Hi all,Im looking at upgrading my E6600 to either a higher speed Dual (E8500) or a Quad (Q9550). I use both FS9 and FSX and don't have many problems with FS9, but would like to improve FSX as much as i can. My current spec is:Asus P5QL PRO CORE 2 DUO E6600 OCZ PC2-5400 4-4-4-12 2GB KIT ASUS HD4890 1GB GDDR5 WIN XP PRO SP3 2x SATA HDD's (nothing special) Im sticking with XP and im not into overclocking, so any other advice is welcome ;-)Are either of my choice CPU's worth it? And would i benefit from upgrading my RAM from 667mhz to 1066mhz (PC2-8500)?ThanksMataus

I did something similar - I went from an E6400 to a Q9450. I am very happy I got a quad core machine.As for the memory, if you can upgrade cheap to 4GB, go for it - otherwise, I would wait. You're going to see more benefit from the quad core than the memory speed.

I thought that the system uses 500mb, then my 2gb RAM and then another 1gb for the graphics card =3.5gb. Does Win XP not have a max usage of 4gb for everything?mataus

If you're going for a dual core, do not pay premium on that E8500. Get the E8400 instead, as you can match the clock for $100 less. Considering no overclock (why?!), I'd go for the quad.As for RAM, for a good overclock, 1066 would suit perfectly. But since you're not overclocking (why?!) 800 (6400) will do good.

I thought that the system uses 500mb, then my 2gb RAM and then another 1gb for the graphics card =3.5gb. Does Win XP not have a max usage of 4gb for everything?mataus

XP 32-bit does have a limit of 3.2GB of system memory. Graphics memory is independent of this and is only available to the GPU on your Asus HD4890, so it isn't relevant to this discussion.2GB will be perfectly fine for an XP machine if you're running base FSX without any major or external add-ons. If you're not spooling the hard drive with scenery loads as you fly, then 2GB is fine. I wouldn't spend money just to upgrade to 2GB of a higher speed though (unless you're overclocking - like ZachLW says). But if you're going to spend money on memory, get 4GB.But get the quad core. FSX uses just one core for the physics, but the other three load scenery and it's worth it.

I thought that the system uses 500mb, then my 2gb RAM and then another 1gb for the graphics card =3.5gb. Does Win XP not have a max usage of 4gb for everything?mataus

If you're using a video card with 1 GB installed, then the most RAM your system will be able to address with a 32-bit OS is something less than 3 GB. If you put an additional 2GB into the machine (for 4 GB total), less than half of that new 2GB will be addressable, because the OS gives 1GB of the available 4GB of address space to the video memory array, plus some more for other hardware devices on the system. In other words, over half of that additional 2GB will do nothing but generate heat...it will never be used by the system in a 32-bit environment.In a 64-bit system, the hardware address mapping occurs at addresses above the 4GB boundary, meaning that all 4GB of installed RAM can be addressed and used by the system and applications.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

A while ago I had the opportunity to try a quad core 9550.I overclocked it to 3600. My framerates where a bit less than I have now with my E8500 ruinning at 4.01.Core 0 is the most important for FSX. It will run the main application.All extra cores calculate scenery etc.The 2nd core of my E8500 almost never goes higher than 50% load.In PC Pilot they did several pc tests and they had the same results : the speed of your core 0 and it's cache are the most important for FSX. The new to come Aerosoft Flightsimulator 2012 however will benefit from all cores and even (multiple) SLI.That will be the moment I will upgrade my pc again.Btw : don't forget your memory. At least 4 Gb of memory and FSX will benefit up to 1600 mhz. So do not buy a fast processor and use 800 mhz memory with it ....

PC pilot mag is full of it.. and I mean to the point of hip bootsand its not the first story they have posted that is horse hockey eitherAlthough it is true the bulk of FSX is run off core0 anyone who wants autogen and terrain at high speed better have a quad installed and running off decent DDR3 memory tooI would take 3.6GHz on a QUAD over 4Ghz on a dual any day with the right memory speed/timing runningflat out.. people dont know how to set up and run FSX and the bottom line is these horse hocky rumors get posted all over the net because of it..and Bob Scott is spot on.. a 64bit OS is needed for best results

I would take 3.6GHz on a QUAD over 4Ghz on a dual any day with the right memory speed/timing runningand Bob Scott is spot on.. a 64bit OS is needed for best results

