Hi guys,I am thinking of making some upgrades to my PC for better handling upcoming ngx.I know that fsx is cpu demanding sim instead of graphics card. I have AMD X4 630 and i overcklocked it to 3500 mhz. BTW my cpu usage is not very balanced at fsx.2nd core is always at 100% and it causes bottleneck. 1st core is almost at sleepI posted my cpu usage graphic picture below (while fsx is running) and i wonder your cpu usage situation especially higher speed cpu's (4 ghz and higher). can you post your graphics here?Sorry for my bad English,Regards.

There's a setting in FSX.cfg for the processor core affinity:The one everyone uses for quad cores is:[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=14The bigger problem here is your use of an AMD CPU instead of a recent Intel one. The Intel ones are much much better for FSX. Get a Core i5 2500K, P67 motherboard, and a good cooler and overclock it to ~4.7GHz and you'll have very good performance.

I use that tweak but no joy. Is Intels better than AMD at same speed? or intels are much balanced than AMD?and should i buy i5 2500k or wait for amd bulldozer?

I seriously doubt this is you problem but, in the Processes tab, right click FSX.exe and select the Set Affinity option. Make sure FSX is not set to only CPU1 (counting starts at 0). You might want to do the same for any FSX add-ons you may have.

No that's not the problem. Already checked all cores in set affinity option.

It's a normal CPU usage for FSX. And yes, AMD CPU's are much slower than Intel's clock for clock. An OCed 2500K will be almost twice as fast than your x4 at 3.5GHzEDIT: forgot to say, if you plan on upgrading to Bulldozer keep in mind that you'll need a new board anyway, so if I was you I would switch to Intel - Sandy Bridge like Ryan suggested, an I5 2500K (OC) and a P67 or Z68 board is the way to go

Edited May 19, 201115 yr by dazz

woww, so no need to wait bulldozer!

woww, so no need to wait bulldozer!

AMD makes good budget processors, but if you're looking for performance Intel will give you more for the same cost.

Why not wait for sandy bridge-e hexacore? Thats what I'm gonna do ;)

Why not wait for sandy bridge-e hexacore? Thats what I'm gonna do ;)

FSX can't utilize 6 cores. ... Right?

FSX can't utilize 6 cores. ... Right?

It can but it's only a few functions - most of the sim runs in the main thread on the 1st core. I believe FSX can technically use up to 256 cores - it's just not a highly optimized thing where the load gets spread evenly - that's really hard to do in any real-time game engine actually because of how many things are serialized - parallel processing doesn't do much for you if the code being run doesn't really have much that can be done in parallel.

It can but it's only a few functions - most of the sim runs in the main thread on the 1st core. I believe FSX can technically use up to 256 cores - it's just not a highly optimized thing where the load gets spread evenly - that's really hard to do in any real-time game engine actually because of how many things are serialized - parallel processing doesn't do much for you if the code being run doesn't really have much that can be done in parallel.

I got ya. Thanks. :(

can any sandy bridge user share cpu usage graphic please ? :(

can any sandy bridge user share cpu usage graphic please ? :(

it can vary depending on settings, location, scenery addons, A/C in use and it's state..., post a scenario we can both test and I'll show you my task manager CPU graphany PMDG plane is fine. default scenery

Any bigger addon airport, payware aircraft, heavy traffic if possible and heavy weather conditions would be good.