Google cpuid. it will confirm what you have.....................

I tried this as well and get a similar result. But i know that i am GPU limited with a X1900XT (690/1600) and dual monitor 1920x1280 / 1280x1024. A GTX is on it's way - i'll rerun the test with the stronger card.Btw - i am surprised that you get such good frames with a 7900 GTO and dual monitor. Let's find out :-)edit: E6600 3.6 Ghz, FSB 1600, 1:1, 4-4-4-5Heiko

"(...) You do run XP proffessional do you (...) needed to support dual cores (...)"Now that's a sad revelation for me. I need to have a stern word with the local computershop owner who, about a month ago, sold me a new rig including a Core2Duo processor ("That's like having TWO processors, Jaap!), and then happily installed my faithful boxed XP Home Edition for me, while NOT warning me: "This means that your dual core processor will do fugh all, Jaap"...It's a sad sad sad sad world.Jaap Verduijn.

Am I missing the point Michael. 2 sets it to use the second core only as far as I can see and this is when the sturrers reduce for me.Phil Taylor did hint at cache sharing problems with some processors.

Are you guys adding Affinity_Mask to your fsx.cfg or should it already be there after SP1?Michael

>You do run XP proffessional do you? >You did a fresh install with your current hardware?>>Both are needed to support dual cores....Actually, that's completely untrue and an urban myth. You can (and I do) use WinXP Home or Vista Home Premium and they both fully support both cores of a dual core and all 4 cores of a quad core CPU, as long as it's one CPU. What you can't do is use 2 or more separate processors (different from cores). Do some googling and you will see the clarifications and explanations on dual/quad core versus multi-processor support.

You need to add it yourself, including JOBSCHEDULER above it in square brackets.Gary

As I mentioned before, the decimal number converts to a binary number which determines which specific core will or will not be used. 0 = 00 means use no cores (haven't tried this to see what happens, it may just default to use all available cores)1 = 01 means don't use core 2 but use core 12 = 10 means use core 2 but don't use core 13 = 11 means use core 2 and core 1Not I have abbreviated this description to cover two cores only. The mask actually controls four cores via four binary positions ie. 15 = 1111.In binary terms, the LSB (least significant bit) controls the first core, then next significant bit controls the second core, etc.Hope this is now clear. If it is not, I can post pictures of cores in use this afternoon (after golf!) if you like.Gary

OK,Thanks GaryMichael

Nope, I'm using XP Home, though it's not "supporting" it, I'm still getting amazing performance after SP1, and to be sure, where my core temp was in the 93 degree F range before SP1, I'm now getting up to 120's. I will definitely call Microsoft to be sure though. Thanks for the advice, I will see if I can find my old copy of XP Pro, I only installed this home edition because it included all the service packs and what not, and really don't want to do another format + install again.Jeff

Well now, I set out on a bit of research by googling away happily, and it turns out Boshar's message is the deplorable continuation of an urban legend. Good thing it's Sunday and the computer shop is closed, otherwise I would have gone there and made even more of an idiot of myself than they already know me to be (grin)!It sill's a sad sad sad sad world, but not anymore for the original reason.Jaap Verduijn.

Yep, same here, John! In one scenario, post SP1 performance remained the same. This triggered the thought to unlock framerates from their previous 20fps cap. And woohah, my frames jumped from a stuttery 14-15 to a perfectly acceptable 21-29. :-) So, unlocked for now... Cheers and kind regards Jaap

Thanks for the help guys, I can only display the one cpu graph, I've decided that everything is as should be though. I custom built my PC, with the E6600, and Windows is showing it as such, I just didn;t realize that Windows XP Home would only display the one graph.Jeff

>Yep, same here, John! >>In one scenario, post SP1 performance remained the same. This>triggered the thought to unlock framerates from their previous>20fps cap. And woohah, my frames jumped from a stuttery 14-15>to a perfectly acceptable 21-29. :-) So, unlocked for now... >>Cheers and kind regards >>Jaap You must have a good range system then, such a range of 21-29 would be a stuttering mess for me, it is that reason that I always have to lock the fps.

I custom built my PC, with the E6600, and Windows is showing it>as such, I just didn;t realize that Windows XP Home would only>display the one graph.>>JeffI have XP Home and mine shows both graphs for the E6600.Michael