Does FS9 benefit from quad core or dual core

[Arnaud 0]

I'm bumping that thread because I am also planning on a complete hardware upgrade (cpu, mobo, gfx card etc) but I am still unsure about the CPU.I actually run fs9 on an oldish P4 3.2 with 2gb Corsair Ram and and an oldish ATI Radeon 9800XT, and I will stay on fs9.At the end of the day, shall i go for a quad core or would a dual core 3.33Ghz be sufficient? I am thining about an intel E8600 or something in the like.May I also ask you guys which resolution do you have fs9 set to? I had it set to 1280*1024 on a 17" monitor but since I bought today a 22" with 1920*1080 I am having fear that my actual video card will bite the dust

[TechguyMaxC 516]

If you never plan to use FSX and you don't run any other demanding tasks on your PC, be it other games or video encoding etc., then a fast dual core will be better than a quad core at the same price. Usually you can get a higher clockspeed dual core for the same price as a lower clockspeed quad core. FS9 loves clockspeed, and doesn't even recognize more than a single core.

[Arnaud 0]

Okay, thank you MaxC, I wanted to be sure somehow. I just tried fs9 on my new 22" monitor and in 1920*1080 resoution, and no surprise it quite brings my old Radeon 9800XT on its knees.So I'm off for a Dual Core and a more recent video card. I might come back here and post the results :)

[greggerm 312]

AcK! Hopefully I'm not too late!!Recommendation i7 860. (the newer Lynnfield set).I moved from an e8600 to an i7 860 and the difference is significant. Although I do run FSX, the ability to knock the sliders even further up AND get better smoothness and framerates was quite impressive. Although the e8600 is a good/great dual core, the new architecture of the i7's give them an inherent speed increase over the C2D's. Even though FS9 does not directly use dual or quad cores ("multithreading" proper), your weather generation tools and other externally running programs will be able to utilize them, further freeing the "FS9" core to do what it needs to do.The addage about preferring single cores at higher clockspeeds as opposed to duals and quads with lower clockspeeds is valid, however the differences we as humans could observe between the two have rapidly diminished if not disappeared with the introduction of the i7's. Furthermore, the i7's ability to "self-overclock" (turbo boost) on one or more cores (Lynnfield) allows the i7's to outpace the C2D's in clockspeed, giving it an even wider superiority. Tack on the i7's quad-core architecture to help you when you're not in MSFS, and you've got today's best price/performance sweet spot leader. Allow me to add also that the nVidia 8800 GT, 9800 GT, and 260 GTX series of cards will all support MSFS perfectly. The 9800GT is considered by many to be the BEST MSFS graphics card, despite it's age. Other cards will do better in other games, but users have found the 9800GT/GTX to be a superior performer in MSFS, even when compared to newer cards from both nVidia and ATI/AMD. You may wish to keep the 9800, and apply the savings there to a nice i7 system instead. I personally believe that will make you a very happy simmer!-Greg

[Arnaud 0]

hey Greg, no you arent too late :) (Cool avatar you've got btw)That's interesting, and you have me doubting again. I stayed away from the hardware discussions too long obviously, I had no idea about the nVidia 9800GTX being a must for flight sims.My 9800XT is an old ATI, not nVidia, old stuff that I need to replace indeed. Thanks for the advise, going to look closer to the i7 family then.Regards-

[greggerm 312]

Ooooh... it's a 9800XT by ATI.Yeah, that might be upgrade material. ;)But, at least you know you can spend small dollars on the video card and apply it towards the processor instead. The loss you'd take if you updated the card would be far less than if you had to go from a new C2D to a new i7 platform in a year or two.