According to the following article on Anandtech, the new Nehalem architecture will not necessarily provide a huge boost to games. In your opinion, does this mean that FSX will not see any significant advantages from Nehalem? Thank you.http://anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480

Maybe, maybe not. We just have to wait for some real benchmarks with a good X58 mobo.Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

>According to the following article on Anandtech, the new>Nehalem architecture will not necessarily provide a huge boost>to games. In your opinion, does this mean that FSX will not>see any significant advantages from Nehalem? Thank you.>Well they write games aren't going to benefit much, but isn't flight sim different from other games in many aspects?

As others have said we'll just have to wait and see. Personally - while still hopeful - I remain highly sceptical about Nehalem. More cores, hyperthreading, a new way of handling memory - all very nice. But what FSX most needs is brute strength in the shape of higher clockspeeds. And these are still being withheld. I say "withheld" because it is perfectly clear from the o'clocking abilities of Intel's current line-up that there is masses of headroom within this technology. I'm sure that Intel could release 4GHz+ CPUs right now, if it needed to respond quickly to a sudden threat from AMD. But it prefers to drip-feed speed increases by agonizingly small increments, simply because this maximises its profits by inflating the perceived value of each extra Hertz and lengthening the life of each product cycle. It doesn't want to sell me a 4GHz CPU yet: it wants me to buy 3.4GHz and 3.8GHz CPUs first - and preferably a 3.6GHz one in-between. It can only get away with this tactic because it faces no competition at the high end from AMD and others. Nehalem, I am afraid, will be a continuation of this pattern: new technology for the salesmen to talk about; headline-grabbing improvements in highly specialized areas; yet further segmentation of the market for exploiting new "premium" buyers (2 cores, 4 cores, 8 cores, goodness knows how many cores); giving just enough extra performance to tempt buyers; but releasing the real potential for performance improvements as slowly as possible, to lengthen the life of the technology and maintain an absurdly high

Phil Taylor makes a subtle little comment to Nehalem in his latest blog. Am I reading too much into it?? If I'm not mistaken, I think I have read something, somewhere from Phil about how Nehalem performs certain draw calls much more efficiently compared to current CPUs. These draw calls are used extensively in FSX.Surely, a person of his status must have seen by now, FSX running on Nehalem???..Anyway, I think there is some hope......Tom

>As others have said we'll just have to wait and see.>Personally - while still hopeful - I remain highly sceptical>about Nehalem. More cores, hyperthreading, a new way of>handling memory - all very nice. But what FSX most needs is>brute strength in the shape of higher clockspeeds. And these>are still being withheld. I always thought that FSX has some kind of "sweet spot" around 3.6Ghz and that pushing the CPU beyond that creates a case of diminishing or insignificant returns? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

The more raw CPU power the better, why would you think a higher clock speed would diminish performance? the only negative aspect is a risk of lockups or random reboots from insufficient cooling.Rob

>The more raw CPU power the better, why would you think a>higher clock speed would diminish performance? the only>negative aspect is a risk of lockups or random reboots from>insufficient cooling.>>RobI guess I only mentioned it because I overclocked my CPU once to 3.8Ghz and I cannot really say that I saw a significant improvement. I didn't really mean diminish performance. I actually meant the true definition of "diminishing returns" where after a certain point adding more of something yields less or less significant results.

>I guess I only mentioned it because I overclocked my CPU once>to 3.8Ghz and I cannot really say that I saw a significant>improvement. Glad to hear I'm not alone, I've had my cpu just past 4GHZ and haven't really noticed much of a frame gain - very slight, at best over my e6750 @ 3.2. Kinda dissappointing as I expected at least 2-4 FPS increase and it's just not there when one needs it most. At least I didn't have to pay anything for my upgrade.....Regards, Kendall#1: E8500 @ 3.95 - HyperTX2 Gigabyte P35-DS3L 4GB Ballistix Tracers PC6400 EVGA 8800GT - XG's 174.74 Seagate 250GB 7200.11 CH Yoke/Pedals/Saitek Throttle Dual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905 #2: Dell 8400 3.2 H.T. 3GB PC4200 - X800XT Diamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530's

Based on my little experiments (posted on this forum recently) the picture is a bit muddled.FSX is CPU bound in the "Global high" settings of the FSXMark07 benchmark that everyone uses. At this level of graphics detail, adding CPU Hertz adds framerates, pretty much in direct proportion to the speed of the CPU: period.But the picture is less clear-cut when you really turn up the graphics settings. The extra CPU Hertz still bring something to the party - but not nearly in direct proportion to the extra CPU speed. That, I think, is the sense in which about 3.6GHz is a "sweet spot".So the bottom line is that we still (or, at least, I still) would ideally like faster & faster CPUs, even though the law of diminishing returns has already begun to apply. Apparently the real, full-motion, simulators give about 60fps constantly and - having used one - I can tell you, it really makes a tremendous difference to the whole experience: it would be terrific if we could get the same fluidity on our desktops. Otherwise, fingers crossed for FS11 ...Tim

very well said Tim. as long as AMD can't be seen in Intel's rear view mirror it will be the same ole song and dance from Intel. marketing and hype at it's best. oh, and let's not forget those lofty, sky high price tags. happy flyin, FM

Shazam!Poof- You now have 60 fps global high.Whats the first thing you are going to do?Thats right.Gotta replace the sky, the ground,the water,mesh,autogen,,add custom airports,sceneries.What, I am still geting 40 fps!Time to get some planes.Addon makers will really get carried away with no worries about performance from these uber machines so really lay on the detail.At least twice a year since Ive been simming since the 80s, there is that "going to change the world" tech innovation announced.Sometimes they really do but are quickly devoured and before they even hit the mainstream, are already being replaced.Ive flown a few "real world" simulators and there is a reason they are smooth.The graphics su**. At least by FSX "our" standards.They are just enough to give you a believable enviroment.If you turn off all the FSX autogen,ai, and lower the overall settings, most of us can get close to 60 right now.If you were sitting in a multi million dollar full motion airline cockpit simulator and had FSX being ran across those screens, your jaw would hit the floor.Aces missed the boat last time around and lets just hope that they are onboard this time.My guess is that 4 gig cards and 6 ghz dual quads will be running in 2 years.Doesnt really matter as there is NO other sim to choose from so we will just have to wait and see.

>>I guess I only mentioned it because I overclocked my CPU>once>>to 3.8Ghz and I cannot really say that I saw a significant>>improvement. >>Glad to hear I'm not alone, I've had my cpu just past 4GHZ and>haven't really noticed much of a frame gain - very slight, at>best over my e6750 @ 3.2. Kinda dissappointing as I expected>at least 2-4 FPS increase and it's just not there when one>needs it most. At least I didn't have to pay anything for my>upgrade.....>Maybe your graphics card replaces the CPU as the system bottleneck at higher clock speeds?Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

More info on Core i7 herehttp://www.tomshardware.com/news/Turbo-Mode-Intel,6193.htmland herehttp://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

I thought I read a post here where Phil T said that the new technology in Nehalem looked good for FSX. None of us will know for sure till we get one and try it, so I will remain optimistic and hope Nehalem will help us out. Combine that with a new graphics engine in FS 11 and maybe there will be a little less groaning and moaning around here, but then again maybe not.... I will wait and see!:-hmmm