Im thinking of going to a quad core CPU. Although my current e6700 overclocked nicely to 3.4 and is running FSX just fine with all my addons, I have the upgrading bug. (happens every year to me about this time.) I am thinking of getting either a Q6600 2.2 Kentsfield or a Q9300 yorkfield. The price difference is a little less than $100. Would it be work getting the Q9300? Im not that knowledgable about CPU's, but I thought I read somewhere that the smaller die on the yorkville will cause less heat and therefore make it a little more overclockable.Also, would I see any improvement over my current 6700 with either CPU, or should I just sit tight and wait for something new in a year that will really blow the doors of my curent CPU?Thanks for any advice.Rob

Anything new in a year will probably be 45nm which would require a motherboard upgrade to be compatible.Thank you,KailFlightSimmer since 1987C2D E6850 3.0GHz 1333FSBXFX Nforce 680i LT SLI2x XFX 8800GT 512MB SLI'd2GB Crucial Ballistix PC6400 800MHzCreative SB Audigy2 ZSUltra Xfinity 600W SLI PSUSeagate 320GB 7200RPM 16MB SATA-3GB/S HDWindows XP SP2 / FSX SP2 / FS9 SP1

>somewhere that the smaller die on the yorkville will cause>less heat and therefore make it a little more overclockable.>Well, yes and no. The new 45nm cpu's do run cooler, so theoretically they have more overclocking headroom. However, they are also multiplier locked, and come with lower multipliers. And so we are limited not by the cpu, but by the MOTHERBOARDS.What does this mean in practical terms? It means 3.5-3.6 ghz is the practical maximum overclock for any of the new 45nm quad core cpu's.As to how much improvement that would be over your 6700 @ 3.4 ghz, and whether or not it's worth the money, is up to you.>Also, would I see any improvement over my current 6700 with>either CPU, or should I just sit tight and wait for something>new in a year that will really blow the doors of my curent>CPU?>If I had a E6700 @ 3.4 ghz, that is exactly what I would do. You're not going to gain much raw framerate going to a quad. Even a 45nm quad. At most it will overclock to the same 3.4-3.5 range you have right now, and due to architectural improvements, it would be a little faster than your E6700. But not much.The only compelling reason to go to a quad would be if you are getting terrible blurries, but then I'd say if you are getting bad blurries with an overclocked E6700, a Quad is not the solution--the problem would lie elsewhere.The 45nm cpu's are most desired by people that still own Pentium4's, and people who own Socket 939 AMD chips like mine. Those people will see a big performance boost. I don't think you will.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 went from E6600 to Q6600much smootherP5K 4GB-DaneElec Q6600 8800GTS640MB XPproSP2 FSXSP2

As Rhett has said with the new 45nm quads the mobo is the limiting factor in most cases, but this isnt the case with the dual cores. The best thing to do is get a 45nm dual, like an e8400 or e3110 with a9x multi and overclock it as high as you can, my 4.4ghz oc is on water, but my temps are so low compared to 65nm Im pretty sure you could reach this speed or very close on air if you had my chip. The thing about quads is that they put a heavy strain on the northbridge, more so than duals, so getting above a 500mhz fsb is quite a feat with a quad, but on the other hand my p5k premium can hit 540mhz or more stable with a dual. Since fsx is more about mhz thans the # of cores, a 45nm penryn with a capable motherboard is a good choice.