http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161239.jpgDoesn't that look like both cores are being used? :)I think so.1. Run FSX2. Set Affinity for FSX to 1 and then fly for a couple of min3. Set Affinity to both again (0 and 1).Thats it. It looks like I have some spare CPU Cycles...for doing word processing at the same time. :(Here is the full screen. ITs too big. So I have it on Imageshack.ttp://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dualcore1jq8.jpgCut paste that above line..but add an "H" to the front.450Kts and no blurries. Thats actually Megascenery So Cal running in FSX.Manny

This works in FS9 too.

That shows that both cores are in use. NOT that they are both in use by the sim. NOT that they are being used optimally. NOT that you are gaining any benefit.The ACES teram have already posted FSX does not support dual core, except for some unimportant background tasks. I take that statement from the development team over your observed result any time.And wait for the ACES people to fix it.Allcott

You could be right. The thing is...I don't have anything other than FSim running. It might also be the Win XP scheduler thing and not FSim thing.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161254.jpgIts even more stark running fs9.It feels good..that I don't see a flat line there... In my mind, if I see a flat line I feel like the CPU has topped out and Fsim is gasping for more process cycle. Looking at this, I feel, the Fsim has quite quenched its process cycle thirst.Its all in the mind.:)Manny

Pretty much what Allcott said. All we can do is wait. I am still pessimistic about dual core usage, especially with the new quad core CPUs coming out soon. Software developers have a large hurtle to overcome to fully understand how to use this technology correctly. I think it will be around 2 years before it becomes mainstream, so right now if I had to purchase a processor I would most certainly hold off on the lower clocked quad cores.These dual cored processors have been aimed at the market specifically because the MHz race has for the most part slowed down. Perhaps there are other alternatives, but this is the current marketing scheme chip developers have taken. Unfortunately, it is extremely hard to code for multiple cores and game developers don't have a full grasp of how to accomplish this yet. It is still in its infant stages. For 95% of the software currently on the market, buying into these companies who are pushing dual core support will NOT show a significant improvement (if any)because of the additional core(s). By the time the technology permits full utilization of the additional cores, we will probably be in another situation where we have to upgrade yet again because the market has changed. Because of this I have shifted my focus to processors with larger cache sizes, floating points and higher MHz rather then dual core technology. If the processor I am looking for so happens to also support this technology, so be it, but it is NOT a selling point for me. To help alleviate this issue, I am also focusing more on motherboard, RAM, GPU and hard drive specifications.I plan in the next 6 months or so to make a computer hand built to handle the high end performance requirements of FSX. I have a pretty solid gameplan in place, and perhaps if it goes well you will hear me talking about it on this board. I think it is possible to achieve sliders full tilt with a solid 20+ FPS in any environment with a home built system that is UNDER $2,000.

HAHA, yeah you keep telling yourself that. If they release a DX10 patch that greatly improves performance then yeah that could happen, but in its current state not a chance. You'll be lucky to get 15fps in a major city like the rest of us with a fast pc. The game runs great in burbs and bush areas but forget about big city flying, especially in big iron addons which many of you like to fly. I was all set to buy a quad core when they were released yesterday until i saw that newegg was marking up the price of their cpus by 50% to $1500. I won't deal with companies that do that and decided to buy all of my parts from somewhere else. I am under no illusions that this new system will give me any more than maybe a 5 or 6 fps increase in my frame rate but since im mostly a GA/burb/bush flyer that's perfect for me.

The quad core processors won't improve your frame rates period from what I understand. The actual clock cores are lower than top in dual core processors, which leads me to believe you could actually suffer from worse performance!FYI, I am currently attaining 17FPS with Autogen at Normal and Scenery Complexity at Very Dense, and this is on an AMD 3500+. I don't think it will be an issue getting significantly more FPS from a CPU with a higher MHz, cache and floating point model, among other specifications. Correct me if I am wrong.

