Hi,Is it normal to only get 50% CPU usage with FS2004?. When I run FSX I get 100% usage on both cores.(I have a Dual Core X6800 CPU with Windows XP Pro).My understanding in regards to FS2004, it is not capable of using both cores. But shouldn't I be able to get 100% out of one of my cores when running FS2004?.Seems that I am losing 50% of my CPU's processing power that could be used to get better performance inside FS2004.

Hi,I got my answer, I think.Core 1 usage = 100% usage | + | Core 2 usage = 0% usage = Total usage between both cores = 50%.Do I have this right?If so, I would gladly pay Microsoft for a patch that would give FS2004 the ability to utilize multi core. How many others feel the same way?.

I would think why you are only registering 50% with FS9, is that with X6800 Conroe, even a single core is capable of running FS9 at only fifty perecent of its total [ 1 single core ] capacity. Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

I wonder what kind of perf I'd get out of FSX since i'll be using both cores at full capacity...

>Hi,>>I got my answer, I think.>>Core 1 usage = 100% usage | + | Core 2 usage = 0% usage =>Total usage between both cores = 50%.>>Do I have this right?>>If so, I would gladly pay Microsoft for a patch that would>give FS2004 the ability to utilize multi core. How many others>feel the same way?.Correct...you are using 50% of the CPU cycles available from both cores.The OS leverages multi core to some degree with FS9 by running add-ons and other utilities and processes that run outside FS (like Radar Contact and ActiveSky, for example) on the other core. Since FS is keeping one pretty much maxxed out, Windows generally puts other process threads on the other core. The idea that the second core is wasted, or makes no contribution isn't really correct.I also run an X6800 (at 3.6GHz with FS9 frames locked at 30 fps), and I find that having the luxury of a considerable amount of CPU headroom (available unused CPU cycles) means that other processes can get some CPU time without really bothering FS. In fact I leave my antivirus running on this machine with no discernable impact on FS (where the same program just tore up FS on my older HT-based machine).RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

>I wonder what kind of perf I'd get out of FSX since i'll be>using both cores at full capacity...FSX does not use both cores "at full capacity."FSX utilizes additional available cores to do some of the housekeeping work in FS, but it does not push nearly enough work over to keep a second or subsequent core running at 100%.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile