After reading the posts about FSX performance it seems like many worry that MS went down the wrong path for not taking great advantage of CPU technologies such as multi-core other than clock speed. Well I then simply wonder, why did I get a significant performance boost by replacing my AMD athlon 2400+ with an AMD 64 3200+? The later is only 0.2 GHz faster and I used the same vcard.Core 2 Duo 6600 runs FS9 faster than AMD FX at a similar clock speed. So from AMD 2400+ to E6600 it's only 0.4GHz increase in clock speed but FS performance more than tripled. That's a fact then why are people saying that we won't see FSX with good performance before we see CPUs at 6GHz? Doesn't that also depend on many other things like FSB, RAM, etc. etc.? For those who blames ACES studio for bad coding or wrong strategy just because they didn't see doubled FSP with a dual core, I think it's a bit of paranoia.

You have a valid point, but what worries me right now is that folks with uber boxes are having to TURN things off with this one. See my post above about my early observations with FSX. I'm starting to wonder about MS's strategy on this one myself. You likley got the "boost" from upgraded components like the new mobo chipsets/memory/FSB etc.Hornit