Well then XPlane 10.10 isn't exploiting multiple cores as they advertise they do.  I for one would build that system in a heartbeat if a simulator could use it.  From LR's website:

 

 

Recommended System Specifications

For the best experience, we recommend the following system specs:

• a 3 GHz, multi-core CPU (or, even better, multiple processors),
• 4 GB of RAM,
• a DVD-ROM, and
• a DirectX 10-capable (DX11 preferred) video card with 1 GB of on-board, dedicated VRAM.

Other Notes

X-Plane will take advantage of as many cores or distinct processors as you can afford. Having 16 cores split among 4 CPUs is not required by any means, but Version 10 would be able to use every one. No more than 4 GB of RAM is necessary, but the more VRAM you have, the better–X-Plane 10 can easily use 1.5 GB of VRAM at the maximum settings.

 

It's not as cut and dry as that.  X-plane 10 does make use of multiple cores, but it makes use of them by doling out additional work to the extra cores, rather than alleviating work from the main heavyweight thread on the primary core.  Back to my argument about the non-trivial task of parallelizing a workload.  

 

 

Back to my argument about the non-trivial task of parallelizing a workload.  

 

I'm afraid these comments are strictly qualitative, so not very meaningful.  What matters is how effectively other cores are used.  W/O addressing that, as I say it's just qualitative and not very meaningful.

 

 

I anticipate that I will much prefer FSX but my mind is open!

 

Most people will prefer FSX from what I've read here and there.   The issue is arguably not so much about now, but more about the future and where it can go w/ each sim.   My sense is the FSX is a dead end unless they enhance multicore use, DX11, and maybe even 64-bit.  That being said, it's really a fine sim even now, especially w/ the best hardware.  So again, it's the future I'm thinking about.  Moreover, I have seen very little to make me think big jumps in overclocking are on the horizon, so what I see is tiny incremental improvements in FSX w/ hardware improvements, whereas w/ 64 bit, better multicore use, better DX11 use & offloading/sharing w/ the GPU, multi-gpu's, etc, there is some more room to grow and improve.

I'm afraid these comments are strictly qualitative, so not very meaningful.  What matters is how effectively other cores are used.  W/O addressing that, as I say it's just qualitative and not very meaningful.

 

 

 

 

 

Most people will prefer FSX from what I've read here and there.   The issue is arguably not so much about now, but more about the future and where it can go w/ each sim.   My sense is the FSX is a dead end unless they enhance multicore use, DX11, and maybe even 64-bit.  That being said, it's really a fine sim even now, especially w/ the best hardware.  So again, it's the future I'm thinking about.  Moreover, I have seen very little to make me think big jumps in overclocking are on the horizon, so what I see is tiny incremental improvements in FSX w/ hardware improvements, whereas w/ 64 bit, better multicore use, better DX11 use & offloading/sharing w/ the GPU, multi-gpu's, etc, there is some more room to grow and improve.

 

If you're asking for empirical data I can't give it to you as I neither own X-plane nor a > 4-core system with which to test it.  I'm only repeating what I've read and understand about the matter.  Laminar has stated what they use extra cores for, you're free to look that up if you don't believe me.  

 

 

you're free to look that up if you don't believe me.  

 

Believe what?  I'm just making the point that what really matters is what comes from adding multiple cores.  For every doubling of physical cores, what is the % change in performance?  I guess you are saying it won't be significant.  If so, that seems to be in direct conflict w/ their portrayal of the roles of extra cores and XPlane:

 

'X-Plane will take advantage of as many cores or distinct processors as you can afford. Having 16 cores split among 4 CPUs is not required by any means, but Version 10 would be able to use every one.'

 

I think a quantitative analysis could be done quite easily going from 2 to 4 to 6 or more cores and observe for performance changes.

I currently use a well setup 64bit system with an i7 920 @ 4.3ghz, 8gigs of RAM at 1600mhz and a GTX 580. It runs very well with ORBX, REX and the NGX. Most of the time I get 20's and 30's in the VC and 20's, 30's 40's and sometimes 50's in the external views. Granted it is not Maxed out but it is not far off. But I am positive my next build will tame FSX.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gseCJS3mf18

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs8OtDQkBvE

I currently use a well setup 64bit system with an i7 920 @ 4.3ghz, 8gigs of RAM at 1600mhz and a GTX 580. It runs very well with ORBX, REX and the NGX. Most of the time I get 20's and 30's in the VC and 20's, 30's 40's and sometimes 50's in the external views. Granted it is not Maxed out but it is not far off. But I am positive my next build will tame FSX.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gseCJS3mf18

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs8OtDQkBvE

 

What would your next build be? 6 cores?