I don't think the hardware exists to do what you seek, Valkyrie. Not now, and not in the near-future. There are two caveats: 1: FSX is even more CPU-bound than before. Yes, it also uses whatever graphic memory it can find, but as has now been demonstrated by the arrival of the new `bottleneck free` GF8800 cards (which render any argument about graphics limitations superfluous) the gain in fps terms is minimal. If FSX was truly scaleable architecture, on the graphics front then fps should have doubled or trebled. Particularly starting from the low baseline fps levels we have today. Going from 14 to 45 fps is no challenge for a card, IF the program it is applied to is up to the task. FSX clearly isn't.2: In essence, if Moores Law is the factoring equation used by the ACES team at the time they sat down to project FSX requirements, then while Hard Drive capacities have easily kept pace with ML, (doubling in size every 3 years, and consistent with the installed size of FSX) then the CPU race is currently some way behind, and future developments seem intent on taking as much from dual and quad core as possible, at the cost of raw data processing speed. Indeed, there is plenty of sense in saying that the speed of processors today is ample for the knowledge and software of today, and that it is the data volume, not speed that needs improving.That's not to say that speed will never be needed, but simply that ML also factors in the cost of obtaining the emergent technology and producing it in manufactured volumes suitable for the market. Market demand is growing incessantly, so one of the other tangential summaries of ML may well come into the equation: With the demand increasing exponentially, there is no capacity to produce ever-faster processors with the technology of today, or tomorrow, at te volumes required. So its dual and quad core instead. Medium- to- Long-term there will be breakthroughs and development, but I don't think you will achieve your solid 20fps in ANY environment with FSX without turning sliders down or off, for a lot more than $2,000 or over a longer period than 6 months - possibly 18 months, yes.If ML is applied to FSX then I suspect a 6 ghz CPU will be required, on an `open` bus that allows 5-10 times the data transfer rates of todays Dual Core chips. Nope, it ain't gonna happen. Not with Hardware, not with Vista, not with DX10. Not unless and until the engine that drives FSX is given the overhaul. Putting speed stripes on a Ford and painting it red don't make it a Ferrari.Dual core support from ACES won't really amount to more than the ability to run at a more consistent (buit still low) frame rate unless there are fundamental changes to the engine and a `can do` mentality change. So far the negativity from the team about the likely advantages of adding dual core support tels me that there is NOTHING, not a thing that can be done with this turkey in the near future. Except turn the sliders down or put it back in its box.Frankly the `cure` is to allow the graphics core to take over the CPU cycles (the complete reverse of where development seems to be going). This is because ONLY GPU's are showing exponential performance enhancements in line with ML in todays market, and Vista and DX10 may help those cards realise even bigger gains. Shifting as much load as possible to the card might allow for big improvements for resonable money, and might allow you to achieve your stated targets.But that's about as likely as snow in the Sahara.Allcott

Once again, Allcott hits the nail on the head.........

It appears that Vista has a better kernel for muti processing- at least in games, plus the new driver model (even if it's a DX9 title) works more efficiently, so performance is better. Not optimal, but better :)

>It appears that Vista has a better kernel for muti>processing- at least in games, plus the new driver model (even>if it's a DX9 title) works more efficiently, so performance is>better. Not optimal, but better :)Won't make any difference if the application or game is not threaded correctly at the programming stage.

You raise some interesting points, and in some instances I agree with you. However, as "second generation" hardware becomes frequent, and prices are driven down by the upcoming technologies of dual and quad core processors, I don't think it is too far off. People are already reporting 20 FPS with sliders right on current machines. You and me both know that a $4,000 computer today is worth half that six to ten months from now. I don't think my goal is far off, and when I make the next big jump in upgrades I will be sure to let you all know in a detailed analysis of my findings."Won't make any difference if the application or game is not threaded correctly at the programming stage."It will if the system is handled more efficiently, allowing for system operations to be handled and balanced by increasing hardware technologies. A great example of this is how a person can "tweak" windows to run games better. TweakGuides is a great example of what I am trying to say. We may not notice HUGE increases in performance, but every little bit counts, and over time all this little increases will take us from 15FPS to 40+ FPS.

I am planning to have a new system in a couple of months. So what would be the best option? The fastest single core, or a slower dual core?I was a bit shocked to see the mhz's of the dual cores. They are relatively low. Some cheaper single core's have higher speeds.So, not have followed for a while the cpu development, anyone who have a good advice to what to seems the best buy for FSX to run. (I know nothing is there yet, but at the moment what would be the best?)JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE

>I am planning to have a new system in a couple of months. So>what would be the best option? The fastest single core, or a>slower dual core?>>I was a bit shocked to see the mhz's of the dual cores. They>are relatively low. Some cheaper single core's have higher>speeds.>>So, not have followed for a while the cpu development, anyone>who have a good advice to what to seems the best buy for FSX>to run. (I know nothing is there yet, but at the moment what>would be the best?)I would definately check PCStats and other websites for definitive reviews of CPUs. I think it is safe to say the highest clock speeds and best architecture overall will be found in dual core processors. Even if a single core processor has 3.8 GHz, it may not be comparable to say a FX-55 processor in actual data processed. It really comes down to benchmarking, and in this regard Pentium has the edge right now.If I was you, which I will be in the upgrade shoes soon, I would be looking at "what works now, and what works 6 months from now" and comparing benchmarks to my budget. Also, don't shaft yourself with bad RAM or a good hard drive. These can limit the potential of a good processor.I can't offer you a definitive answer because I don't know your price range and most definitely do not know what will work best with your system. Like I said, do your research and check the benchmarks. There IS hope out there, I keep hearing on FS sites that people are getting great FPS with sliders at full tilt, ironically I have yet to hear from a single person that home built their PC and is getting comparable performance.

>People are already reporting 20 FPS with>sliders right on current machines. Where? Can you please post a link.Gary