tdragger (or any ACES member for that matter),I read a report from Oshkosh where it had been stated (supposedly by an ACES team member) that FSX will run better on the Intel Core 2 Duo than the Athlon 64 X2 series. As I am sure many of us, including myself, are looking at upgrading or building a new PC in the near future, could you tell us if this is true? FS is about 90% of my PC use and I would hate to shoot myself in the foot so to speak.As FSX appears to be marketed with Intel, I am thinking this may be true.Thanks for any info you can share. Glenn

Glenn, just a fact note here that FSX will run faster on the Intel Core 2 Duo because the processor is faster than the current AMD offerings.Here's an article with information: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

The fact that FSX is being marketed with Intel is an indication that you may have a hard time getting an unbiased response to this question. There is money involved in such partnerships--FSX puts an Intel logo on their box or whatever, and Intel does the same on their website by saying "play FSX to take advantage of our latest Intel technology!".I've seen this marketing strategy in a number of games, but I have yet to find a situation where one brand performs definitively better than the competitor.

>tdragger (or any ACES member for that matter),>>I read a report from Oshkosh where it had been stated>(supposedly by an ACES team member) that FSX will run better>on the Intel Core 2 Duo than the Athlon 64 X2 series. >>As I am sure many of us, including myself, are looking at>upgrading or building a new PC in the near future, could you>tell us if this is true? FS is about 90% of my PC use and I>would hate to shoot myself in the foot so to speak.>>As FSX appears to be marketed with Intel, I am thinking this>may be true.>>Thanks for any info you can share. >>GlennEven if FSX is marketed with Intel; you will probably never hear anyone of the ACES team say anything like that officially. Unless they have the data to back it up and it serves Microsoft's business purposes. I don't see them alienating 1/3 to 1/2 of the platforms they potentially sell to.

This may differ now that the Core 2 chips are available and apparently out-performing AMD chips, however here is an anecdote about CPU optimisation.Oleg Maddox, who is the lead programmer and 'mastermind' for the "IL2" and "IL2 Forgotten Battles" WWII flight sims said on forums on a number of occasions that Intel bent over backwards to help him during development. They provided CPUs plus information about CPUs prior to their release. AMD on the other hand never replied to him. Oleg therefore optimised for Intel CPUs. However, AMD-based systems unarguably walked all over Intel systems when running these games. So much for Intel optimisation!

Both AMD and Intel chips are x86 architecture, AND it has been said by MS that they did not "optimize" the sim for any particular brand of processor.And I did not hear any such report from Oshkosh; however, if it was in fact said that a Core 2 Duo would run FSX better than an Athlon 64 x2, then that should not surprise you--because the Core 2 Duo is reported to be faster than any Athlon 64 x2 out there. So yes of course FSX will run better on a Core 2 Duo.If you are upgrading now, and are not going to keep any of your old components (ram, motherboard, etc.) then if it were me I would give the Core 2 Duo a lot of consideration. I'd probably let the nForce5 boards get established in the marketplace (about a month from now) and then see what I could do with the Core 2 Duo platform.Rhett

I'm fully aware that Core 2 is faster than X2, but what I was asking was more along the lines of "Is FSX more optimized with Core 2 Duo in mind than A64 X2?"If so, the difference in real performance may be even greater than the current review site benchmarks.Glenn

Here is the report from Oshkosh...."Well, I just found my answer from MS directly via a report from AirVenture"I just got back from AirVenture here is a report on FSX: - A big improvement in scenery resolution, I think I was told 1 meter. The mountain scenery certainly looked better. - Selecting which plane to fly looks very different, basically it shows all installed aircraft and their variations in a thumbnail picture selection. - FSX will make use of dual core, but not 4 core processing. - The new Intel dual core processors hold a significant performance and price advantage over the dual core AMD chips. - They've finished fixing all know bugs - October Release. - The Garmin G1000 looked good, functionality was estimated at about 80% real world units. - Dual GPS functionality is not modelled. - Ability to view airfield from tower. - They are excited about DX 10 (aren't we all?) - They've modelled several large airports (KLAX, KORD, etc) in high detail, many others have been done in enhanced detail (better than FS9 default). - Missions will be easy to write with the SDK. (Deluxe Edition) - A 256MB graphics card and 2GB of system RAM was recommended. I talked with several of the FSX team members and got this information or overheard it from one of the other attendees questions. If I remember anything else I'll make another Post"As regards Core 2 Duo already being faster than X2, well obviously. See my answer above regarding this.

I think I've addressed this issue in another post.

>I'm fully aware that Core 2 is faster than X2, but what I was>asking was more along the lines of "Is FSX more optimized with>Core 2 Duo in mind than A64 X2?">>If so, the difference in real performance may be even greater>than the current review site benchmarks.>>GlennGlenn if you are looking to upgrade your pc for FSX I would like to give you a suggestion.Upgrade to a 4200+ or 3800+ buy another gig of 3200 ram and a top of the line vid card. The X2 cpu are on the super cheap for 150 for the 3800+.Overclock the cpu some (get the most out of it). Now you should beable to run FSX at close to max as you can for awhile. After Vista comes out and FSX is patched and DX10 vid cards are closetheir first refresh, you ditch your system(sell it if need be).Then buy a whole new system, Conroe, Kentsfield or K8L(might not be out then) or whatever is near top of the line. If you went Conroe right now, you would have to ditch everything you have right now. Then later you will be lagging behind when Vista and Dx10 come full force. By then we all will be drooling over quads.Also don't worry about optimization on the cpu for games its the vid card area that you need to worry about for that.

Hi Bill,The only 'game' I play is FS and I always thought that FS has been much more CPU intensive than GPU.It sounds like FSX may change that however.....

Glenn, it is *fact* that the MS Team said that they do not "optimize" FSX for any particular brand of processor.Rhett