Here is an interesting article of upcoming AMD technology that is designed to beat out Intel's Conroe for gaming. The question is, will it help us for Microsoft's FSX?http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/06/a...uts_pressu.htmlRH

>Here is an interesting article of upcoming AMD technology>that is designed to beat out Intel's Conroe for gaming. The>question is, will it help us for Microsoft's FSX?>http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/06/a...uts_pressu.htmlPart of the article...."While Intel's Conroe chips will allegedly take the performance crown from AMD's own dual-core FX series of microprocessors"So, it seems Intel is still ahead, compared to the cheap gimeckery from AMD. Anyone can take a CPU and make a motherboard that can seat a couple. Its the single CPU that makes the difference.I'd wait and see what Intel comes up with, so you have something to compare. NEVER take AMD's word for anything, get some 3rd party to thoroughly test and benchmark.

I don't see it as new technology. It's just a matter of putting two cpu's on a motherboard instead of one: most servers and high-end workstations allready do this, using two sockets on single motherboard.If this is AMD's answer to Intel's Conroe, they are actually admitting that they don't have a proper answer to Intel right now. Putting in two AMD CPU's means twice the power consumption, two CPU-coolers (and their noise), lots of heat and it will be more expensive too.I sincerely hope that AMD will be able to come up with a real answer, but I doubt it will be any time soon. Intel will probably rule the next 12 months, after that AMD might take over again. I guess this battle will keep on going and that's a good thing.Allard.

>motherboard that can seat a couple. Its the single CPU that>makes the difference.Umm, no. It's the best price/useable power relationship that makes the difference, at least in the real world. In the lab it may be another story.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

Here's the thing. I know I am not speaking alone, but I just want to be able to start out with a computer that will at least be upgradable (improving all components without having to install a new motherboard and reinstalling Windows) to allow (at least in the future) for FSX to run at least 20 frame-per-second in the vast majority of situations with all sliders to the max and with the best and most detailed add-ons.Is that too much to ask for at this point? Could AMD's solution take us there if the Conroe can't?RH

>Here's the thing. I know I am not speaking alone, but I just>want to be able to start out with a computer that will at>least be upgradable (improving all components without having>to install a new motherboard and reinstalling Windows) to>allow (at least in the future) for FSX to run at least 20>frame-per-second in the vast majority of situations with all>sliders to the max and with the best and most detailed>add-ons.>>Is that too much to ask for at this point? Could AMD's>solution take us there if the Conroe can't?I understand this well and I think its what most people wish for, although 30fps is better than 20fps, but 20 is still good.In my opinion, if buying AMD saves you extra money to buy 2x SLI gfx cards, then that is perhaps better for you ALTHOUGH, the benefits of SLI are not THAT great compared to a single gfx card, in which case, it would perhaps be better for you to use the extra amount on a good quality Intel system (CPU & motherboard) and only one good gfx card.In the "old days" FS benefitted from CPU upgrades greatly, but in this day&age, it seems as though FS is turning towards the GPU for its performance needs.The safest route, is to wait a little bit after release, check out internet sites that do benchmarking, specifically benchmarking FSX performance on differing motherboards,CPU and GPU.That way, you will get quite an accurate assessment of price per hardware per fps.Personally I hope that it WONT be possible to even achive 5fps on 'normal' systems as that means FSX is greatly detailed and in 2 years we'll have the hardware for it. Its the future that counts, not what works great here&now and then becomes obsolete......

You must be joking, would you really enjoy FSX if it ran at 5 fps or less for 2 years. Games today needs to run well the day they hit the street.the average gamer would never buy another MS flightsimulator if MS presented them with a slideshow.

>You must be joking, would you really enjoy FSX if it ran at 5>fps or less for 2 years. Games today needs to run well the day>they hit the street.the average gamer would never buy another>MS flightsimulator if MS presented them with a slideshow.I've been running my FS9 with 3fps (at airports and with clouds) for a few years, its ok, you get used to it.(I have a P4-3Ghz and FX5500, all sliders maxed - no compromising quality)So 5fps with FSX is 2fps more for me AND with better scenery :)(But I will be updating my hardware by that time)

3 FPS!!!??? I can't even fathom using the sim with under 12 FPS. I have an old AMD 1.4 CPU that will give you over 15 with all sliders maxed, did for me with a g4 4600, LOL.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

As Yoda would have it: Yoking you be must!

I think he means when running everything (graphics, atc, ai etc) at max settings on a normal machine you should get low fps.I agree. That would mean FSX has not been crippled to work with todays "normal" (ie not high end) machine.

Wow... so that means 4 cores?Will FSX use multi threading?... I notice in FS9 when running VistaOZ 1.2 it can really stutter when loading textures for the included EZ Scenery.If FSX has multi threading would this mean that these texture loading tasks could happen in the "background" on a different core (or even CPU) ?Think of the things that could be threaded.... Texture loading, ATC, AI, Real weather downloads, Multiplayer etc2 cpus and 4 cores should be amazing. I hope FSX can really utilise such a powerful setup.I guess even if FSX doesnt use threads other programs would still run on other cores eg ActiveSky hopefully improving the fluidity of FSX.Can someone from MS comment? Pixelpoke, TDragger? Can FSX use threads? Will multi cpu/multi core be of benefit to FSX?

Of course, it doesn't matter how fast you are if you don't have a place to put it. Can you say 2GB video memory? :)Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Here's a detailed look at the AMD announcementshttp://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2768

> I've been running my FS9 with 3fps (at airports and with clouds) for a few years, its ok, you get used to it.You must be a manager who likes to give Powerpoint slide show presentations.