I have searched and searched... I am looking for advice as to what processor will work better with FSX. That is all I basically run on my PC; not a big gamer, but I am a BIG Flight Simulator buff!
 
My quandry is to which CPU Should I go with: The Q6600 or the E6850?
 
Keeping in mind that FSX now supports multi-cores with the advent of SP1 Which should I choose? The Q6600 is obviously quad-core at 2.4 Ghz, but 1066 FSB. The E6850 is faster at 3.0 Ghz AND a 1333 FSB BUT only dual-core. So I guess what I'm looking for is someone's real experience on which CPU runs FSX faster/more efficiently.
 
...Does the faster FSB and core speed of the E6850 prevail, or do the four cores of the Q6600 come out ahead? ...Keep in mind I am currently running an E6600...
 
::EDIT:: OK - Now add to the mix the E8400...    
 
Thanks to all...
Robert

I think the best thing for you to do is just overlclock the e6600 up to  3ghz. Then you "have" a e6850.  If you're thinking of going 6850 i assume you have a board that does 1333fsb anyways. Just up the fsb to 333. Your mobo and cpu should do that no problem.
 

From my experience, I would say that more cores are better.  I've read that FSX with SP1 can scale out to 32 cores.  I've monitored core usage with my XP system while playing FSX and it seems to use more than 50% of each core with settings turned up.  

You can get a Q6600 and overclock it to 3 GHz. I think that's better for FSX than a dual-core solution. It's also more future-proof anyway.
 
If you can wait for another month or two then wait for Q9450. It is supposed to come out in "Q1 2008" which probably means March. It is supposed to cost $316 (tray price), so probably $350 retail at first when demand is high and supply low. The speed should be about 15% more than Q6600, and it should overclock better.
 

^ Second that.  

Most of us know that the quad is the better cpu for FSX. My only concern is, is it worth upgrading to the q6600 from the e6600 the OP already has. If i was building a new system from scratch there we would no doubt about it to go for the q6600 and OC it to 3ghz.
 
Again just OC the e6600 to see how much of a improvemnt you gain for free. If its not enuff for your needs then pick up the quad.
 
If you are going to upgrade the cpu the only way to go is for a quad. The real ? is the price/performance upgrade worth the 270 bucks to the OP.

Oops, I totally missed the part where he already has an E6600. Yeah, he should overclock it and see how FSX works.

devereiii, one of the primary functions of my personal PC is to run FSX. When I upgraded several months ago from the E6600 to the Q6600, I had the same unanswered questions that you have. Since the simulation is very heavily CPU bound, I decided to compare "apples to apples" by testing the frame rate on both processors at 3.6Ghz while running FSX - SP1.
 
I monitored FPS in the simulation during 3 specific flights, at the same 3 sample locations, first for the E6600 at 3.6Ghz, then for the Q6600 at 3.6Ghz. My results were repeatable and consistent, and very clearly showed an astonishing 80% increase in frame rates with the Q6600. I couldn't be more pleased with this processor.
 
Regardless of which CPU is used to run FSX, achieving the highest stable overclock is the key to frame rate, since FSX frame rate scales nearly 1:1 with CPU clock speed. Further, to confirm how CPU bound FSX is, if you review Tom's VGA Charts, it shows there is only a 2 FPS difference in FSX between a 7800 GT and an 8800 GTX, at ANY resolution.
 
I hope this information helps to answer your questions.
 
Comp

^ Nice!  Thanks for the info.

Wow, 80% is huge.  
 
OK, one more thing though before the final decision. devereiii, what is the refresh rate of your monitor and how many fps do you get with the stock E6600? For example, if your monitor refreshes at 60 Hz (i.e. shows at most 60 fps), and the stock E6600 gets 40 fps, and overclocking it by 50% (from 2.4 to 3.6) gets it to 60 fps, then you're already as good as it gets without buying a new CPU.
 

aevm, 40 FPS?    Try 20's! FSX is EXTREMELY processor demanding, and minimum frame rates will CRAWL along in the teen's on a stock clocked E6600, resulting in a BARELY acceptable simulation experience using compromised settings.
 
Even using a Q6600 at 3.6Ghz with optimized settings, minimum FPS still fall to low 30's when flying over complex terrain, while average is mostly in the 50's, and 100's + are seen only when flying in clear and cloudless conditions over an ocean. Honestly, a Quad running at maximum stable overclock is needed to render a smooth flight experience.
 
Comp

Not even at smaller resolutions? Yikes! OK, case closed, he totally needs a quad.
 
About the overclocking: a Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme/Scythe S-Flex SFF21F is as good as it gets, AFAIK. Is that ZeroTherm BTF90 the butterfly? It looks like it's doing a great job for you
 
 

What CompuTronix said...
 
FSX SP1 will allow pretty much 100% usage of all 4 cores.
 
That should pretty much make the decision for u.

For FSX the Q is the man.
 
I had the E6600, and upgraded to the Q and the difference is, as Computronix said, huge. The E was all the time @ 100%. The Q is all the time between 50% to 75% (all cores).

Let me do some math here. If your 3.7 GHz Q6600 is only used at 75% or less, then the OP can overclock his new Q6600 to 2.8 GHz, have 100% usage, and get the same results you got. That shouldn't be too hard.
 
