you want to attempt to belittle me in the this forum you will at least have one of your facts straight. Well, at least until the WHQL drivers are released. ;)