Hello People, Doe anybody know if it helps if i increase my CPU Frequency MHz 's for better fps on fs2004 ? thanks.

Hello People, Doe anybody know if it helps if i increase my CPU Frequency MHz 's for better fps on fs2004 ? thanks.

Short Answer is yes, but you need to keep in mind a 3.2ghz P4 will be slower then a 2.6ghz core2 so the type of processor is also important.

And for FS04 alone, the number of cores makes no difference at all.

Hello,

CPU Frequency = better fps at FS2004 ?

YesMulticores = better FPS at FS2004 ?NoSo I agree with JSkorna answer above :( Regards.Gus.

It might not help FPS but using an E8400 at stock 3Ghz and fs9cpu_2cpu.exe which I downloaded from here, I find using other progs such as Afcad together with FS9, it all runs much faster and smoother when one core is allocated to FS9 and the other to the remaining progs and services. I can now run both without slowdowns and stutters,etc, when making or updating afcads.Whether it helps or not, I use it for flying and never have any slowdowns with LDS B767 combined with fairly dense scenery like George Grimshaw's Boston or ISD's Fiumicino, etc. and I only have a Radeon 4870 1 GB graphics card.Colin B

Hello,YesMulticores = better FPS at FS2004 ?NoSo I agree with JSkorna answer above :( Regards.Gus.

Core2Duo giving better frames has nothing to do with multi cores, the efficiency of newer processor makes a huge difference.

Hello,

Core2Duo giving better frames has nothing to do with multi cores, the efficiency of newer processor makes a huge difference.

I will not bet too much money on this .. as FS2004 use only one core .. so the datas are treated like on a single core ... and so the bottlenecks of the traditional one core CPU will be in force ... AFAIK

In a single-core or traditional processor the CPU is fed strings of instructions it must order, execute, then selectively store in its cache for quick retrieval. When data outside the cache is required, it is retrieved through the system bus from random access memory (RAM) or from storage devices. Accessing these slows down performance to the maximum speed the bus, RAM or storage device will allow, which is far slower than the speed of the CPU. The situation is compounded when multi-tasking. In this case the processor must switch back and forth between two or more sets of data streams and programs. CPU resources are depleted and performance suffers.

In a dual core processor each core handles incoming data strings simultaneously to improve efficiency. Just as two heads are better than one, so are two hands. Now when one is executing the other can be accessing the system bus or executing its own code. Adding to this favorable scenario, both AMD and Intel's dual-core flagships are 64-bit.To utilize a dual core processor, the operating system must be able to recognize multi-threading and the software must have simultaneous multi-threading technology (SMT) written into its code. SMT enables parallel multi-threading wherein the cores are served multi-threaded instructions in parallel. Without SMT the software will only recognize one core. Adobe® Photoshop® is an example of SMT-aware software. SMT is also used with multi-processor systems common to servers.A dual core processor is different from a multi-processor system. In the latter there are two separate CPUs with their own resources. In the former, resources are shared and the cores reside on the same chip. A multi-processor system is faster than a system with a dual core processor, while a dual core system is faster than a single-core system, all else being equal.An attractive value of dual core processors is that they do not require a new motherboard, but can be used in existing boards that feature the correct socket. For the average user the difference in performance will be most noticeable in multi-tasking until more software is SMT aware. Servers running multiple dual core processors will see an appreciable increase in performance.

Source:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-dual-core-processor.htmRegards.Gus.

I had a similar response to one of my posts and wonder if Fs2004 is running and windows is running with no other apps, then what is the equivalent speed gain???? ie does this mean a Core 2 Duo at say 2.8Ghz has a better benchmark performance nthan a singlecore P4 ( Hyperthreading enabled ) at say 3.2Ghz ????? or is it because of theprevious trick mentioned below???Come on Guys which bit of the chip architecture makes this so ..........if correct? I can appreciate the earlier comment of sending all the non Fs2004 stuff through the other processor that sounds a good Idea .My proposed solution is to have Second XP bootable drive with only Fs2004 on it plus the Scenery Mesh REx etc add ons on and no other programs on it

This should be on the hardware forum, bottom line is this - A Core2 or newer processor running at a lower clock speed will be faster then a P4 running at a higher clock speed. End of.....I've spent enough time building rigs over the years to know this is factRegards

But FS2004, coded about 10 years ago, as a single core process will run best on which type of processor? Newer, multi-core and slower OR older, single core, and faster?

But FS2004, coded about 10 years ago, as a single core process will run best on which type of processor? Newer, multi-core and slower OR older, single core, and faster?

I don't agree with the assumptions built into this statement. Newer and multi-core does not mean slower at all, and throughput on the newer CPUs (beginning with Core2 Conroe) is significantly higher even at the same clock speed. My i7 at 4.4 GHz is running at a speed not achievable with most of the earlier CPUs.FS9 scales approximately linearly with CPU clock speed on any given CPU until you run into a bottleneck elsewhere in the system (graphics, memory, disk access etc). So for the OP, a faster CPU will help, but only to the extent that the other computer subsystems have available overhead. Most often, particularly with older systems, CPU throughput has historically been the most likely limiting factor in FS frame rates.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

But FS2004, coded about 10 years ago, as a single core process will run best on which type of processor? Newer, multi-core and slower OR older, single core, and faster?

Aaarrrgghhhh... worm can, worm can.But I can't help asking for practical clarification. In my simplistic kindergarten view of the inside of a PC would it be better to have a 2 (or more) core processor if I was running (for example) FS9, FSUIPC, a weather program and an external ATC program. Is it possible to dedicate a core to each application so reducing the bottlenecks?If that is the case then a multi-core would offer a distinct advantage. On the other hand, if all those peripheral applications didn't affect the framerate anyway then the processor's speed would be the main criterion (though other parts of the hardware might have a greater effect).Is that right, or am I totally off the mark here?Cheers,D

I also think so Dave, more cores are always better, if you have some other programms running. My system has only a 3 GHz Quad Core2 and it´s running pritty good, so shutters at all.

Hi Dave,You can manually set programs to run on other cores using Task Manager, but you need to do this everytime those programs are run. Or I use a utility found at Tom's Hardware that I run first which assigns the specific core to a specific program. Then I start the programs and then can close the utility. That way I don't have to use Task Manager each time.This spreads out my FS programs across my 4 cores and leaves core 0 for FS and system processes.

It might not help FPS but using an E8400 at stock 3Ghz and fs9cpu_2cpu.exe which I downloaded from here,

fs9cpu_2cpu.exe ?? does it really help ?