Since FS9 and FSX is so CPU dependent, can it handle dual cpu's? I got to thinking would it be better to buy a motherboard that handles two i7 920s (for example), or buy a board that can handle the i7 975 extreme?Want to run three either 24" to 27" LED monitors perhaps with that new ATI 5800 series card with Eyefinity. What do you think would give better performance?thx,Clutch

No, as answered here by yours truly across multiple posts:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=261324

Interesting, I did read the post and it appears it does work, and quite well. The people over at Orbx are also using multiple cpus with amazing results. Will continue to read up on it.Clutch

You seem to have reached the wrong conclusion.I hope you're not planning on spending money based on that conclusion.More cores does not provide more FSX performance. All the wishing in the world won't change that.

I asked this same question not too long ago and got directed to the ORBX dual CPU machine. At first it looks like an FSX dream, but digging further turns up a few people who built the same system as the ORBX one are not even close to getting the same performance.

Maybe, just maybe, they don't have Jay's system.Maybe those who bought the same board, chips, ram, ssd drive, and video cards don't know how to set it up.I wish I had those parts in my hands, I would be able to give you an answer with certainty.I went with an i7 975, because I had no idea that a skulltrail could do for fsx what it did for Jay.This is just a hunch, I believe that the skulltrail that Jay built does perform as is stated. 2 chips are better than one for fsx. Just my 2 cents.

It doesn't work that way, as I've already explained to you.All the cores in the world aren't going to accelerate a primarily serial workload.

So then... How would you explain the 70-80 FPS with all sliders maxed using Manhattan scenery? I've known Jay for a couple of years now. He's not one to create tall tales. I will inquire with him directly - see if he has posted any vids on the subject. No, I haven't made any commitments yet as to which way I will go. I've got several months still to research but I like to consider all possibilities.Clutch

So then... How would you explain the 70-80 FPS with all sliders maxed using Manhattan scenery? I've known Jay for a couple of years now. He's not one to create tall tales. I will inquire with him directly - see if he has posted any vids on the subject. No, I haven't made any commitments yet as to which way I will go. I've got several months still to research but I like to consider all possibilities.Clutch

The burden of proof lies upon he who makes the claim.Is 70-80 FPS in FSX attainable with the highest settings? Absolutely. Just not with today's hardware. Let me try to explain again. If a task (FSX) has a series of instructions, each subsequent instruction dependent upon the completion of the previous instruction, said task cannot be effectively parallelized. This is why there are so few well-threaded applications. Most tasks are serial in nature. It's like an assembly line. You can't put the wheels and tires on a car until the axles go on, you can't put the pistons in the engine until the crankshaft is in place, etc. etc.Just because there are available execution resources and more instructions to be handed out, doesn't mean it can be done, or that your application stands to gain any performance from doing so.

Max,Are you implying that Jay is not telling the truth about the performance in FSX?I was very skeptical until I asked Jay to check fps with a few scenarios and in less than 24 hours I got a prompt and definitive response.FSX does take advantage of more cores. If I remember correctly, up to 256 cores. Therefore a system with more cores, properly setup, should perform much better, higher fps.I'm just not really in a position to show facts because I don't own a skulltrail.

Wow DJ - I'm with you!I wasn't aware that so many people had first hand experience of Multi-CPU systems that they could make such didactic statements as I see on this thread. The other thread seemed to get a little confused between hyperthreading and true logical cores - then got into a heat dissipation discussion. Quite a different set of considerations it would seem.Certainly the Skulltrail must have been bad to have gone back to an overclocked quad!! Oh hold on .... you mean we're talking in theory.Maybe it is not about processes and threads at all - but bandwidth. Who knows?As for the burden of proof - the Screenshots say 80 FPS. Maybe they were photoshopped! Seems unlikely to me!Theoretical and practical knowledge sometimes differ now, don't they.and the burden of proof now goes where? ........

This is an interesting topic. Although I don't have any tech knowledge to give my opinion, I will :-)Maybe having two physical cores working together is better for FSX than only having just one quad cpu...won't it be like having 2 quad cpus instead of one?And any thoughts on if anyone thinks the upcoming gulftowns will statistically benefit FSX

I know you all *want* to believe there's some magic hardware config that will speed up FSX but it just doesn't exist.If you put aside emotion and use logic you will see that my explanation is right on the money.It does not make sense to believe the results of one individual when no one else can produce the same results. It is possible that something is wrong with the configuration in question. Perhaps something happened to their config file and they believe they are running higher settings than they actually are. I don't know for sure but there is no way to attain such high FPS with the highest settings in FSX on current hardware, regardless of how many physical CPUs there are. Again, you can't parallelize a serial task.

I know you all *want* to believe there's some magic hardware config that will speed up FSX but it just doesn't exist.If you put aside emotion and use logic you will see that my explanation is right on the money.It does not make sense to believe the results of one individual when no one else can produce the same results. It is possible that something is wrong with the configuration in question. Perhaps something happened to their config file and they believe they are running higher settings than they actually are. I don't know for sure but there is no way to attain such high FPS with the highest settings in FSX on current hardware, regardless of how many physical CPUs there are. Again, you can't parallelize a serial task.

What I think is this.It is true that FSX only spawns multiple threads to handle certain autogen and texture loading functions. So extra cores do not DIRECTLY affect fps: four cores will not make the thing work at four times the speed. However: every autogen call and every texture-load call which is REMOVED from the primary thread running on Core 0, is one less task for Core 0 to discharge. So INDIRECTLY, multiple cores do free-up processor time on Core 0. And this time CAN be put to good use, including by speeding up the rendering overall.That is how I make sense of my own experience. Going from a 4.3GHz dual-core E8600 to a quad core 4.4GHZ i7 975, textures and autogen loaded much faster, giving a much snappier feel to FSX; framerates were only slightly faster - nothing to boast about - but they WERE faster. And so I can well imagine that having 8 physical cores would produce a bit more snappiness in texture and autogen loading, and also slightly higher fps.On the other hand, given the oblique way in which multiple cores help with framerates, it would be unwise to sacrifice too much clockspeed for the sake of multiple cores. If it were my choice, as presently advised and with current generation technology, I would far prefer four cores running at 4.4GHz to eight cores running at 3.6GHz.Perhaps this is a long-winded way of suggesting that both points of view might be more-or-less right, even if neither of them is exactly right. So surely we can all be friends.Tim

The problem is that some are suggesting 8 cores gives a HUGE boost in FPS. This is absurd.