I wonder if your WD 500GB disk is bottlenecking the CPU there. Maybe you'd get even more than 75% usage with a faster disk, like the WD 750 GB. My own Q6600 is limited to about 81% on all cores in DVD Shrink, and I suspect the disks are causing it. I use WD5000AAKS, btw.

Computronix (Thank you for sharing your research) and others...
 
You guys are awesome here, thank you very much for your replies...!!
 
In answer to a few questions I have seen here, about my system first:
 
Vista Ultimate x86 (thinking about installing the 64 bit version to avoid OOM errors in FSX, but not sure how mature the 64 bit drivers have become)
E6600
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 Rev.2 (supports 1333 FSB)
GeForce 7950GT
4 Gb Corsair Valueselect @ 667Mhz
Seagate Barracuda SATA x 2
Samsung 19" LCD
Saitek X52 Pro HOTAS & Rudder Pedals
 
At a non-heavily detailed airport such as Dayton Intl. (my default startup airport) and with all the sliders on "High" (not Ultra-High) I am getting consistant 22 - 30 FPS with it locked at 30 FPS in the hardware settings. At an airport such as KJFK, I'm down in the mid-teens to 20, 22 FPS depending if I'm facing the water or not, LOL!! (anyone familiar with FSX will know what I mean... AWESOME water effects but they will KILL your frames!)
 
I'm slowly getting the impression, reading here, that the Q6600 may be the way to go (overclocked). But, assuming stock speeds between the two, 2.4 vs. 3.0, faster bus speed on the E6850 vs. four cores with the Q6600, which one would be faster in FSX? (Wish you had an E6850 in that data, COMPUTRONIX!)  
 
I wish Mr. Tom would include FSX in the processor charts as this software IS incredibly CPU bound!!!  
 
Thanks All!
Robert

devereiii, bus speed alone matters only as a vehicle shared with the CPU multiplier to achieve overall CPU clock speed. Core 2 Duo variants which have 4Mb shared cache, regardless of FSB, will render 80% less FPS at the same CPU clock speed than a Q6600 at the same CPU clock speed, so don't get hung up on FSB clock speed. It's all about overall CPU clock speed, and 2 Cores versus 4 Cores.
 
Comp

OK, math time again. We know that the FSX frame rate scales nearly 1:1 with CPU clock speed. We also know that a Q6600 at 3.7 GHz will be used at 75% (at most). That means Comp's 3.6 GHz CPU is used at 77% at most (assuming all other things are equal)
 
If you get a Q6600, and don't overclock, it will work at 2.4 GHz, at 100%. To match Comp's performance, your Q6600 CPU would need to run at 2.772 GHz. You can overclock it to that level easily, or you can leave it at stock and get 86.5% of the frames Comp gets. That means average of 43 fps instead of 50 fps.
 
With an E6850, at stock: you gain 25% fps because of the higher clock (3.0 GHz instead of 2.4 Ghz). Based on Comp's "in the teens" statement, I will assume 16 fps for E6600 which means 20 fps for E6850, with no overclocking. OK, let's say 22 fps for E6850 with no overclocking because of the faster fsb, but I doubt it's that much. The fsb difference typically adds 2% to 6%, not 10%.
 
So, to cut the long story short, here are my estimates:
Q6600 = 43 fps at stock, 50 with overclocking  
E6850 = 22 fps at stock, 26 with overclocking
 
All the numbers are approximate. If I messed up the logic or the numbers they're also wrong, please double-check. Anyway, it looks like the Q6600 would help a lot, even at stock.

Nice... Thank you for the number crunching... I guess I'm looking at the Q6600 hands down for FSX (or any other multi-core enabled application for that matter)... Now if the price would drop on the Q6700......
 
Comp - Have I seen you on VatSim? Nice to find a devoted FS'er like myself here. I've been with FS since the Flight Simulator for Windows95 (On floppies!) days - FS5, I think... My very first exposure was at my friends house when I was about 16. He had Flight Simulator when it was SubLogic for his Apple II (I think) - Great monochrome vector graphics...Hehehe.
 
Thanks guys!
 
 

devereiii, that goes way back. I've been flying since 1974, and have been running Flight Simulator since 4.0 on Windows 3.1. I'm a former Flight Engineer and Naval Aviator. I'm also a Private Pilot, but I'm no longer current, so I get my Flight Fix from FSX. I live in Ft. Lauderdale, however, my runway of choice is NAS Alameda. I enjoy flying the Bay Area, landing a Mooney on the USS Kitty Hawk, and flying the scenic terrain of California and the Sierras. I love the freedom of not having to babble on the radio, the challenge of navigation, and calculating my fuel to the last drop without dead sticking my destination. Also, I think it's great fun to drink beer and fly, because when (not if) I screw up an approach, the aircraft might get slightly bent, but the FAA doesn't become indignant, no one get's hurt, and the aircfaft is immediately fixed for free!
 
As you have mentioned the Q6700, I sense that you have an aversion to overclocking. It's really not that difficult to accomplish. Like learning to fly, there's a bit of a curve, so it simply requries a certain degree or tenacity, and at