PDA

View Full Version : Intel Core 2 Duo, IS faster than 1 core in Single threaded apps/games



Master_Frost
31-12-2006, 02:48 PM
I felt the need to start a thread to help certain members understand Dual core processors.

There are AMD dual cores and Intel Dual cores, today I would like to focus on the newer Intel Core 2 Duo.


To make this simple to understand...... a few quick comparisons

Question.... Is a "P4 3.4 gig" faster than a "Core 2 duo 1.8gig" running SINGLE threaded apps and games.
Answer.... No, the Core 2 Duo is significantly faster in SINGLE threaded apps or games


Question is a AMD 64 3800+ faster than a Core 2 duo 1.8gig running SINGLE threaded apps or games?
Answer No, the cheapest Core 2 Duo is significantly faster in SINGLE threaded apps or games.

**Of course I could go through 100's of comparisons, there are faster single core CPU's and of course much faster Core 2 Duo's.

Why is C2D faster at lower MHZ?.....they perform more operations per clock cycle, they are more efficient.

Where is my proof you ask?


""" In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel's previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965."""
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19

For those that don't know "Pentium Extreme Edition 965" is single core and significantly more expensive than the cheapest C2D.

***Most of the test done in this review are SINGLE THREADED Apps and games where the Dual Core factor is not relevant.


Other proof can be found.

Tool "www.google.com"
Syntax "Intel Core 2 Duo review"


To wrap this up, it is widely accepted Core 2 Duo is faster in SINGLE and Dual threaded apps and games than any other single or dual core processors on the market.


Doubters please investigate and stop posting stupid blanket statements like "Single core is faster in single threaded apps and games" as this is NOT correct.

Which brings us to the Ultimate Question...Which mainstream processors hold the performance crown for every day games and Apps regardless if they are dual/Quad core or not?

The Answer is

1st Intel Quad core (but very expensive) (against other quad core platforms)

2nd Intel Core 2 Duo (start at just under NZ$300) (against other dual core platforms)


Am I a Intel fan? No my last 4/5 platforms have been AMD, Intel currently have the better product.

Chilling_Silence
31-12-2006, 03:09 PM
Havent had a chance to read it, but if thats true... my next system might be an Intel Core2 Duo :D

...mind you, I _love_ my amd64 Gentoo box, it'd be hard to make me part with it

Master_Frost
31-12-2006, 03:29 PM
hehe sorry is a tad long winded, but it hard to clarify all the important points in a small post.

You might be seeing this thread a lot for a while as I use it to shoot down the Anti Dual core possy :) opposed to replying in every thread.

I still have 2 AMD 64's in the house, they run great. Really hopeing AMD wipe the smile off Intel's face with there native quad cores next year.

Shortcircuit
31-12-2006, 03:35 PM
Yep, next week AMD will have the faster one, the week after that Intel.

There is no point, it's a boy's game designed to sell computer gear, just like say flat screen, TVs cars, MP3 players, games consoles... I think you get my drift :thumbs:

Dannz
31-12-2006, 03:40 PM
Thanks for that "Master_Frost" i agree 100% (as a core2 duo user :) )

Master_Frost
31-12-2006, 04:14 PM
Yep, next week AMD will have the faster one, the week after that Intel.

There is no point, it's a boy's game designed to sell computer gear, just like say flat screen, TVs cars, MP3 players, games consoles... I think you get my drift :thumbs:

3rd Quarter next year for AMD, you haven't really read this thread have you? Its not about AMD vs Intel lol



And thanks DanielF, hopefully we can school a few people and an learn em up propa :)

Shortcircuit
31-12-2006, 04:36 PM
3rd Quarter next year for AMD, you haven't really read this thread have you? Its not about AMD vs Intel lol

Of course I didn't... it's not about cars :D

Master_Frost
31-12-2006, 04:38 PM
Of course I didn't... it's not about cars :D

Dam I hate it when I am out argued :mad:

The_End_Of_Reality
31-12-2006, 04:54 PM
And thanks DanielF, hopefully we can school a few people and an learn em up propa :) Put me down too :D DC_ALL _THE_WAY!! :D

trinsic
31-12-2006, 05:29 PM
Yes DC is faster but some programs not supporting it go *** and have a fit so sometimes a single core is better for the moment once fixes come out then its all over. IMO DC is too early to adopt at the moment and I would only go DC when my current computer starts to slow down. (Plus single core chips are cheap as due to the the dual core cpus :D)

Master_Frost
31-12-2006, 06:33 PM
Yes DC is faster but some programs not supporting it go *** and have a fit so sometimes a single core is better for the moment once fixes come out then its all over. IMO DC is too early to adopt at the moment and I would only go DC when my current computer starts to slow down. (Plus single core chips are cheap as due to the the dual core cpus :D)

Dude listen

Core 2 Duo is faster in almost all SINGLE THREAD programs. The program does NOT NEED to support DC to benefit.


