This was just posted on Youtube from XtremeQuest It's a interview with Phil Taylor on FSX SP1 running on a 2X Penryn system with 8-cores! Can't direct link but here is XtremeQuests homepage. It's the latest posted videohttp://www.youtube.com/user/XtremeQuest

It would have been much more impressive to see the bloody 2d panel, the virtual cockpit, and the a/c in spot view."Newbies" looking at that video would walk away thinking all there was to see are those crap default gauges in the mini-panel!I give it "Five Thumbs Down..."

FSX sucks 8 cores dry. Is it worth spending thousands of dollars for a $70 program? There used to be lots of comments comparing FS???? to a real simulator and how lucky we were to get what we did for such a low cost. Well that real cost has risen and will apparently continue upwards. I wonder when Microsoft will price/function away most of its market?Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

The interviewer was much easier on Phil and FSX than many are here.When they flashed the CPU graphs were 8 cores being used like the interviewer suggested?

lol I only noticed two heheh

>FSX sucks 8 cores dry. Is it worth spending thousands of>dollars for a $70 program? There used to be lots of comments>comparing FS???? to a real simulator and how lucky we were to>get what we did for such a low cost. Well that real cost has>risen and will apparently continue upwards. I wonder when>Microsoft will price/function away most of its market?Hmm, my $70 CPU runs the game just fine with dense autogen, and I do not even use SP1.

>The interviewer was much easier on Phil and FSX than many are>here.>>When they flashed the CPU graphs were 8 cores being used like>the interviewer suggested?>>>>>>>>Looks like all except 2 cores (1 and 6 (Base zero)) are pegged at 100% with overall usage at 80%

I agree as far as showing more detail! It didn't even look like any Autogen was used, and what's worse is it looks like it had the dreaded blurries also. Not a good show for what suppose to be the fastest system on the block!!

Only 1.5 cores in use there :-lol

>Only 1.5 cores in use there :-lolTake another look! I know it's hard to see, but the the green line is pegged at 100% on 6 of the cores. (I have an 8 foot screen from a projector, with the ability to zoom in any location of the screen, so it's a little easier for me to see it). If only 1.5 cores were used, the overall CPU usage would be in the neghborhood of 15% instead of the 80+% shown!

I think he meant 1.5 CPUs. But that demo was Definitely was using 6 out of 8 cores, maxed out. What's going on here? Our folks have done all kinds Dual to Quad comparisons and found FSX is not taking advantage of the Q's second set of cores, yet . . . but here we see 6 cores fully engaged. What's up with that? A lot of our guys are buying dual cores because our tests have concluded that (at this SP level) Qs are a waste. Is there something different about that demo setup, or are we missing a .cfg line that will enable this capability or . . . . what? This demo Should mean that any Quad owner Should be capable of a quick DOUBLE in performance Right Now . . . but how?

As far as I understood it, just the amount of cores in use isn't exactly linear in relation to the performance you get....Then again, maybe 8 cores is the magic number...can't wait for 256 ROFL!

>I think he meant 1.5 CPUs. But that demo was Definitely was>using 6 out of 8 cores, maxed out. What's going on here? >>Our folks have done all kinds Dual to Quad comparisons and>found FSX is not taking advantage of the Q's second set of>cores, yet . . . but here we see 6 cores fully engaged. What's>up with that? A lot of our guys are buying dual cores because>our tests have concluded that (at this SP level) Qs are a>waste. >>Is there something different about that demo setup, or are we>missing a .cfg line that will enable this capability or . . .>. what? This demo Should mean that any Quad owner Should be>capable of a quick DOUBLE in performance Right Now . . . but>how? Hmm...interesting, Phil?

>Is there something different about that demo setup, or are we>missing a .cfg line that will enable this capability or . . .>. what? This demo Should mean that any Quad owner Should be>capable of a quick DOUBLE in performance Right Now . . . but>how? Good question Sam and one I wonder about also. During my tests, I noticed that all 4 cores were used heavily during the initial load but during flight it was the first core pegged with the other 3 fluctuating depending on what was displaying.VicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.6Evga 680i A1 with P30 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioined for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

Right now FSX Multi-core is limited to scenery loading, so you won't see a huge jump in performance, only the time it takes to load the scenery. So in the end you would get a more modest 25% increase, give or take a little. He did hint in the video in the future, AI and other functions like AI, may be moved to more cores. Don't know whether that means FSXI, SP2, or maybe a future patch after SP2. I would guess FSXI. Sp2 would be a nice surprise though! Then we may see a much greater improvement!