go to this link to see the benchmarks for fs9 its the 6 one down, cant wait to get my hands on this cpu, a must get for me, table of contents is on the bottom to read more about this new cpu. I wonder what the frame rates would be like flying with alot of AI traffic inside the 737pmdg virtual panel in an area like NY. ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEAS??http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276894,00.asp

At least until pentium comes out with the Prescott CPU then I am sure Pentium will be back up there

what I dont understand is why does the 3.2 extreme edition fall behind our current 3.2 800fsb in the fs9 benchmark?

Yes, I find this whole thing suspicious.Not only the P4 E-xtreme falls behind the "regular" P4 but also Athlon 64 provides such minute improvement over the P4 that upgrade would make little sense economically.No, I am not impressed so far.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Interesting article! While I would like to see AMD be on top, I can't get to excited about it, but I am a bit. Hard to justify $733 for the small amount of performance the tests showed, but I am sure there are those out there that "have" to have it! LOLIt'll probably be the min spec for FS2006! LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

>go to this link to see the benchmarks for fs9 its the 6 one>down, cant wait to get my hands on this cpu, a must get for>me, table of contents is on the bottom to read more about this>new cpu. I wonder what the frame rates would be like flying>with alot of AI traffic inside the 737pmdg virtual panel in an>area like NY. ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEAS??>>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276894,00.aspYes, Wait until the chip ramps up as well as MB/chipsets as the Scores are not very significant when you look at the settings used to run FS9 for the benchmark (800x600 at low detail). A64 Just gets by the P4-3.2 there and if they tested at higher detail settings the margin between all CPUs in the benchmark would all be much closer, but certainly the chip has great future potential. :)

I checked out the performance stats. Pretty sad that even with that level of horsepower FS runs at those rates when tested in 800*600. Look at the Commanche 4 performance at 1280 now that is impressive. Again FS9 is just not delivering the goods in my humble opinion.It is a PIG!

Actually I find this article very encouraging.It says (assuming of course those numbers are valid): If you are an FS9 user - stay put, do nothing. No need to spend any $$$ now. I like it.Michael J.

I think its very interesting that the Athlon 64 is on P4 3.2GHz level, and its clocked about 1GHz slower LOL. Very impressive.I really think this chip will do well, it was like when the P4 began life. I remember when the PIII beat the early P4's at the same clock speed. Now look at the beast the P4 has become. I'll give that Athlon 64 some time and see how it compares to Intel's Prescott before I consider getting it LOL.

A64FX looks kind of limited application - Socket 940, requires buffered DIMM, etc. A64 looks like more of a practical solution, unless price is no object. I see A64 offered at $500 so far. Will be interesting when "real" Win64XP gets out.Even if you think an Intel is the only way to go, you should hope A64 is successful and keeps pressure on them. An Intel CPU monopoly will not be a pretty place.scott s..

The price for the A64 is hardly worth it, especially since you are going to be using it in a 32-bit OS. Until the 64-bit version of Windows XP is released (in about a year or so), it's just not worth it.Jim

I agree with scott 100% even though the athlon 64 is not big off a leap we hoped for its good that intel has some competition because we wouldn't want intel to be the only cpu available, it would be like back in the days where there was no AMD and intels prices would be alot higher than they currently are. Also from what I believe now know AMD was Intel before, until they split.

Like Paul said it isn't a spanking. More like a hand slap. If one notices your talking about a less than 10% difference in FR between the CPU in most benchmarks.As the article also states, what happens as more and more apps are written to take advantage of Hyper threading?. I'm sure the difference would be a lot smaller. I'm not saying it's not impressive for it's clock speed. AMD has always squeezed every ounce of performance out of their CPU's but come on now....$700 for 2 Ghz. So much for the bang for the buck slogan huh. Not only that but take a neww 800FSB 2.8Ghz and up, OC that sucker just a bit and lets see what the differnce is. And before anyone cries foul from the AMD camp stability is not a concern as a 2.8 can do 3.2+ 100% stable w a factory HSF.Let's all keep our pants loose right now. Until the prescott steps up to the plate it's all moot. If AMD can beat it than by all means they deserve the crown. But don't go grabbing for that crown yet. Intels worked to hard to get it and rest assured they won't give it up easy.In the end it means nothing but good things for us the consumer.Bobby

Wake me up when I can at least double my CPU and overall throughput! I kept me trusty P3 1GHz for quite some time, and 6 mo ago built this. No upgrades for me until we can do 5GHz or better.Noel

I read an article about the AMD64 about a month ago. They had run a test with it running on special 64bit software and were getting 400-500 fps running the latest version of Unreal (if I remember correctly). I thought it was a typo but it wasn't. I'll try to remember where I saw this, it escapes me at the moment. 64 bit will not only allow faster transfer of data, it will allow for ALOT more ram. Suppose you could load the entire game files into ram. My install of FS2004 took up 2.7gb or more. The cpu reads the ram 60,000 times faster than it reads the hd. The benefits of, in essence, having an hd sized ram bank are obvious. 64bit cpu's for desktops will be a quantum leap. Can't wait!Miller