Great preview at AnandTech regarding the Intel Nehalem architecture.FSX may finally 'fly' on these CPU's.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...aspx?i=3326&p=1

If their assumptions regarding the final CPU release are correct, that will be a shockingly powerful system.

>Great preview at AnandTech regarding the Intel Nehalem>architecture.>>FSX may finally 'fly' on these CPU's.>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...aspx?i=3326&p=1>>The release of the Nehalem CPU, Q4 hopefully, seems to be the time when I will build me a new pc :-) Looks very, very promising.I wonder if AMD will be able to match Intel on this one?Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

>>Great preview at AnandTech regarding the Intel Nehalem>>architecture.>>>>FSX may finally 'fly' on these CPU's.>>>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...aspx?i=3326&p=1>>>>>>The release of the Nehalem CPU, Q4 hopefully, seems to be the>time when I will build me a new pc :-) Looks very, very>promising.>>I wonder if AMD will be able to match Intel on this one?>>Ulf B>>Core2Duo X6800 3.3GHz>4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5>BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-Fi>FSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32They haven't managed to catch Penryn yet! Unless AMD have truly got something amazing (and very secret) up their sleeve then it looks like they are going to be relegated to the bargain basement of CPU's again.

Phil 'aint no dummy... He was hardware with ATi and knows where the performance comes from... they are planning CORE tech based on this platform.One last thought, Nehalem performance on unaligned memory accesses. FSX has these in spades. One of our performance work items for what we are calling "Wave 2009" in Core is to do work to memory align as many object types as we can. This and the IMC spell goodness for FSX, in case it wasn't already obvious.http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...it-deliver.aspxYea, we got the right man at the helm

>Phil 'aint no dummy... He was hardware with ATi and knows>where the performance comes from... they are planning CORE>tech based on this platform.>>>One last thought, Nehalem performance on unaligned memory>accesses. FSX has these in spades. One of our performance work>items for what we are calling "Wave 2009" in Core is to do>work to memory align as many object types as we can. This and>the IMC spell goodness for FSX, in case it wasn't already>obvious.>>>http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...it-deliver.aspx>>>>Yea, we got the right man at the helm>Nick,I agree, but let's be realistic and avoid pushing the expectations on the next FS too high this early. IMHO:I hope your'e right and that AMD doesn't come up with some revolutionary architecture that overthrow what we expect of the future. Remember that when the FSX architecture was drawn, we didn't expect the dual core to be part of the future.But the probability of AMD setting the pace for high end CPUs is very low at the moment.Ulf B

I know what you are saying... but if you understood the lingo and the tech you would know this is a -key- area with the current and future system to take advantage of and I am sure AMD is working on that area of their up and coming platform as well. they are behind Intel in that respect.For them to be looking at all this and planning it in the right direction tells me they are on the right path this time around.I did not say FS11 would be anything... I said the direction they are going and reporting on is the right research path for development and that does not happen without the right person pointing the way.

>I know what you are saying... but if you understood the lingo>and the tech you would know this is a -key- area with the>current and future system to take advantage of and I am sure>AMD is working on that area of their up and coming platform as>well. they are behind Intel in that respect.Yes, I admit that I don't have your knowledge on the lingo and the tech. I'll remember to humbly admit to that fact before answering any of your posts. I'm sorry.Ulf B

I was not trying to be facetious ... You made a comment about my outlook for the future and all I was doing was qualifying what I said and why I said it. If you took that any other way, I apologize as it was not meant to be anything other than what I described.

>>FSX may finally 'fly' on these CPU's.>I think FSX 'flies' with a Penryn but anyway...Lookin' good Intel.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC 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 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Group Hug?:-beerchug

Your a riot .. LOLI really did not mean to come off that way....

>I know what you are saying... but if you understood the lingo>and the tech you would know this is a -key- area with the>current and future system to take advantage of and I am sure>AMD is working on that area of their up and coming platform as>well. they are behind Intel in that respect.>>For them to be looking at all this and planning it in the>right direction tells me they are on the right path this time>around.>>I did not say FS11 would be anything... I said the direction>they are going and reporting on is the right research path for>development and that does not happen without the right person>pointing the way.>>>>>>>I just hope this time around Aces puts all the future Hardware performance options in the config file and not the GUI. These options are necessary but by putting them in the GUI, people automatically think they can run the sim full bore, and when it doesn't on the newest available hardware, it gets poo pooed as a bad performer. If FSX is properly tuned to the capabilities of your system, it performs very well. For the average system today that still means greater scenery density than in FS9. with 1m textures. Higher level can get even more, depending on what you deem acceptable performance. The problem with FSX wasn't FSX, it was the settings interface, that made options available that no hardware at the time of release, could possibly handle without a slide show. Like high density road, and ship traffic, or the thousands of autogen objects when at max settings. If the number of trees and buildings per cell defaulted to 800 and 600 instead of 4500 3500, and Road traffic was limited to 20%. I venture to say, I don't think FSX would have gotten the reputation it got. You could always up the value in the config file as your Hardware capabilities increased. But the GUI settings is what the average user will see first, and you know what they say? First impressions are the lasting impressions.

Could someone enlighten me about what this article shows?Obviously matters are still at a very embryonic stage. But it looks as if Nehalem is essentially Penryn plus better memory management. Now, that may be an important development in itself; I am certainly not qualified to say; but it does not look like the earth-shattering leap forward in raw CPU performance that some were hoping for. The idea that a 1st iteration ("tock") Nehalem might do a 1M Superpi in 8.32 seconds (which was, apparently, only a rumour started as a practical joke, but widely circulated anyway) looks well and truly far-fetched.At the moment my impression, as I expected, is that we will see another rather modest incremental performance improvement with the usual hype and inflated price premium - not that that will deter people from upgrading, obviously, including me. But I am still hoping to be proved wrong: so if anyone knows otherwise, can they please say so?Tim

>Could someone enlighten me about what this article shows?>"at 2.66GHz Nehalem is faster than the fastest Penryn available today the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 running at 3.2GHz. At 3.2GHz, Nehalem will be fast" Sounds darn good to me. This didnt take any overclocking to do that either. Also as Nick said earlier the Nehalem will use the way FSX wants to work far better than now. I am in the process of saving/building a new FSX system and now I will wait for sure for the Nehalem.