 

 

What would your next build be? 6 cores?

 

I guess so! However, I will wait until the early adopters start giving feedback on the next GEN stuff before I do anything. There is a living Document on hardware and installation here on AVSIM and NickN over at Simforum is one to watch. I say let the cutting edge guys figure it out and then copy then.        

:lol:

 

I have been saying "my next build will tame FSX for sure" for the last 3 builds now... Only now does that statement begin to be valid...

 

A

:lol:

 

I have been saying "my next build will tame FSX for sure" for the last 3 builds now... Only now does that statement begin to be valid...

 

A

Hopefully, It will be valid and overclocked with sub-zero cooling Its bound to be. I have seen some videos on YouTube done on the current best hardware overclocked above 5ghz and it looks great. Granted there is often post production changes made to a lot of those videos. Either way (and I speculate) this is going to be the last new generation of hardware before we see a game changer in the software, i.e. P3D V2. Its like someone planned it that way!

:lol:

 

I have been saying "my next build will tame FSX for sure" for the last 3 builds now... Only now does that statement begin to be valid...

 

A

 

I know what you mean, I was thinking on building a new system, 2 options on mind: 1: I7 3770k 4 cores or 2:I7 3930k 6 cores, considering a good mobo for each there is a 1000 usd difference between both, I know both will perform almost equal on FSX, may be option 1 better because is easy to OC, but option 2 maybe will be more appropriate for future sims like xplane or p3d, but I decided to buy the cheaper and wait, I have a lot to fly on FSX and if PMDG is not developing nothing in other sims I will be happy to stay on FSX

 

 

you're free to look that up if you don't believe me.

 

Believe what? I'm just making the point that what really matters is what comes from adding multiple cores. For every doubling of physical cores, what is the % change in performance? I guess you are saying it won't be significant. If so, that seems to be in direct conflict w/ their portrayal of the roles of extra cores and XPlane:

 

'X-Plane will take advantage of as many cores or distinct processors as you can afford. Having 16 cores split among 4 CPUs is not required by any means, but Version 10 would be able to use every one.'

 

I think a quantitative analysis could be done quite easily going from 2 to 4 to 6 or more cores and observe for performance changes.

You have to look a bit further than that to get the whole of the matter. X-plane utilizes additional cores to run AI flight models. You can keep the same performance with 8 AI on 8 CPU cores as with 1 AI on those same 8 cores. It's only a performance gain in the sense that none is lost up to a certain point. Sort of misleading if you ask me, and makes the quote you posted look like marketing fluff. Here's the source for my info in case you're curious: http://www.x-plane.com/?article=whats-new-in-x-plane-10

Sort of misleading if you ask me, and makes the quote you posted look like marketing fluff.

 

Good points and thank you for that, however I'm not so sure it's 'fluff' really. It's about object-oriented design and this may be the design approach that better allows them to take advantage of multiple cores. It sounds like XP10 begins to really exploit this, and this comment from the same page hints that maybe now it's mostly dedicated to AI (and that, I would argue is quite significant in its own right), and that also there are already other elements of the sim that exploit the same mechanism, or will be. This is software that is continuing being developed at the core level:

 

The difference is that X-Plane 10 has each airplane as it’s own object, and each object running on a different CPU, all at the same time. Multiply this by the ever-growing forest (the trees have to be planted in front of you as you fly… You do not have the ram to memorize them all) animals, cars, air traffic controller, boats, ever-changing weather, and you start to see why it will take a lot of CPUs to run this whole world.

The thing about objects is that they don't have AI, you don't need to dedicate resources to them (aside from memory) other than simply to load them in as needed.  I'm glad they've at least exploited multi-threading that much, but long for a sim engine which scales in a broader fashion.  What really needs to happen is for a developer to come up with an engine that can leverage modern GPUs for scenery object and weather generation and leave the CPU to handle AI.