I agree, My 3DMark 2003 score fell slightly from 5311 with the 3.5 cats to 5277 with the 3.7 Don't see any difference in FS2004 although I did wonder whether the sky appeared a more intense blue - probably just the time of day selected before flying.Mike

Jimmie,Actually you need a little more than a couple of frames per second increase to raise your score 500. Especially when you consider how many rigs can actually attain those kinds of numbers. That's not a brag just a factual statement. Actually there was an increase in every test.Test 1 was up 6.8 FPSTest 2 was up 5.1 FPSTest 3 was up 5.4 FPSTest 4 was up 4.8 FPSCPUMarks were up 8.6CPUTest 1 was up 4.6 FPSCPUTest 2 was up 4.2 FPSSingle texture fill rate was up 84 Texels/secMultitexture fill rate was up 227 Texels/secVertex shader up 4.8 FPSPixel shader 2.0 up a nice 9.5 FPSRagtroll test up 4.9 FPSSo as you can see it takes more than just a few FPS increase or an increase in just one test to raise the score that much. I'm sorry to hear how you feel that it's not important to point out the results of any 3DMark tests because in your words "It's not a real game". Your right it's not. It's a tool to benchmark performance based on hardware config, drivers and Bios that will result in the best performance overall for a system. Your right the performance in the real world is what counts. But I can gaurantee you if your performance in any of these benchmarks is bad, your performance in your games is going to be bad. One can draw an almost direct comparison to the performance of a race car. If we follow your logic than if I only gain a few horsepower it means nothing. And we can't use the results of Dyno runs to judge performance on becuase that doesn't show how the car will perform in the real world. To a point your correct. But I will tell you that if a part costs horsepower on the dyno run it will never make it to the track.I posted the numbers from a benchmark program becuase that is something that can be compared evenly across the board removing as many variables as possible. Perhaps someone will create a benchmark based on FS9. You probably wont see it though due to the tremendous variables involved.They were posted for info purposes only. I noticed no visual quality degradation and no loss in performance. This may not hold for everyone.Why not take all the passion you showed in trying to prove an autogen bug existed in FS9 and create a repeatable benchmark scenario that can be used to judge performance from within a "REAL" game. This would allow everyone to base there performance on something.I just feel bad for all the magazines and testing centers that use the same benchmark (Either version of 3DMark) to verify performance increases or decreases instead of a real game.Like I said I understand your point to a degree, you just need to give more creedance to the use and usefullness of these type of benchmarks that's all.Have a good nightBobbyP.S. just some more numbers...Both UnrealTourn.2003 benchmarks I ran showed an improvement. 17 FPS in one and 16.4 in the other. A real world performance increase in a real game.I included this picture just to show there is no issue at least on my machine w image quality compared to the 3.6's. Actually, after running the sim for a few hours now I actually think the 3.7's look better visually.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/35472.jpg

>I agree, My 3DMark 2003 score fell slightly from 5311 with>the 3.5 cats to 5277 with the 3.7 Don't see any difference in>FS2004 although I did wonder whether the sky appeared a more>intense blue - probably just the time of day selected before>flying.>>MikeMike,Try rerunning the benchmark after doing a fresh defrag. The point difference you saw is a wash as it's less than 50 points. You could gain 50 points w just a defrag. Also, your machine was probably not in the same state it was when you first ran the benchmark also.Just some info.Bobby