System, for dual core owners only please

[md11nlm1]

I'm interested in purchasing an Intel 2.8 dual core chip with nVidia 6600 - 256mb, adding one hard drive at 10K RPM, with 2GB of DDR RAM, either XP or XP Pro, whichever anyone thinks is best?

I'm currently using 2.0GHZ Intel, 2GB RAM, nVidia (chip) 5500, with three HD that are limited to 7,200 RPM, with XP Pro.

With FS9, plus the following addons:

Roads USA
Weather Enviroments (enhancements)
Traffic

All from Flight One.

Additionally, I have PCATD (Precision Flight Controls) Cirrus II with Jetliner yoke, so with this equipment, smoothness (high speed refresh rates) is manatory.

Question is this:

Will the refresh rates be faster with a dual core (as opposed to a single core, i.e., 3.4GHZ)?

My goal is not only make FS9, regardless of addons, and slider maxed out, smooth like a television screen....

Your opinions please, I am ready to buy.

Thank you well in advance for your input and other suggestions would be well received.

NLM

[JSkorna]

Hi,

This belongs in the Hardware Forum and will probably be moved there!

1. Dual core is not necessary for FS04 so I suggest AMD 64 4000+.

2. After the initial load the HD speed does not come into play that much IMO.

3. Lock your FPS in FS04 to 25 or 30 and your experience will be smooth.

4. That 6600 is still not the greatest either. Not sure if you are staying withAGP or moving to PCI.

Hope this helps,
Jim
http://www.hifisim.com

http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-downloa...evelopment.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-downloa...nner-proud.jpg [hr][link:www.jdtllc.com|http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg]

[md11nlm1]

Thank you Jim,

What is the processor speed of the AMD 64 4000+?

Some "experts" believe that the dual core gives one the speed of 2.8ghz into 5.6...

I suspect the dual core is more like two auto batteries in parellel still getting 12volts, but more amps...? Another words useful in intensive multitasking, i.e., two graphic programs.

On point two, if flying an F14 at full Mach, then I would think that would be untrue, do you disagree?

If not the 6600, what would you recommend.

Thanks as always,

Fly high!

[RyanbATC]

No, it doesn't work like that (that would be two processors....which still doesn't work like that)...anyway...

Yes, dual core CPUs are better for doing more things at once, on ONE machine. Example: A dual core PC would be better at running FS9, Photoshop, a web browser, email client, etc all at once, than a single core CPU.

Also, although the single cored San Diego 4000+ is the best single out there I might recommend a dual core especially for the future. Something like the AMD X2 4400 or 4800 :) Of course those will cost you :) (edit: oops and I'm saying only go for the dual core CPU IFF you are looking to hold onto the machine for a few years. You could also get a single core CPU and upgrade later on. However, once again, AMD is switching to the socket 940 for their newer CPU's...man things just keep changing!! So you would need to wait a little longer (if you are trying to be nearly state-of-the-art you'll want to buy soon after the latest n' greatest component is released, therefore your cost will decrease).

As for the video card, depending on your money limit, I'd go with a nice geforce 7800 or one of its varients.

[madtun]

Currently I have a dual core machine. It has come very handy in running other flight related programs as well, such as AI Smooth, Enviro and my weather updates every 15 minutes. Be aware while on line for your weather updates my safe but intruding anti virus is still working and downloading it's updates at the same time. It once caught a virus during my flight and immediatly pause the flight when I was about to land. The price of safety.

[lnuss]

My 4400+ is wonderful. Besides FS, I'll run the TrackIR software and, often, fraps, as well. And occasionally I'll run TopoUSA, which can track your position in FS (via GPSOUT and a comport hack) as a moving map. All this while FS is running.

While FS9 isn't designed to use both processors, the latest 81.98 drivers from nVidia will actually force FS onto both processors, causing occasional stutters, so I just set the affinity (a menu choice in Windows Task Manager) to one processor and the problem is gone. And my suspicion is (though it's not officially confirmed) that FSX will be designed to use dual (or more) processors.

Besides FS, there are many other times when dual cores are mighty nice. Pinnacle Studio, for example, DOES use both cores, and being aboe to run several tasks with minimal slowdown is nice, too.

[md11nlm1]

Well that's was my concern, whether independents addons, Enviroment, AI Traffic (Traffic), and if a dual core machine would be best as opposed to a single processor (though maybe higher).

And with Virus program in the background, it tends to slow things up a bit, so it appears that you're Intel D processor makes it SM-O-O-O-TH.....ER!

Thanks for your input.

Keep them coming dual processorer users, but I would like to hear from Single but faster processor users too, like 3.0 and slightly higher, but not the highest, as dual units are coming down nicely in price.

Happy flying!

[noell]

You don't need a dual-core processor in order to run FS9 and a bunch of add-ons like TrackIR, FSNav, ActiveSky , FRAPS, etc. simultaneously. I do that all the time with a single core 4000+ without any problems whatsoever. Since none of those programs (as far as I know) have code written specifically to support dual-core, they do not benefit directly from the presence of a dual-core processor. Therefore, they run quite well and simultaneously on any fast processor whether single or dual core.

Also, in a thread that was active yesterday in this forum, it was pointed out that a "dual-processor" system is not the same as "dual-core" system. So, just to be sure there is no confusion on this, a dual-processor system has two, separate single-core processors whereas a dual-core system is a system with one dual-core processor.

Please elaborate on how a video driver can "force FS onto both processors". I've never heard of a video driver controlling a processor in that manner before. If you can provide a link to the source of your information on that, it would be appreciated.

Thanks.

....Noell

AMD Athlon 4000+ (San Diego)
ASUS A8N-SLI Premium
2GB OCZ DDR400 CL2
BFG 7800GTX OC 256MB (Driver: XG83.60-v2)
OCZ PowerStream 520W
SB Audigy Gamer
SATA HDDs:
36GB WD Raptor (X2; RAID 0)
74GB WD Raptor
120GB WD Caviar

[loki]

The new nVidia drivers don't force any program into using two cores, they just let the video drivers will use both cores. As I mentioned in another thread, there are some problems with dual cores, or dual processors, Windows XP and many games. The easiest way to fix this is to install AMD's dirvers (don't if Intel has an equivalent), or to set the affinity.

A single core processor running faster than a dual core will run FS9, and most current games, faster than a dual core CPU. This is only if you aren't running many other programs, tasks or Windows services though. With a dual core, you could rip a DVD and fly from New York to LA with virtually no performance impact unless they are both trying to read from the same hard drive though. This is where two hard drives, RAID and NCQ would help a lot.

loki