A while ago I had the opportunity to try a Q9650 from a friend of mine.I only switched processors and had it run at 3.8 Ghz.No performance gain or loss for me.So I returned to my E8500 at 4 Ghz. Spending extra money was at no use for me. When Aerosoft's FS2012 is going to be released will ne my next update moment. Indeed a 64bit OS is the best way to go.And Nick, a Fs2012 / Windows 8 tuning guide would be welcome than..... :(

Going from dual to quad isn't about higher fps, it's about smoother flight. Sharper textures, fewer stutters, more A.I. with the same framerate. Some people don't care for these things, or only take into account the number in the framerate counter when considering performance.

Going from dual to quad isn't about higher fps, it's about smoother flight. Sharper textures, fewer stutters, more A.I. with the same framerate. Some people don't care for these things, or only take into account the number in the framerate counter when considering performance.

Techguy is correct on the multi-core debate as is NickN. Having fluidity in the game with heavy AI and after market planes is where the quad core processors really pay off.

Well.. I can tell ya what you wont be doing on a dual core.. and that is popping Mach1 on the deck in the FA/18 over a decent size city with 100% SC/AG/SR/MC/TR and maintain 24+ smooth frames with crystal clear scenerythats what the quad does.. maintains smooth frames and terrain clarity under high velocity with autogen in the scene

Well.. I can tell ya what you wont be doing on a dual core.. and that is popping Mach1 on the deck in the FA/18 over a decent size city with 100% SC/AG/SR/MC/TR and maintain 24+ smooth frames with crystal clear scenerythats what the quad does.. maintains smooth frames and terrain clarity under high velocity with autogen in the scene

Up to now I fly jets and do not fly them under 10.000 ft with more than 250 kias.At higher altitudes ofcoarse I fly faster and then no stutters/jitters or whatsoever.And that with two screens horizontal expanded as one wide Fs view ( 3350x1060 ).There is always better ; my point was that I did not see any difference between my [email protected] compared to a [email protected] with a F18 at 1 Mach at 5000ft I would.So it made no use to spend extra money.At the end there is no reason for me to upgrade now.Upgrading to a I7 setup would make a difference I am sure.

Up to now I fly jets and do not fly them under 10.000 ft with more than 250 kias.At higher altitudes ofcoarse I fly faster and then no stutters/jitters or whatsoever.And that with two screens horizontal expanded as one wide Fs view ( 3350x1060 ).There is always better ; my point was that I did not see any difference between my [email protected] compared to a [email protected] with a F18 at 1 Mach at 5000ft I would.So it made no use to spend extra money.At the end there is no reason for me to upgrade now.Upgrading to a I7 setup would make a difference I am sure.

UnderstoodBut thats the point.. PC Pilot did not take into account what the quad does for the user and how it is used by FSX... when you consider the ability to do what I posted, then coming into a large hub @ <250Kts is childs play to the proc on equal settings and therefore allows a far greater potential for the user to add scenery in the way of autogen, etc without as much hassle to deal with in tuningI would rather be armed slipping into a final over a large city or flying sailplanes over trees in mountains than sitting there with my pants down waiting for that autogen to bite me in the arse LOL! :(FSX will use those physical cores.. all of them

UnderstoodBut thats the point.. PC Pilot did not take into account what the quad does for the user and how it is used by FSX... when you consider the ability to do what I posted, then coming into a large hub @ <250Kts is childs play to the proc and therefore allows a far greater potential for the user to add scenery in the way of autogen, etcI would rather be armed slipping into a final over a large city or flying sailplanes over trees in mountains than sitting there with my pants down waiting for that autogen to bite me in the arse LOL! :(

Nick , one question :I like to fly with TileProxy from time to time, but that taxes the system a lot when I have a weather program running with weather like today ( overcast , some rain and several cloud layers ).With 1 monitor I can fly even jets , but on 2 monitors 100 knots is the max.(With fair weather I can fly way faster.) What would you think about a Q9770 ?E8500 : stock 3.15 with 2x 3mb cache and 1333 Mhz --> 2x 4 Ghz at fsb 500Q9770 : stock 3.2 with 4x 3mb cache and 1600 Mhz --> 4x 4 Ghz at fsb 500Only if I find one not expensive it would be an option. If not I will wait.