Wow, those are pretty high FPS and certainly very consistent results! Did you run the benchmark before I updated my post to include the benchmark flight to load before running the video? You should have had clouds and rain if everything ran right.Re needing to stay in dual view, that is very strange indeed. As stated in my post, I found that FRAPS was reporting double the FPS that FSX was actually showing when I had dual view enabled. Just to make sure you are not getting this same anomoly, can you please load up the benchmark flight with FRAPS running and enable the FS frame counter and tell me if you are seeing the same or double the FS frame rates being reported by FRAPS.BTW, what do you think of the benchmark? Gary

>Actually 3.2 is without breaking a sweat.>I have'nt increased Vcore, or cooling, to get that speed.>>I can overclock it much further, but opted not to, since my>intention all along was to build a high-end, but also very>quiet system.So all 3 120mm coolers are running at low speed.>>3.6-3.7 Ghz is absolutely not out of reach with the e6600 and>paired with good ram, and a good cooler.Really? It looks like many of the people at Hardocp are maxing out at about 3.5 (with decent cooling). Maybe I should head back there and do some more reading (haven't been there in a day or so).

>Glenn,>>Thats exactly right, which is why I posted this, as I'm>considering spending

>.>>>>>>They were just released, so as opposed to just being in low>>supply, they are in insane demand, especially with the>>benchmarks being published. Of course, this has also>boosted>>the price some from what was announced. Newegg is saying>>they'll have more E6600s in on the 14th.>>>Of course.......>>>>>>>One important thing about E6400/E6600. The 6400 only has>the>>2MB cache (I never thought I'd be saying "only" a 2MB cache)>>whereas the the 6600 and up are a 4MB cache, which can make>a>>big difference.>>>>>I have seen reports that the extra cache only gives at max 5%>boost. >I can oveclock the crap out of the E6400 and save some cash.>Here in Canada it's $125-150 more for the E6600 plus the ultra>long wait to get one. (once Dell and Apple have eaten>everbody's lunch!!)>>Glenn>If you can OC the heck out of an E6400, there is a fairly good chance you can probably OC the heck out of an E6600. The point being you have to OC an E6400 just to keep up with an E6600 in the first place. If you have the money to get an E6600 (and have already factored the cost into your build), don't get an E6400. There's really no reason too.In all honesty, I would wait for FSX to be released BEFORE you build a computer around it. Mid-October/November would more then likely be a good time to start looking around. Keep in mind, towards the end of the year ATI and Nvidia should be getting "close" to their new product lineup as well. Food for thought.I, personally, am waiting for Quad-cores. :)

Ok , your right, it shows double fps when in dual mode.And i was too fast to see your edited post, so i did it without loading the flight.Done it again, now with the rain ect. ,but this time in windowed maximized mode, coz then the fps shows correct.If i could only find a way to fool fsx to think it's starting for the first time. Then i think it would work with the single display.RUN 1:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 1647, 50000, 27, 46, 32.940RUN 2:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 1603, 50000, 27, 47, 32.060Edit* Btw, it's a nice benchmark

Whew. Those figures are still great, but don't make me feel anywhere near as inadequate!When FSX wouldn't load with my PCI adaptor display enabled, I could start FSX up with it disabled, then go and turn that display back on and FSX still worked. Perhaps you could try the opposite - load FSX with dual view, then switch it off when FSX is up and running.Thanks for trying out my little benchmark. Your results have given me much food for thought re upgrade path, although I'll still wait until the real FSX comes out to see if picks up for us low and middle level system owners.Gary

>When FSX wouldn't load with my PCI adaptor display enabled, I>could start FSX up with it disabled, then go and turn that>display back on and FSX still worked. Perhaps you could try>the opposite - load FSX with dual view, then switch it off>when FSX is up and running.Good idea, but that did not work.It made fsx crash, in different ways, no matter what mode i was in when i turned off the secondary monitor, and tried to maximize or switch to fullscreen.

OK, final suggestion is just to run the benchmark in dual mode full screen. Then, since you are seeing double, halve the FRAPS recorded frame rates in your reported results.Gary

That looks like this :RUN 1:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 2524, 50000, 38, 62, 50.480RUN 2:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 2510, 50000, 38, 62, 50.200Devide by 2.

Just to clarify, did you already divide by 2 or does this still need to be done on the figures you reported just then?Gary

I did not divide.

That gives:19, 32, 25.24versus my:10 20, 13.52meaning your system is:1.9X higher min frame rate,1.6X higher max frame rate, and1.9X higher average frame rate than my system. This roughly shows I will get an approx 2X boost when I move up to Core 2 Duo towards the end of the year. Thanks for playing!Gary

I agree with Shane that it's better to wait if you have a decent system now. Besides, Mike (tdragger) made an interesting comment in his blog today about AMD CPUs: >>- Some people are complaining about the default graphic settings. There is a bug where AMD Athlon PCs get down-graded because of the way they report their CPU speed. AMD users check your settings.<< Whatever that means it seems AMD CPUs need some extra attention. :-) Drawing purchase conclusions from a pre-release Demo (or benchmark) is a bit far fetched IMHO. Certes, it's an interesting effort but it risks to be comparing apples with oranges. So, Mike, what exactly did you mean? What should we do with our settings? Hints are dearly appreciated. :-) Cheers and kind regards Jaap

>>>>>I am 'expecting' that the Core 2 Duo will perform better in>>FSX than a comparable X2 because it appears to handle>'number>>crunching' tasks better than the X2's.>>>>Well, the main reason is because a Core 2 Duo is a faster cpu>than any of the AMD x2's.>>>>RhettReally, you dont say???? Notice the word 'comparable'.......

>So, Mike, what exactly did you mean? What should we do with>our settings? Hints are dearly appreciated. :-) I mean that something like an Athlon 3200+ reports back that it's a 1.6GHz CPU (sinec that's internal clock speed or something--I don't really know how it works). So FSX thinks, "OK, you're a 1.6--pretty low." Just need to go to the Settings dialog to make sure we still you in the "Low" bucket.