LOL, that explains everything :( Thanks, now I have to remember: which, which, which, which...

It's funny how so many people can just throw ridiculous amount of money to play half baked sim, like FSX. Even Xplane has much better performance with full REX details, and good planes, and that's because someone did market research first.Aces team did pretty good job making sure that Intel will be a choice #1 for FSX simmers for years, as their CPUs are better ONLY when it comes to MT lacking applications, as FSX (which by the way uses core implementation that is now 10 yrs old). They clearly said that FSX was built with 8GHz CPUs in mind, and they've been surprised with multicores instead.AMD is far better in MultiCore than Intel, taking value for money into account. AMDs X6 has got real 6 cores, where Intel's 8 Core is only 4 Core CPU with HT/core (yes same HT as in P4 back 6 years ago), which has very little to do with added performance and is also a nuisance to those who want to OC their CPUz.Remember that Intel still owns the crown in the number of bugs in microcode, and only some of them can be fixed with new release or with BIOS patches. I also really don't want to mention their policy regarding sockets: every new CPU has got new sucket, which basically means that one must buy new MOBO with new CPU. This is partially solved in iCore, but still not fully, as incoming family will change it again.All in all, OCd AMD is very good for FSX, as well as for a multitude of apps relying on multicores. Also new games (other than FSX) are all built with multicores in mind, and AMD owns Intel in most tests on those.If one have spare

AMDs X6 has got real 6 cores, where Intel's 8 Core is only 4 Core CPU with HT/core (yes same HT as in P4 back 6 years ago), which has very little to do with added performance and is also a nuisance to those who want to OC their CPUz.

I don't think anyone touts HT as extra cores because that is silly. However i7 980X has also 6 'real' cores.

Tomasz, in most of 3D games the CPU at this moment doesn't play that much role as it did, CPUs became so powerful that what limits average PC is GPU. While testing CPUs for gaming performance it's a must to set resolution to some ridiculous 800x600 just to avoid GPU from reaching it's limits. That's why it really doesn't matter if You go with X6 or i7! For most games dual core CPUs are still fine and enough, and quads seems even to much. Now for game like FSX we need CPU with very fast one core (as You said it was developed with 8Ghz in mind) and Intel's single core is much faster than AMD's. That's what I need for FSX, and that's what I care for. In all other games those CPUs will perform equally, and they will be limited by my GPU, also costs are equal, as long as You don't want to go with some high end setup, mostly because it looks good :(

Hi guys just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion...I fly the J41 with all sliders (eccept traffic at 50% and autogen dense) maxed out and I get 15-16 frames at least(very fluid).Of course addon scenery,track ir,rex,addon traffic and my video card settings are set to very high quality,resolution Full HD.I tried overclocking the cpu but I get better fluidity at stock (3.4).David Di Domizio,Specs:AMD 965 @3.4Ati 5770 @860-12006 gigs ddr2

I don't quite entirely agree with your statement, infact I am using the AMD Phenom II X4 995 and it has been overclocked @ 3.6 and is running the FSX very smoothly. Not only for FSX but for many other games also.Another point I want to make regarding the quad core, I have disabled two of my cores in the bios and I am still getting the FSX running at the same frame rates and running smoothly.The AMD is doing far better than Intel at the moment. That is why Intel had to drop their prices.Dez

I agree with Dez when he talks about AMD's good performace and not when he says they are better than Intel (only because I don't have an Intel cpu).I have a 965 BE running at stock (3.4),cost me 140 euros and was able to use it on an AMD2 socket which saved me from buying a new system and spending a lot more money.AMD might not be where the i7 is,I can't say more cause I don't have an i7 but intel are imo overpriced.I can run anything with my 965BE with all sliders maxed,eccept traffic at 50% and autogen at dense.

Tomasz, in most of 3D games the CPU at this moment doesn't play that much role as it did, CPUs became so powerful that what limits average PC is GPU. While testing CPUs for gaming performance it's a must to set resolution to some ridiculous 800x600 just to avoid GPU from reaching it's limits. That's why it really doesn't matter if You go with X6 or i7! For most games dual core CPUs are still fine and enough, and quads seems even to much. Now for game like FSX we need CPU with very fast one core (as You said it was developed with 8Ghz in mind) and Intel's single core is much faster than AMD's. That's what I need for FSX, and that's what I care for. In all other games those CPUs will perform equally, and they will be limited by my GPU, also costs are equal, as long as You don't want to go with some high end setup, mostly because it looks good :(

Can't fully agree with that. Today's 3D games are using so much CPU that devs are looking at GPUs spare power to do intensive calcs. An example would be physics calculations, which are now art of most games, and if you don't have nvidia card with built in physx, then CPU is doing all that. Set physics to max and most CPUs can't cope with that.CPUs even quad cores are still major bottleneck, not GPUs. Many 3D games (e.g. X series) are so CPU intensive and 3D rich at the same time, that even the fastest i7 is choking up in busy sectors. AI becoms more and more complicated, with neural nets and huge decision trees all over the place, and all of that is handled by CPUs.The problem with FSX is 75% streaming of data and the 25% actual systems simulation. Streaming of data is based on "original implementation" from FS2000 (IIRC) which was made for much less complicated terrain and objects, and today's FSX is using the same technology for 1000x larger objects and scenes. As to the systems simulation, it's also obsolete, but MS decided to rely more on custom "per aircraft" implementation that on the hybrid with so well working blade theory, that was supposed to be in FS11, which is also less CPU intensive and has highly scalable realism.Xplane currently is the only product with a future, and it's devs are not afraid of necesary changes to adjust the sim to hardware that is on the market (available to majority of users), and if companies like PMDG would try to learn it, they would find many many customers happy to pay for a professional high quality product for XPlane, like 747.Cheers