Simviation Forums

Hello

Upgrading from A64 (939) X2 4400+ (@2.5) and not sure if its better for FSX to go for higher clock dual core or potentially lower clocked quad , most probably of the Core2 family (E6750/6850, Q6600)

What has experience shown so far?
Whats benefiting FSX more? (clocks vs #cores)

Is it also true that the ram speed (asynchronous i guess) affects FSX performance noticeably?

Thanks

it all depends. If you like a lot of games other than FSX, then I would reccommend the dual as many games don't support quad core yet. However, a slower quad core has more performance power with FSX than a slightly faster dual core. And yes, ram speed will make FSX smoother, but not by a huge difference.

Also:

If you are comfortable with overclocking CPU's, go for the quad

If you aren't go for the dual and learn later.

Thanks for the input here. Appreciated.

Well, i always think overclocking is worth it, (interesting also as a technical learning experience and challenge, getting to know more in depth the hardware) although within safety margins, and i itend to build this C2 system in a way that it will allow a decent overclock (i am intending for example in the Q6600 (or E6750) case, to have it at 3Ghz or 3.2 (max i guess), something like that.

My main software concerns for this PC is simulation. FSX, LockOn, flight simulators plus some driving simulations. Looks like the odds (math) are favoring the quad.

[quote]

I can tell you that FSX will load faster and have better terrain loading (especially in turns) with a quad, but, frame rate is not going to be changed, perhaps 1-3 frames better. Frames are more about GHz and core design.

FSX above core 0 is about game load, autogen and terrain mesh. The rest is on core 0 and 1.

As for speed VS cores

I agree with NickN, I was just told that for a lot of games quad is better than dual. But it does make sense, because if you get stutters with a dual core, they are fixable depending on how big a graphics card you have (Bufferpools)