Okay...here is the odd thing about my FS9 setup. I have a quad core with an ATI 4850. Everything is tweaked out with the cfg fie setup using a variety of suggested settings. I have the FPS locked to 40.If I run FS9 with only the core 0 checked...I get 28-32 FPS sitting on the runway at the freeware KBOS (or any other decent sized airport) with everything maxed out.If I cnt/alt/del and unclick core 0 but click on cores 1,2,3 for FS9...placing windows and everthing else on core 0 I get an immediate and replicable 20-30% increase in FPS. I now get 39.9 FPS stable. Placing FS9 on a single core significanlty reduces my FPS. Spreading it out over 3 cores buys me 20-30% increase in FPS.Tom

I know this has been talked about to death but you folks in here seem very knowledgable..so I'll run this by you guys once, and a simple no or yes answer will be plenty.Is there any true benefit to unchecking 1 of the cores on my dual core when running fs9?

I think so. I run it that way on my dual core secondary machine, except I modded the process affinity flag in the fs9.exe file header to do the same thing automatically when FS9 loads. It's nothing dramatic, but it seems to help a bit, presumably by keeping the OS from swapping the single FS9 process thread between CPUs.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob,How do you set the process affinity flag in the fs9.exe file header to automatically use just one CPU?Thanks.Eric

No, it has absolutely no effect on FPS. I have tested this on both my E6600 and E8600 machines, and never found ANY proof that it brings anything. The fact is, if you are running in your windows something that is permanently using CPU now and there - what you *shouldn't* do if you're a serious simmer, you might be better off running FS9 on the second core, but if you, like I do, keep your windows very very clean without anything (not even running an AV, don't need it) running residentially, then you have no reason to switch FS9 to Core1 instead of Core0. I have found a proof however that Windows schedules things to the Core1 if Core0 is used at 100%. That said, running FS9 on Core0 and letting Windows decide is in my perspective better and has never brought me any trouble. I have ALSO seen some proof of FS9 using 2nd Core:You can see from this screenshot following things happening:1) Load FS9 without going to menu, directly loading into a flight (FS9.cfg setting SHOW_OPENING_SCREEN=0)2) Change the view to spot4) Change back to panel3) Change aircraft to PMDG 7374) Close FS9You see the first Core being mostly used, but the 2nd is not without any work. This is why I wouldn't leave the FS9 working on one core only. The spikes you see on the 2nd core:1) First longer usage was while loading the flight2) Second bigger spike was when PMDG737 was loading its navigation databaseSomething to add more: Using FS9 on both Cores like this, might be also what Bob said - FS9 is MAYBE only changing Cores, but one can't really read that from this graph. Maybe it's also benefitting a bit from both Cores. In any case, difference between running it on only one Core and both Cores will bring you no perceptable difference - if you think you see more FPS or its smoother, it's only a placebo effect :)

Bob,How do you set the process affinity flag in the fs9.exe file header to automatically use just one CPU?Thanks.Eric

I used a Microsoft utility called imagecfg.exe to make the change. Try a search of the forums for "imagecfg" and it should turn up. I seem to remember also posting instructions on how to use a bitmap editor to make the changes manually.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Don't know if I'm allowed to post this link or not...so if you want to find imagecfg and cannot do it yourself, send me a pm.Mark

Correct. For FS9: the best CPU you can afford (if you can't afford i7, then get a fast quad or last generation C2D, the E8600), OC it the best you can, reach 4.0ghz+ and you are in heaven. Simple as that (considering CPU ONLY). And do run it on the first core.

Save the premium you paid and buy an E8400. I can match your clock and saved $100. :( That's a ridiculously priced processor...

Save the premium you paid and buy an E8400. I can match your clock and saved $100. :( That's a ridiculously priced processor...

Are you still running on air? I have the 8500 yet still with the original sink and fan, and the most I can get it too is 3.62 without going over 65C. If on air, which cooler did you get?

My processor can go as far as 4.6, but the problem is, I think my board doesn't want to play along. CPU is green in OCCT but WinRAR fails when unpacking. I never managed to figure out what the problem is...Anyway, I am very happy with it, no matter what the price.

My processor can go as far as 4.6

Show off... :(

Are you still running on air? I have the 8500 yet still with the original sink and fan, and the most I can get it too is 3.62 without going over 65C. If on air, which cooler did you get?

Actually, I'm on the cheaper Scythe Katana 3. I also have the E0 stepping. 4.0Ghz was easy, really easy. Never over 50C... Really! I also have an exceptional setup in this case, and maybe I'm lucky.

Actually, I'm on the cheaper Scythe Katana 3. I also have the E0 stepping. 4.0Ghz was easy, really easy. Never over 50C... Really! I also have an exceptional setup in this case, and maybe I'm lucky.

I learned that with CPUs its the same luck (or unluck) one can have with women! You sometimes get a good one, but sometimes you get a real poo... :( :( :(

OK good fellas,You certainly have loaded me with information. There is so much valuable information here that has given me a clue of what kind of tests and reviews I should search for at the internet.I have been thinking and thinking and so far decided to really make a jump into (or up to) next level of technology from my existing rig:In-Win X710-B Full Tower ATX w/430W PSUAsus P5WD2 Premium, I955X, Socket-775Intel Pentium 4 660 3.6GHz 2 X Corsair TWIN2X 6400 DDR2, 1024MB CL52 X Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB SATA2XFX GeForce 9800GT 600M 512MB GDDR3Sony DVD DWQ28AB2 IDE Sony Floppy 3,5" 1,44MB So here is what came out of my thinking:Antec Twelve Hundred Big TowerCooler Master Silent Pro M700, 700W , ModularUS Rampage II Extreme, X58 Socket-1366i7 Quad Processor i7-920 (Planned overclocked to 4.0 GHz)Corsair H50 Hydro Series CPU Cooler SupportCorsair XMS3 DDR3 1600MHz 6GBGainward GeForce GTX 275 896MB (I original wanted the ASUS, but I've got an offer that requires taking the Gainward)Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB, 10000RPM (Planned for OS and system files only)Western Digital Caviar

Carl, you might want to report that in the Hardware section. There is a wealth of info between all the experts there. I haven't built a system in the past 2 years so I can't really comment on all the new technology.

Carl, you might want to report that in the Hardware section. There is a wealth of info between all the experts there. I haven't built a system in the past 2 years so I can't really comment on all the new technology.

Thanks Red. Right you are, however, I wasn't sure about which forum I should put this issue in to start with so I put it in both (sorry).I have got some points of view there as well and now finally I put a link to my latter post here in that forum as the major response was here.Carl