This Benchmark shows 2 single thread game "Doom3" & "Halo"

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e6600/9.html

I don't think I need to talk you through it lol

Get it yet? still think these games need "fixes" to run better with dual core than single core?

msnforum
31-12-2006, 06:46 PM
I am waiting for a right time to buy my new desktop. Maybe wait till they roll out Windows Vista, even though I'm running it with a poor graphics card.

Master_Frost
31-12-2006, 06:48 PM
Just to add a bit for the confused

The biggest problem is thinking ALL dual core models perform the same. THEY DON'T!


Here is a quick breakdown.

1 Intel Pentium D dual core is "crap" and often slower in single thread apps and games vs Single core.

2 AMD X2 dual core is "generally" seen as a bit "slower" in single thread apps and games vs Single core.

3 Intel Core 2 Due is indisputably faster in most single thread apps and games vs Single core.

To dumb it down as far as I can..................Vs Single core in a normal "single thread" app or game.

Intel Pentium D .......Slower
AMD X2...............Slower
Intel Core 2 Duo....Faster

trinsic
31-12-2006, 07:40 PM
Dude listen

Core 2 Duo is faster in almost all SINGLE THREAD programs. The program does NOT NEED to support DC to benefit.

Support may have been the wrong word :xmouth: Everything runs on DC but some programs have fits.

Three games I know of are Rainbow Six, Counterstrike and Act of War that have known issues with some peoples DC's. Setting the processor to run one core fixes it though.

pctek
31-12-2006, 09:14 PM
I felt the need to start a thread to help certain members understand Dual core processors.


No you didn't. You're just banging on about the Intel Core Duos. There is no anti dual core posse.

JJJJJ had a problem running his MS Flight Sim game with a socket 939 x2 4200+ AMD. He then bought a single core 4000 AMD and has been happy with the game since. Unless you also have compared this game with those two CPUs then leave him to his own conclusions.


I myself have an AMD dual core. The only thing I noticed was Warcraft 2 runs slowly. Not so badly I can't play it but enough to be noticable. Kind of like my mouse is moving through tar. Well its an old game.....

Other than that I couldn't care less. We all know multi Core is the future, future games will use it and Intel is currently winning.

So get over it, we all know all this already.

Trev
01-01-2007, 12:28 AM
No you didn't. You're just banging on about the Intel Core Duos. There is no anti dual core posse.

JJJJJ had a problem running his MS Flight Sim game with a socket 939 x2 4200+ AMD. He then bought a single core 4000 AMD and has been happy with the game since. Unless you also have compared this game with those two CPUs then leave him to his own conclusions.


I myself have an AMD dual core. The only thing I noticed was Warcraft 2 runs slowly. Not so badly I can't play it but enough to be noticable. Kind of like my mouse is moving through tar. Well its an old game.....

Other than that I couldn't care less. We all know multi Core is the future, future games will use it and Intel is currently winning.

So get over it, we all know all this already.

Do we ?????

Trevor :)

The_End_Of_Reality
01-01-2007, 04:26 AM
Ok, this is bugging me... (which is the reason that I am up at this hour :horrified ) You have stated that the C2D is faster because it is more efficient... that is all great, but HOW is it more efficient?

My answer: the bottom of the line (E6300 because it seems to be the focus here) is made of 65nm (really really small (the smallest so far that has actually worked well)) architecture which means it can have a lot more transistors on the die (the little thingys that actually do the work) and the more it has the more it can process at one time, this is the secret to the Core 2 Duos performance and how it can beat higher clocked chips easily. Also due to this smaller architecture size it requires a smaller voltage (1.2V) which means it is more efficient power wise.

