Which way should I go? For FS9 now and maybe FSX in the future.Will the quad give me better performance in FS9 now or will the core 2 be better?JimCYWG

FS9 only uses one core. FSX will use multiple cores. If you want to "future proof" yourself, I would defintely go with the quad.

If you overclock, go for the quad. Otherwise, go for the highest clock speed dual core you can afford.Gary

I don't overclock. It will be the fastest core 2 duo. The E8500 looks like the fastest. 3.16 g herts About $225.00 canadian.ThanksJimCYWG

For FSX you want the fastest CPU speed, go with the e8500.If you do decide to, its a great overclocker too.A quad can speed up FSX loading times but framerate will be all but the same between and quad and dual at the same speed.

>A quad can speed up FSX loading times but framerate will be>all but the same between and quad and dual at the same speed.Nope, dont think so. I went from a Dual to a Quad of exactly the same speed and got an instant FPS increase. Also it does not fall off when loading textures as you go along. Have watched the cores and all 4 are always working 60-80% in the quad. In the dual it was both working 80-100% and real drops around big airports.John Veldthuishttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa475.png

>Nope, dont think so. I went from a Dual to a Quad of exactly>the same speed and got an instant FPS increase. Perhaps if you upgraded some other components (eg. mobo and RAM) or the quad you installed was one of the newer, more efficient cores, (eg. E6xx to Q9xx), or the quad is clocked higher than the dual you had, then you may have seen a slight FPS increase. Otherwise, a quad of the same clock speed as a dual won't punch out any higher FPS in FSX. Still don't believe me? Turn two cores off using the AffinityMask setting in FSX.cfg and measure the change in FPS.>Also it does>not fall off when loading textures as you go along. Have>watched the cores and all 4 are always working 60-80% in the>quad. In the dual it was both working 80-100% and real drops>around big airports.If you've seen my test results comparing two versus four core for texture loading performance, you'll know that FSX by itself will balance the load quite nicely across two cores, even if they are both maxed out at times. It is only when a few addons are thrown into the mix that total average core utilisation gets above 2, but even then it is only just.Given the above and overclocking aside, I'd pick a cheaper dual core with 10% or greater clock speed over a more expensive quad core for FS9 / FSX any day.Gary

>If you've seen my test results comparing two versus four core>for texture loading performance, you'll know that FSX by>itself will balance the load quite nicely across two cores,>even if they are both maxed out at times. It is only when a>few addons are thrown into the mix that total average core>utilisation gets above 2, but even then it is only just.Sorry to burst your bubble but it does on mine. The FPS went up very noticebly. Sure not way up in the air but close to big airports when the FPS start to drop off they kept up.Also I would much rather have 4 cores running at 60-80% then 2 cores running at 80-100%. Gives room for expansion later and running other programs such as ASX with my PMDG 744X.>Given the above and overclocking aside, I'd pick a cheaper>dual core with 10% or greater clock speed over a more>expensive quad core for FS9 / FSX any day.Not me. The price difference now is barely worth the duo over the quad.John Veldthuishttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa475.png

>Sorry to burst your bubble but it does on mine. The FPS went>up very noticebly. Sure not way up in the air but close to big>airports when the FPS start to drop off they kept up.My bubble is far from being burst, as it is your assertion that goes against advice given by ACES on these very forums about the behaviour of FSX's FPS-producing processing effort being limited to one and a bit cores at absolute best.Also, I and many others here on this forum, have run repeatable tests that clearly show FPS neglibly improves going up from two cores to more. Here are my test results, if not endorsed but certainly acknowledged by Phil Taylor of ACES fame as being of evidentiary worth: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...pe=search#32194Care to post your test methodology, results and system specs that turns this existing line of thought on its head?Gary

Gary,Don't waste your time. I had a similar discussion in a thread a while back and 'John' came in all bullish and condescending like he has here.I pointed him at the time to the benchmarking you and many others had done showing FPS and core usage. There was no reply. Make of that what you will..........