Thread: dual core or quad core
09-24-2008, 03:34 PM #1
dual core or quad core
even though i have already gotten the dual core , i was told that a quad core would have been better for FSX.
im wondering if you good folks can expand on that.
09-24-2008, 03:45 PM #2
Robert, FSX now with the patches makes use of multiple cores. therefore the more the better.
09-25-2008, 01:36 AM #3
Many many friends, invest their € to a powerful PC for FSX (more than 1000€), but they are flying the Fs9
Any other opinion ?
09-25-2008, 02:07 AM #4
09-25-2008, 04:38 AM #5
Actually there is. A pc with qx9770 overclocked at 4,0Ghz and asus rampage extreme. I saw it in action.
I am telling only QX9770 because it is based at the new tecnhology of 45nm instead of 65nm. This makes the cores to be 50% more faster at the same spped with less power and heat.
For example. A 65nm tecnhology runs at max 333 Mhz when 45nm starts at 400Mhz with a stock multiplier 8. So you go 400 x 10 = 4Ghz of speed just for fun with air cooling. If you want to go 400 x 11 = 4,4 Ghz you need water cooling to keep temperature under 50 of celcium in full action.
Also the data goes paraller of the cores because of the many transistors instead of one by one per core.
So, FSX is just a breakfast for QX9770.With best regards,
09-25-2008, 04:58 AM #6
09-25-2008, 06:44 AM #7
Just another thought about this
Just wanted to ad to my last post, since I was thinking about it
Bottom line is.... What do you want; FS9 a fast smooth scenery (lot's of scenery options, not quite as good as FSX), operates nicely on today's standard technology.... OR..... FSX a fantastic scenery options, but can't use it to the max, because of slow frame rates, and consistently nags at you to find improvement of your computer, which is not there, or else set the setting low..... now you're back at FS9 level.
Comes down to this, in my opinion, what ever that means.... LOL.... and (I love FSX), you might as well get the super duper computer and use FS9 with all it's glitter ad-ons.
Will I fly FSX once I have my super duper computer going... you bet. But I think FS9 will be my main FS.
09-25-2008, 08:13 AM #8
FS9 will be history soon (FSX will be history later as well). Hasn't anyone learned from the past yet?
09-25-2008, 08:16 AM #9
Yeah, with FS8. That's why I'm staying with FS9 while I have a great system to run it with.Boeing Skunk Works
Remember...140, 250, and REALLY FAST!
We don't need no stinkin' ETOPS!
Powered by FS9 & BOEING
09-25-2008, 08:34 AM #10
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Perth, Western Australia
Look everyone, listen to Maurice. Sure FSX can be slower on some hardware but you don't have to spend much to get it to perform, and it's soooooo nice. Fly once with something like Orbix FTX loaded and you just won't bother going back. Yes FS9 can still be enjoyed immensely with current hardware specs just as a bicycle can get you from A to B at little cost, but there's no doubting a car will do it in more comfort and style.
FSX (as will be FS11) is the future and I recommend giving it a go.
BTW, if you're not getting good performance with FSX using medium spec hardware then there's something wrong with your hardware and/or software setup.
Just my 2 bobs worth
By dxb747 in forum Where to Start Building a Home CockpitReplies: 7Last Post: 12-11-2009, 12:34 PM
By Drewsta in forum Computer Hardware SetupReplies: 10Last Post: 12-04-2009, 08:42 AM
By kni-dk in forum Computer Hardware SetupReplies: 2Last Post: 01-03-2009, 04:13 PM
By AchillesP in forum MyCockpit Member MeetingsReplies: 1Last Post: 12-31-2008, 05:34 PM
By DENNIS ORSAG in forum Cockpit Software: MiscellaneousReplies: 24Last Post: 03-19-2008, 06:38 PM