So from what I've read on the boards and elsewhere it seems that the future of higher performance is in multi core cpu's. There is a "brick wall" that cpu speed seems to have hit in terms of cpu heat management and other issues, meaning that any improvements, while possible, take a lot of resources. Multi core cpu's, on the other hand, are at the beginning of the curve in terms of room to improve. Clearly, this is where cpu vendors are going to spend most (not all) of their resources as they'll get a much bigger bang for their r&d buck. FSx is not multi core ready, for any number of reasons that don't really matter. The fact is it's not. So while FSx will benefit from marginal increases in CPU speed over the next few years, and maybe from Vista and the new DX, it will not benefit from the increased power of multi core cpu's. So the reality is that there is a good chance that FSx, being a cpu bound application, will never really reach the point that other versions of FS have reached where hardware finally catches up. Sure, some people can run it fine now but the vast majority, as evidenced by the posts on these boards, cannot. And there might not be a hardware solution in the future.It would seem to me then that the only solution is to wait for a multi core version of FS or accept severe and permanent performance limitations. I'm hoping the new version of DX will solve the issue, but that brings up Vista and licensing issues etc. etc. even if it did. I hope I'm wrong...bill

HelloThat sums it up perfectly, this post should be made sticky

Yes, we have about discussed this topic to death now on 1000 other threads. This is not a new revelation....

"Yes, we have about discussed this topic to death now on 1000 other threads."and that is the point of a summary...billg

But it should be noted that it's just not about the number of cores, and the cycle speed. Chip architecture in the core2 duo is miles above the pentium 4's and is the reason the lower clocked duos are outperforming higher clocked athlons and p4's. If this was a single core chip it would be top of the line despite the lower clock speeds due to more efficient design.Ian.

Slashed2 hit it right on the head. Mark my words, FSX will benefit from performance upgrades just like every other version of FSX. In 2 or 3 years we will be running sliders full tilt with 80FPS due to advancing technologies in how efficient our processors run. Much like AGP was to PCI, then PCIE-E to AGP. There is not doom and gloom on the horizon like some people seem to suggest, the sky is NOT falling.

>Slashed2 hit it right on the head. Mark my words, FSX will>benefit from performance upgrades just like every other>version of FSX. In 2 or 3 years we will be running sliders>full tilt with 80FPS due to advancing technologies in how>efficient our processors run. Much like AGP was to PCI, then>PCIE-E to AGP. There is not doom and gloom on the horizon like>some people seem to suggest, the sky is NOT falling.Wrong,Core designs don't change overnight ussually they use the same core design with small revisionsfor years. Even if we get beter cores there is little improvement in it for FS-X because most of the optimisations that they are working on now is improving multi-core operations. There is one single hopefull development. There is some work on making multiple core into a virtual single core. If they can do that FS-X will benefit from it.But that means FS-X won't be benefiting much from the curent wave of multi-cores with slightly improved clockspeeds and somewhat revised cores. There will be a single big improvement if they ever release a multi-core that acts like a virtual single core. So maybe you can buy such a processor in 2-3 years time. Why would you bother as you are then months away from the FS-XI relase with full multi core support.

You could even say that the Aces motto that FS-X is build for the hardware of the future is wrong. FS-X is made to run badly on todays hardware and it doesn't have a chance in h*ll with its single core game engine on all those future multi-cores.

>It would seem to me then that the only solution is to wait for>a multi core version of FS This may be a totally wrong conclusion. If you are to believe what Aces team says about the multi core it will *never* be able to utilize multi-core to the same extent as other games so you may as well wait another .... 100 years.If this is supposed to be a *summary* of multi-core knowledge I am afraid it missed the mark.Michael J.

We (Microsoft) are not planning to wait until FS Eleven to improve the multi-core utilization of the Flight Sim engine. As soon as we have some cool multi-core improvements available, we'll share them with you. It may take a few months, but don't lose all hope.Cheers,Adam

Thanks Adam for removing the need for me to add my two pence on this. :)

That's excellent news, Adam.

Indeed good news.Ian.

As far as chip progression, I'll agree. Intel and the duo are leaps ahead on architecture, now we'll see what AMD can counter with. I'm wondering what they have brewing deep in the bowels of their labs though. With new technologies arriving all the time who knows where CPU development will be in a year or 2 so maybe valkeryie is correct. Irregardless of the FSX debate, we do live in amazing times. Ian.

>As far as chip progression, I'll agree. Intel and the duo>are leaps ahead on architecture, now we'll see what AMD can>counter with. I'm wondering what they have brewing deep in>the bowels of their labs though. With new technologies>arriving all the time who knows where CPU development will be>in a year or 2 so maybe valkeryie is correct. Irregardless of>the FSX debate, we do live in amazing times. >>Ian.2 years or so - 12+ cores.10 years - talk about 80+ cores and computer science students not knowing about the fact that humanity used to make non multi threaded systems.I am not kidding.