Sigh... now back to bed :groan:

Big John
01-01-2007, 07:39 AM
Ok, this is bugging me... (which is the reason that I am up at this hour :horrified ) You have stated that the C2D is faster because it is more efficient... that is all great, but HOW is it more efficient?

My answer: the bottom of the line (E6300 because it seems to be the focus here) is made of 65nm (really really small (the smallest so far that has actually worked well)) architecture which means it can have a lot more transistors on the die (the little thingys that actually do the work) and the more it has the more it can process at one time, this is the secret to the Core 2 Duos performance and how it can beat higher clocked chips easily. Also due to this smaller architecture size it requires a smaller voltage (1.2V) which means it is more efficient power wise.

Sigh... now back to bed :groan:

Not only that but mine has 4MB cache on the chip and if only one core is being used then it gets that whole 4MB. It is dynamically allocated.
I have yet to see a game have fits with it. Sure I have some games that don't work under XP that worked with 98 but that was to be expected.

JJJJJ
01-01-2007, 07:42 AM
Of course it all depends on what you mean by "better" and "faster".
I have no iterest in the AMD v Intel speed war.
I have no interest in benchmarks based on business programs or on specific games.
My interest is 90% based on fs9 and FS X. Both programs were designed for single core cpu's. Of course they will run quite well on dual core, even if they can not use the cpu's full capacity.

I have compared both types of cpu, a x2 4200+ and a single 4000+, on performance tests showing cpu useage.

With just the basic program installed there is very little difference between them.
But as extras are added the x2 useage jumps dramaticly. With my setup and the game running at idleing speed cpu is shown to use about 90% resources.The 4000+ about 60%.
Then when extra capacity is needed the x2 tries to get it by reducing quality settings in the program. Then it seems to try store more and more in memory. When this is not enough it just shuts the the program down.
I have often seen cpu and memory useage at 100%

With FSx it is not possabe to run it and anything like maximum with either cpu.

Fps is no indication of cpu capacity. With "photoreal" scenery fps can drop to as low as 10 and the program starts to stutter. But cpu resources do not seem to be affected.

So for the present I will stick with single core. In the future, who knows?

And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them.

The_End_Of_Reality
01-01-2007, 07:58 AM
Not only that but mine has 4MB cache on the chip and if only one core is being used then it gets that whole 4MB. It is dynamically allocated. Yes, that is true... how could I forget about the 4MB of cache :groan:


And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them. He he he, DC IS CURRENT, quad core and even more cores are the way of the future :D

pctek
01-01-2007, 09:31 AM
So for the present I will stick with single core. In the future, who knows?

And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them.

Multi-core, jjjjj. Not necessarily dual. When FS12 or whatever is out it probably will have support for more than one core. Oh hang on, this is MS we are talking about - maybe FS15 then.

trinsic
01-01-2007, 09:46 AM
quad core and even more cores are the way of the future :D

QC is the way to increase my power bill tbh. One setup using a 7900 and a QuadFX used 600W :yuck:

Greg
01-01-2007, 11:54 AM
Sorry if I missed it, but the question that begs asking for those of us who aren't electronic/software engineers is... how to identify whether an app or game is single thread or multi thread?

Master_Frost
01-01-2007, 11:57 AM
No you didn't. You're just banging on about the Intel Core Duos. There is no anti dual core posse.

JJJJJ had a problem running his MS Flight Sim game with a socket 939 x2 4200+ AMD. He then bought a single core 4000 AMD and has been happy with the game since. Unless you also have compared this game with those two CPUs then leave him to his own conclusions.


I myself have an AMD dual core. The only thing I noticed was Warcraft 2 runs slowly. Not so badly I can't play it but enough to be noticable. Kind of like my mouse is moving through tar. Well its an old game.....

Other than that I couldn't care less. We all know multi Core is the future, future games will use it and Intel is currently winning.

So get over it, we all know all this already.



There are members of this forum stating dual core is slower in single thread which is a blanket statement that doesn't distinguish between the different brands/models.

If we are talking about Pentium D I would 100% agree
When talk Core 2 Duo, no way in hell.


This is NOT an AMD/Intel argument especially when I personally own 2 AMD 64's.

As as for your statement ""Other than that I couldn't care less"", then stay out of this thread. You have fed ego enough for one day with your wonderful Technical insight once again lol


You don't care move along, nothing to see here.

