Hi,I am wondering about upgrading my system. Today I use a AMD AM2 X2 with just 3GHz. I am asking you guys where I would get better performance for BOTH FS9.1 and FSX, when I would buy "CPU BOX AMD Phenom II X4 970 3.5GHz Sockel AM3 8MB Cache" for 180€or a"CPU BOX AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3GHz Sockel AM3 9MB Total Cache" for 260€I know both are needing CPU clock speed. FSX is using more than one CPU core, FS9 is not using more than one.So, FS9 would showing better performance with 3.5GHz, FSX would use all 6 cores and would get better?Please dont tell me to change my system to intel. That's just too expensive to go for. I already have a AMD system and would only need to upgrade the CPU. My mainboard can handle AM3 with the latest BIOS update I already use.I hope for a price drop in january 2011, what do you think about that too? 80€ difference is still a big difference and paying 260€ for such a CPU... becoming mad watching the price drop within the next 6 month?

FSX does not use multiple cores. It only uses a single core. However with tweaking, you can move SOME FSX processes to other cores to reduce workload on core 0. However, your primary processes are still on core 0, with only scenery texture loading etc on other cores. Considering the fact that I think you fried your current mobo by OCing the PCI, I think you will need a whole new system.Also, watching the prices change isn't needed. Unless your local PC store has sales, the prices won't change until a new range is available, and even then the price doesn't always change.

my system is up and running very well. Did not damage it. It had only to cool down and setup my bios settings again. That was all.FSX is using multicore, see here: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/237297-10-multicore-optimization-patch

That's what I said?? It uses multiple cores, but only 1 core is used for primary FSX processes. The other cores are only used for texture loading.

Hi,I am wondering about upgrading my system. Today I use a AMD AM2 X2 with just 3GHz. I am asking you guys where I would get better performance for BOTH FS9.1 and FSX, when I would buy "CPU BOX AMD Phenom II X4 970 3.5GHz Sockel AM3 8MB Cache" for 180€or a"CPU BOX AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3GHz Sockel AM3 9MB Total Cache" for 260€I know both are needing CPU clock speed. FSX is using more than one CPU core, FS9 is not using more than one.So, FS9 would showing better performance with 3.5GHz, FSX would use all 6 cores and would get better?Please dont tell me to change my system to intel. That's just too expensive to go for. I already have a AMD system and would only need to upgrade the CPU. My mainboard can handle AM3 with the latest BIOS update I already use.I hope for a price drop in january 2011, what do you think about that too? 80€ difference is still a big difference and paying 260€ for such a CPU... becoming mad watching the price drop within the next 6 month?

HiIt sort of depends if you're going to overclock, or not, really. With the 970 being faster than the 1100t by 200mhz, unless 3 cores or less are in use, its probably the best cpu to go for as you are guaranteed 3.5 across all 4 cores, all the time. Now if you're overclocking the 1100t seems to be able to hit around the 4ghz mark without much effort, and 3.8ghz very easily.My personal preference would be to go for the 1090T, its about £20 cheaper than the 1100T, and will o/c to about the same level.I'm running an E8400 o/c to 3.7ghz and I find that both cores are maxed out nearly all the time, so having 4 cores or more allows you to off load FSX from core 0, where windows etc run, and put it on its own core, then use the other 2 cores, 4 for the x6, for scenery loading etc; speed is still the game in town, but more cores definitely won't hurt.Michael

I have a 970 and it will overclcock to 4 GHz no sweat with very good temps. Also 50$ cheaper.

I have a 970 and it will overclcock to 4 GHz no sweat with very good temps. Also 50$ cheaper.

