With the faster and cheaper E8500 Dual Core out, versus the newly available but slower Q9450 quad, and it's soon to be available big brother Q9550 (but at twice the E8500 price and much slower), which is the way to go now ?Bob - Las Cruces NM.

Hi Bob,I just went through the same decision process. I ended up buying a mid range quad (see sig) knowing I'm giving up some performance today. However, the balance is shifting toward quads and FSX seems to run better relative to blurries and stuttering. I get very little of either with medium to high FSX settings. Frames are locked at 25fps and will drop to mid teens to low teens at KPHL with the LDS767-300. It is generally very smooth, which correlates with what other quad users have reported. I found it difficult to opt for an older architecture. I have read nothing to indicate FSX XI will improve multi core utilization. I'm just hoping :)version XI will take advantage of processor improvements. But I guessed wrong on Apple Computer stock 20 years ago. LOL.Bob..

Personally, I don't even think it's worth it to drop on the E8500. Why pay the $80 premium for 160 MHz per core? Take an E8400 at $180-$200 and OC the beast to 3.6 GHz (seems to be pretty easy to achieve that by most accounts).I was pointed to a good review on the NVIDIA 9800GTX, and while the article is more about the video card, they did benchmark FSX on their reference system, which runs on an older E6850 (basically the 65nm predecessor to the E8400, but with less cache). Check it out here:http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-gefor...view-30590.htmlNow, I know they didn't detail what settings they had their FS cranked to, but, I took it as a good sign that a dual core could run the program pretty well, and I'm sure that was at stock 3.0 GHz.I kind of feel like I will just drop on the E8400 for now. At only $200 tops, it's an awesome value, and only moreso when clocked higher. I can't deny the draw of a Q9450 though... but man it's pricey.Then again.. don't forget the Q9300. For the same price as an E8500 ($275), you can have a Quad Core. Yes, the default clock is "only" 2.5 GHz, but if you have a motherboard that can run at 1600 MHz pretty well (most P35s can do this just fine), you can probably OC the chip to 3.0 GHz per core. Yes, I'm aware the cache on the Q9300 is neutered a little at only 3 MB per core pairing (6 MB total), but... is another $80-100 worth it for twice the L2 and 160 MHz per core, with a potential OC to 3.2 GHz?So many options... it would be great if there was a definitive "value" article for CPUs based solely on FSX benchmarks. Anyone?~Nate

>Why pay the $80 premium for 160 MHz per core? Take an>E8400 at $180-$200 and OC the beast to 3.6 GHz (seems to be>pretty easy to achieve that by most accounts).This is true. I know virtually nothing about overclocking and it was very easy to overclock my E-8400 to 3.5 gHz. Buy an aftermarket CPU cooler though - the stock Intel cooler is barely adequate at 3.0 gHz.cheers

I am looking at this issue myself. I am not convinced quads are fully utilized so want to stick with dual cores. The only reason I think to pay the premium on the 8500 is that it looks like it can be overclocked to 4GHz from some accounts.Jason

The chip might be capable of that, but is your mobo?Most P35 chipsets can hit 1600 MHz no problem even though they are rated (usually) for only 1333. If you have an X38, then you can go to 1600 MHz no questions asked.Here's the deal though...E8400 3.0 GHz, 1333 FSB stock. Bumping to 1600 MHz gives you 3.6 GHz effective on the processor. This is a 20% overclock, very very modest, especially when 30% seems to be the engineering spec for a buffer between true max clock speed and the stock rating (read that in a couple different places recently).E8500 3.16 GHz, 1333 FSB stock. To get 4.0 GHz, you need to hit an FSB of 1684 MHz. That's getting pretty intense, and it's questionable whether your MoBo could stay stable on that let alone the chip itself.Obviously OCing is a YMMV proposition, and a bit of a crap shoot on the quality of chip/motherboard you pick up. To me though, the extra $80 for an E8500 seems like an awful big jump in price for the relatively small benefit you gain (40% increase in price for 5.5% gain).Unfortunately it's harder to draw the price/performance conclusion between the dual and quad cores because it's hard to tell how well FS REALLY makes use of an additional core pairing. Not to mention the performance benefit of more cores vs all-but-guaranteed slower clock speeds compared to the duals.~Nate

The E8400 is a great value no question. Chips are binned, and an E8500 wafer tested higher than an E8400 wafer. Period end of sentence. :) That was why I shot for the E8500. Me personally, I would have had regrets getting an E8400. I know the logic of buying the $200 E8400 since it will o/c to the same ballpark as the $300 E8500. That's good logic and that's what I have done many, many times. Why are people buying the Extreme Edition cpu's for $1000-$1200, when you can come within 10% of their performance for a fraction of the cost? Because they can.As for quad vs. dual, cpu's are so cheap now. Buy a quad and a dual if you want. Drop in the quad if you need to. It's not like we're spending $600 for a 486DX2/66 anymore. That's what I paid for mine back in about 1992. If FS11 needs a quad, we're set up for it. FS11 is a long way off anyway, so probably most of us here will be on new builds by then...either Nehalems or Sandy Bridges.RhettE8500, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64

What? Buy two CPUs on my salary? Posh! :-DNah... way I see it, I will prolly just go for the E8400 right now since it's well within budget. If it very evidently sucks, or new software comes down the line in the next year or so that makes more use of Quad action, certainly it will be easier to upgrade (and find) a Q9450 or 9550 or whatever the last Penryn quad ends up being.~NatePS - Yes, I remember when it was a huge and expense deal to go from 2 to 4 MEGS of RAM. Man did I want to play Sim City 2000 so bad. But I still want to maximize the value equation now... so, I need to deal with the prices of today in any case.