Big John
01-01-2007, 02:35 PM
My interest is 90% based on fs9 and FS X. Both programs were designed for single core cpu's. Of course they will run quite well on dual core, even if they can not use the cpu's full capacity.

I have compared both types of cpu, a x2 4200+ and a single 4000+, on performance tests showing cpu useage.

With FSx it is not possabe to run it and anything like maximum with either cpu.

Fps is no indication of cpu capacity. With "photoreal" scenery fps can drop to as low as 10 and the program starts to stutter. But cpu resources do not seem to be affected.

So for the present I will stick with single core. In the future, who knows?

And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them.

Better start throwing:waughh: . I also built my new PC for FSX and it has a Intel DC. I can tell you the increase from a P4 3.6 overclocked with 1GB ram to a E6700 DC with 1GB makes a big difference to FSX. Sure it does not max it out but it does leave a spare core left over for running other things like Radar Contact and weather programs without affecting the core running FSX.
The thing that did it for me was upping the ram from 1GB to 2GB and it made a huge difference to FSX and with most thing on max I can now get 20FPS with no stutters or stops. Sure there are tweaks but thats what its about.

Every other program I own I can max out everything and that was something I could never do on my other PC but then it could be my NVidia 8800GTX helping that along as well.

SolMiester
01-01-2007, 03:03 PM
Ok, FYI, the DC is the better processor because of IPC,not because of how small the die is. Does anyone know what that is, it means Instructions Per Cycle. This is where AMD previously beat Intel with their P4, as Intel thought speed was the right way to go, so crwated long pipelined cpu, however those same lengthy pipes sometimes caused issues as they info had to be dumped for updated info, hence the sometimes slower processing. AMD thought more instructions per cycle with short pipelines to get better processing from lower speed cpu.

Now of course Intel have cottoned on and have the undisputed crown is cpu processing.

As for JJJJJ, well, I'd say the young lad has to learn some games have all sorts of issues and the best play to find solutions instead of purchasing more hardware is to visit the game web site to converse with other users of the game.

JJJJJ
01-01-2007, 03:30 PM
Better start throwing:waughh: . I also built my new PC for FSX and it has a Intel DC. I can tell you the increase from a P4 3.6 overclocked with 1GB ram to a E6700 DC with 1GB makes a big difference to FSX. Sure it does not max it out but it does leave a spare core left over for running other things like Radar Contact and weather programs without affecting the core running FSX.
The thing that did it for me was upping the ram from 1GB to 2GB and it made a huge difference to FSX and with most thing on max I can now get 20FPS with no stutters or stops. Sure there are tweaks but thats what its about.

Every other program I own I can max out everything and that was something I could never do on my other PC but then it could be my NVidia 8800GTX helping that along as well.

Very interesting. But are you sure addons like FSInn and Copilot are controlled by the second core?
My experience was that fs9 and fsx would run very well with the x2 cpu. The trouble started when I loaded FSInn. Sometimes I would bomb out immediately, sometimes after half an hour, sometimes when approaching an airport. But always when I was in an area with enhanced scenery.
I could fly a route a dozen times without FSInn loaded,without any trouble.But load fsinn and trouble!
This of course led me to suspect problems with fsinn. But several fresh downloads of different versions made no difference. I even tried Squark Box. and fs9's own version of multiplayer,all with disastrous results.
In NZ I have the 20M mesh and all the Real NZ scenery
In Australiia I have FSGenesis mesh and all the VOZ addons.
And in both countries I always bombed out.
In the rest of the world I had no trouble.
To me this proved the addons were too much for system resources.
As a last desperate attempt for a solution, I removed the x2 4200+ and dropped in a single core 4000+. The problem vanished instantly.
So you can see why I am anti x2.
With fsx I now only have the NZ addons and I would describe performance as "alright" but not realy satisfactory.
I have an NVidia 7950GTX and 2 gigs of ram.
Just need something like a 8000+ cpu.