HI JalexbBy no sweat, i'm presuming you mean a multiplier increase and either no voltage tweaks, or minimal ones?I've not really heard much about the 970, but i had about the 1090t which is why i mentioned it.Michael

Hey T_A_H,I just installed an AMD 1090T in my new "cockpit" and I could not be happier (let's just say like the song 'A Whole New World'!). I think it is a little better value right now than the 1100T if you go six core. I also do video rendering/Photoshop/3D design so the extra cores help me there besides simming. But I also think the quad core would work just as nice running at 3.5GHz should you decide not to OC or even if you do. I have done no tweaks or OC and I am seeing 120-140FPS in 2-3 layers of clouds with all settings max in FS2004. I did finally install FSX after 6 years sitting on the shelf. Have done really no testing yet but in their default flight on the trike I am seeing 40's+ FPS with all sliders maxed (just for the heck of it). I even turned down/off a couple of features (bloom and turn down the water from 2x high), as I did not really like the effects. Again, it was just to see if it could fly. I am sure I will enjoy the performance with FSX once I start messing with that too.I point this out as I also matched it up to the new AMD Radeon 6970 2GB card. I have seen no flashes, tears or any issues slowing down in clouds as I have read in past posts about ATI video cards. I'm thinking with the new design of the 6000 series those issues may be now long gone. Hope so. But I am also pointing out I tried to create a nice "balanced" system for the overall performance. Good CPU - Good GPU - Good RAM - Good motherboard. You get the idea. I am pretty sure my 6-core is minimizing three of the cores and automatically OC the remaining three cores up to 3.6GHz. when simming but I haven't even gotten that far to investigate. Not sure if the quad automatically OC's. But let's face it, 3.5GHz. is a great place to start. Don't really think you can go wrong with either one, more of a budget issue and what you plan to do with it outside of simming.Hope that helps,Clutch

HI JalexbBy no sweat, i'm presuming you mean a multiplier increase and either no voltage tweaks, or minimal ones?I've not really heard much about the 970, but i had about the 1090t which is why i mentioned it.Michael

I imagine that is what he means. OC'ing a BE AMD chip can be done using the AMD utility or the better/old fashion changing the bios. By changing the bios settings by hand you can normally squeeze more out of the processor but it is time consuming. Basically to OC via multiplier only you just bump the multiplier one setting, reboot and test. To do a quick test use Prime 95 (10 mins or so) and SuperPi 32.If stable, reboot and change multiplier one more setting. Rinse and repeat until a crash. Then bump the voltage 1 setting. Try again. Don't forget to look up the max safe voltage for which ever AMD chip you buy. Once you find you wall of max voltage/heat/multiplier back it off a setting or two and try test that config. If stable on the quick test then run Prime or Seti for 24 hours. If no crash you are done. My 720 BE took about 4 hours + 24 hour test to find the max OC by hand. Here is a guide by Dolk for OC'ing Phenom II processors. It is very in-depth and covers more than just multiplier OC'ing. Also overclockers.com has a great forum for AMD OC'ing. Or you could just use the AMD software on auto. Hope that helps. John

I imagine that is what he means. OC'ing a BE AMD chip can be done using the AMD utility or the better/old fashion changing the bios. By changing the bios settings by hand you can normally squeeze more out of the processor but it is time consuming. Basically to OC via multiplier only you just bump the multiplier one setting, reboot and test. To do a quick test use Prime 95 (10 mins or so) and SuperPi 32.If stable, reboot and change multiplier one more setting. Rinse and repeat until a crash. Then bump the voltage 1 setting. Try again. Don't forget to look up the max safe voltage for which ever AMD chip you buy. Once you find you wall of max voltage/heat/multiplier back it off a setting or two and try test that config. If stable on the quick test then run Prime or Seti for 24 hours. If no crash you are done. My 720 BE took about 4 hours + 24 hour test to find the max OC by hand. Here is a guide by Dolk for OC'ing Phenom II processors. It is very in-depth and covers more than just multiplier OC'ing. Also overclockers.com has a great forum for AMD OC'ing. Or you could just use the AMD software on auto. Hope that helps. John

Thanks for that, but I sort of know my way around overclocking a little, though I know where to stop as well.I'm not into messing with voltages really, raising fsb's, multipliers etc, memory ratios, using Prime95, im fine with all that.What I was meaning was is the 970 as much of a doozy as the 1090t is supposed to be to overclock, or do you get some increase and then find its a game of cat and mouse with the voltages.At this moment in time, im going to see what Sandybridge brings, and probably wait till Bulldozer is out to decide what to get.Michael