Why not just use a Q6600. Settle in and just live with a quad at 3.6Ghz 'til whatever happens, happens. 1) There is No cost/performance advantage to the this "new" Penryn CPU. It is simply a shrunk Core2. 2) The Q6600 gets 3.6 with an ordinary 400Mhz FSB that any $100, P35 mobo can maintain 24/7.3) It only needs plain-jane DDR2-800 (at $20/gig) to get there. 4) It'll run FSX within 10% of Anything at Any price. 5) $199 at Frys. 6) To me, it seems the definitive no-brainer!

Well... tell you what, that doesn't sound half bad frankly. I certainly have a heatsink capable of cooling the beast.So... the Q6600s can make 3.6 on a 1600MHz FSB pretty easy? If so, you may well have just sold me. I guess I figured that an overclock of that magnitude was a little much for something starting at a stock speed of "only" 2.4 GHz.BTW, I'm somehow guessing that 4.0 GHz on a Q6700 is a little much? :-D~Nate

The P35 was always designed for this Latest set of CPUs that run at a 400Mhz FSB (aka "1600") on a 24/7 basis. Coincidently (?), that's about as fast as Any of the older 65nm Core2 CPUs will handle with air/water cooling. The Q6X00s will not go to 4G (easily). The X38/48s will run a faster FSB, but with the Q6X00s, you don't need it. The new CPU's problem (to we O/C-ers) is that darn (333 x 4 = ) 1333 FSB. This buss speed allowed Intel to reduce the CPU's multiplier. With these reduced multis, we have to run a faster FSB to get the same CPU O/C. These new CPUs Need the (more expensive) X38/48s just to hit the same CPU O/Cs we can get with the old P35/Q6X00 series. Clock for clock, there is no performance advantage to the new CPUs, it just costs us more to get there. 4.0Ghz also becomes possible with the most expensive Penryns, but one must pony=up for not just the top dog CPU, but must buy a more expensive X38/48 mobo, and more expensive DDR2-1066 (to keep up with the faster FSB). 4Ghz is possible with the Penryns, but that extra 10% is Very expensive and mainly will improve one's bragging rights. Intel does not just engineer hardware. They have engineered this marketing environment. "Speed costs," says Intel. "How fast do you want to go?" That last 10% will Always be outrageous.

FWIW I am running the e8500 at 4 gHz, 24/7 using a P35 board and DDR2 PC-800 memory. I was able to get to 4.1 but it was not Prime 95 stable after several hours. I am quite happy with my choice (for now)- but fully expect to upgrade to Sandy Bridge as soon as CPU price point gets below $300. Obviously that will require a board as well- add another $200 or so :( .As an intermediate step, I am hoping that the unlocked Quad extremes, that are currently over $1000, will plunge in price as soon as Nehalem is out- that way I can "upgrade" (at least for FSX as it doesn't really get much better than what I have now for FS9) at my price-point cutoff, within the next 12 months. I keep wanting to get back into Quad Core (I promise I am listening Sam)- but FS9 at 4gHz is a superlative experience- RIGHT NOW!Until SB4, and the MCP drivers for FSX- I'm sticking with FS9- and to tell the truth- while I do enjoy FSX (mostly with default aircraft and scenery) I am totally happy with my FS9 experience- and will leave FS9 with some reluctance- but I do recognize FSX's potential as well. Thinking of where we were 5 years ago- I can only smile in anticipation of where we are headed.Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png| XP Pro SP3 | 2 x APC UPS | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Gigabyte P35 DS3R | e8500 @ 4gHz | Tuniq Tower 120 | EVGA 8800GT 512MB | Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty | 2 x 1 GB Corsair XMS2 | 2 x 320GB WD Caviar RAID 0 | Corsair HX620W PS | CH Products Yoke-Pedals-Throttle Quadrant | Aerosoft 747MCP-EFIS-EICAS |

I agree. The real answer to this hardware dilemma is FS9. For serious fliers, there's nothing (especially) special about FSX when compared to FS9 with a full set of addons. Pounding along on final with the PMDG 744X at 15 FPS gets old.

Yup, exactly Sam! I've been really happy with my recent purchase of a Q6600 and paired with the DDR2-1066 RAM, I've not had any issues. Prime95 stable @ 3.6GHz and with my new Antec 900 case, I'm trying to find time to see if it'll hit 3.8GHz stable. Also, coming from the dual-core E6700, I swear there are no blurries and terrain updates seem smooth as butter on the Quad.Q6600 = 5 eggs (as we say on NewEgg) :-hah