Master_Frost
01-01-2007, 04:27 PM
Very interesting. But are you sure addons like FSInn and Copilot are controlled by the second core?
My experience was that fs9 and fsx would run very well with the x2 cpu. The trouble started when I loaded FSInn. Sometimes I would bomb out immediately, sometimes after half an hour, sometimes when approaching an airport. But always when I was in an area with enhanced scenery.
I could fly a route a dozen times without FSInn loaded,without any trouble.But load fsinn and trouble!
This of course led me to suspect problems with fsinn. But several fresh downloads of different versions made no difference. I even tried Squark Box. and fs9's own version of multiplayer,all with disastrous results.
In NZ I have the 20M mesh and all the Real NZ scenery
In Australiia I have FSGenesis mesh and all the VOZ addons.
And in both countries I always bombed out.
In the rest of the world I had no trouble.
To me this proved the addons were too much for system resources.
As a last desperate attempt for a solution, I removed the x2 4200+ and dropped in a single core 4000+. The problem vanished instantly.
So you can see why I am anti x2.
With fsx I now only have the NZ addons and I would describe performance as "alright" but not realy satisfactory.
I have an NVidia 7950GTX and 2 gigs of ram.
Just need something like a 8000+ cpu.

Nice post SolMiester, 100% agree, AMD are more to thank for Core 2 Duo than Intel. AMD showed (forced) Intel how to make more efficient processor (in my opinion).



Now Jack, you are quoting your experience with AMD X2 which is fine. If you want to be dubiously about AMD X2 in your FS9 and FSX be my guest, you have 1st hand experience. BTW the bottleneck in FSX is going to be your GPU not CPU unless you play at a really low resolution.


When you warn a user that has one of the fastest CPU's (Intel Core 2 duo e6600) on the market that it is unstable for gaming, it is apart from being kinda funny really wrong!

This is a technical forum where some people come for real help, if you can't stay up with the play don't comment as it is counter productive, but to be fair you are far from being the only one.

Big John
02-01-2007, 05:01 PM
BTW the bottleneck in FSX is going to be your GPU not CPU unless you play at a really low resolution.



Nup, it aint the GPU. If it was it would play sweet as on mine which has 768MB DDR3 ram on the 8800GTX. The increase given by this card was very small over my 6800Ultra. There was an increase but not that great. It does make heaps of other games more enjoyable though so this is more proof the GPU is not the limiting factor on FSX

Master_Frost
02-01-2007, 05:34 PM
Nup, it aint the GPU. If it was it would play sweet as on mine which has 768MB DDR3 ram on the 8800GTX. The increase given by this card was very small over my 6800Ultra. There was an increase but not that great. It does make heaps of other games more enjoyable though so this is more proof the GPU is not the limiting factor on FSX

What resolution do you play in? and what CPU do you have?

Big John
02-01-2007, 10:44 PM
What resolution do you play in? and what CPU do you have?

I originally had it playing under a P4 3.6Ghz overclocked 8% and a Nvidia 6800Ultra. I had it at resolution of 1280x1024.

I now have it under a E6700 not overclocked at all with a Nvidia 8800GTX at 1920x1600 with all the filters turned on full. Looks very nice. Just a shame I cant turn up the autogen anymore and get the cities really full of building as they should be.

One thing I did note is the while ActiveSky makes no difference to frame rates and gives excellent weather a 757 addon drops frame rates by 12-16 fps while in 2D mode and 6-10 in VC mode.
I hope PDGM 747/MD11/737 does not affect it that much as I am hanging out for them and their FMC/MCP again.

Master_Frost
03-01-2007, 10:34 AM
I originally had it playing under a P4 3.6Ghz overclocked 8% and a Nvidia 6800Ultra. I had it at resolution of 1280x1024.

I now have it under a E6700 not overclocked at all with a Nvidia 8800GTX at 1920x1600 with all the filters turned on full. Looks very nice. Just a shame I cant turn up the autogen anymore and get the cities really full of building as they should be.

One thing I did note is the while ActiveSky makes no difference to frame rates and gives excellent weather a 757 addon drops frame rates by 12-16 fps while in 2D mode and 6-10 in VC mode.
I hope PDGM 747/MD11/737 does not affect it that much as I am hanging out for them and their FMC/MCP again.

Thats a huge resolution change, what makes you think the GPU is not the bottleneck?. The 8800GTX is literally top of the line (very jealous) but can still be bottlenecked. At 1280x1024 the CPU would DEFINITELY be the bottleneck on a 8800GTX however the frame rate should be high enough not to matter/care.

As a general rule of thumb, higher CPU's only become the bottleneck at "lower" resolutions where the GPU can easily handle the frame rate, this still stands true for even your card, not knowing much about FSX specifically. If you were running SLI GTX i could imagine your CPU being the bottleneck at 1920x1600.

Master_Frost
03-01-2007, 10:56 AM
eer found it took a while

Here is a CPU scaling test for a 8800GTX running FEAR (another system hog game) at 1600x1200. As you can see there is nearly no difference in FPS between any of the CPU's as the 8800GTX is the bottleneck.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=603&p=3

Its a shame they do not show it running at 1024x768 but the story would be quiet different, resolution is everything.

In COH however the game is not so graphic intensive so nearly all C2D are able to handle the 8800GTX @1600x1200 while other processors become the bottleneck.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=603&p=2

So at 1900x1600 in FSX, id be picking a GPU bottleneck.

Big John
03-01-2007, 06:44 PM
eer found it took a while

So at 1900x1600 in FSX, id be picking a GPU bottleneck.

I had it running at 1900x1600 on the 6800Ultra at the same res as well and it was the same (or nearly such). I had the card in the new PC until the new card arrived. The huge load is the autogen scenery in FSX. Turn this off and the cars/boats and then fps are extrememely good and the ground looks good but the cities look like ghost towns.

Master_Frost
03-01-2007, 07:16 PM
I had it running at 1900x1600 on the 6800Ultra at the same res as well and it was the same (or nearly such). I had the card in the new PC until the new card arrived. The huge load is the autogen scenery in FSX. Turn this off and the cars/boats and then fps are extrememely good and the ground looks good but the cities look like ghost towns.

I know there are a few reviews for FSX that believe it is extremely poorly optimised, which wouldn't surprise anyone considering who made it :P Still seriously doubt you are CPU bottlenecked.

JJJJJ
04-01-2007, 06:20 AM
[QUOTE=
This is a technical forum where some people come for real help, if you can't stay up with the play don't comment as it is counter productive, but to be fair you are far from being the only one.[/QUOTE]

I am merely quoting from my own experience. My comments related to two specific cpu's.
Higher powered x2 cpu's will naturaly be better.
My sc 4000+ is immeasurably better than a x2 4200+ for fs9 and fsx !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Master_Frost
04-01-2007, 07:21 AM
I am merely quoting from my own experience. My comments related to two specific cpu's.
Higher powered x2 cpu's will naturaly be better.
My sc 4000+ is immeasurably better than a x2 4200+ for fs9 and fsx !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes but in that last thread the guy had a Intel C2D that out perform X2, so your blanket comments were misleading don't you think?.

There is a Very good reason why when you see a 8800GTX video card review, they use high end C2D to benchmark. They use the fastest CPU's to ensure not to bottleneck the GPU while benchmarking, thats a fact.

As for FSX, no one appears to have done a performance scale comparison, it appears to be so poorly optimised nothing would surprise me. It has nice graphics, but far from the best, there seems little excuse for such poor performance. I notice a lot of people are saying this.

JJJJJ
04-01-2007, 08:19 AM
Yes but in that last thread the guy had a Intel C2D that out perform X2, so your blanket comments were misleading don't you think?.

There is a Very good reason why when you see a 8800GTX video card review, they use high end C2D to benchmark. They use the fastest CPU's to ensure not to bottleneck the GPU while benchmarking, thats a fact.

As for FSX, no one appears to have done a performance scale comparison, it appears to be so poorly optimised nothing would surprise me. It has nice graphics, but far from the best, there seems little excuse for such poor performance. I notice a lot of people are saying this.

Yes, but how many people have,or can afford, a 8800 vid card, let alone a top x2 cpu?
In an FS forum I belong to the average pc is something like a 3200+ (or Intel equivelant).
Also you must remember that when fs9 was released we all complained about the poor quality and how it wouldn't run properly on our computers.I am convinced that MS deliberately design the sim for addons to be written for it.
Give FSX another year or two and we will probably as happy with it as we are now with fs9.

Master_Frost
04-01-2007, 08:40 AM
Jack

This thread is not directed at specifically you. Just anyone making statements statements like Single core is faster in single core apps, which is now untrue with the introduction of Intel C2D 7 odd months ago.

As for who can afford a high end DC, try a $300 E6300 and overclock to the same performance as a $1600 processor. However i accept not everyone wants to overclock, but many enthusiast do as its so incredibly easy.

http://hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014

Chilling_Silence
04-01-2007, 11:46 AM
Thanks Master_Frost, for this thread :)

Jack, keep up the input mate, thats what PF1's here for!