What I heard at Avsim (and I think it was from Adam) was that FSX was "better" than FS9 at making use of multiple cores, but it as nowhere as efficient as they'd like.Multithreaded programs are hard to write, particularly when there's a lot of activity that must be synchronized. So while in FS9 I may see the app take a peak of 58% of CPU time (meaning 8% spills over to core 2), maybe FSX will do 65%.As others have said, external addons using SimConnect (which is asynchronous) that run on the CPU will benefit from multiple cores. Addons that still embed themselves as DLLs in FSX won't. It will be interesting to see how the third parties embrace SimConnect. I expect product "updates" will still use DLLs, and it may take a generation or so for them to take advantage of SimConnectMy new question for add-on developers will now be: "Have you optimized your product for asynchronicity using SimConnect?"

I'm a recent dual core convert (I bought an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ CPU) and I was sad to see very very low secondary core usage in the Windows Task Manager using the FSX Demo.After everything I've read in this thread, I'm still very surprised by this.Even older games like SWAT 4 show very efficient use of BOTH CORES in the CPU Usage graph of the Task Manager.In fact, every other game I've tried with the dual core (ie. GTR2, GRAW, Company of Heroes) also make great (if not almost symmetrical) use of both cores which leaves me very surprised by FSX.FSX is one title that really could have benefited by dual cores since it is so CPU intensive.PS.On a side note, I highly recommend the Athlon 64 X2 4600+. I upgraded from an Athlon 64 3200+ and was really surprised by the performance increase. Its actually like having TWO Athlon 64 3800+s or even 4000+s working for you! ... a fairly inexpensive and easy upgrade I must say.

I think Tim said it best here. If its a DLL or addon aircrafts or sceneries... (I suspect) would not take the benefit of the second core. I don't believe there is a way to tell that these codes run in a particular core. I don't believe PMDG has visibility to which core has a small load and then go use that core. Which is where our problem is. And in that regard... for all practical purpose the answer is NO.IF its an independent s/w like Activesky or Radar contact or such s/w that is external to the FSX, you can make it run on the core that is not utilized by specifying affinity if the OS is not doing it for you. But this was never a problem cause I could always utilize my old PC for these tasks... so this benefit does not count much for me. This is a solution for a problem I didn't have or was not a biggie.The strength of a chain is the strenth of its weakest linkFor primary Flight sim process, we need 1. 1 core that is really good. (and Mother board FSB etc)2. Then we need a fast HD I/O for texture loading. Particulalry if you are into Photo scenery like Megascenery. So 10,000 RPM Raptor in RAID 0 or a single Raptor or a 7200RPM/16MB cache HD (Single or RAID 0).... 3. We need a good Video card to be able render all that good stuff...with a large Video memory. (512MB - 1Gig Video cards).4. Memory speed/Latency ?????. I don't know how much that matters for flightsim. Don't know if its a weak link in this chain or not. However, it helps indirectly for Overclocking which helps 1.Only Marginal benefit or no benefit at all: a. Dual Core has marginal benefit for FSX but for other stuff that windows may need to run and not eat up the core running Fsim. I would think Quad core is probably pretty useless for Flight sim. Talk about "dinminishing marginal returns".b. SLI Dual Video card... I don't know if this is benefecial for Flight sim other than marginal benefits. Even if it is..the cost benefit (ROI) of this, is probably extremly poor.c. Large memory (more than 2Gigs..like 4 Gigs)... not used and hence no benefit for Flight sim.So the primary focus in speanding your money should be on 1,2, 3 and 4. Maximizing that would have the most return for Flight sim. After maximizing 1-4, if you have any money left...look at a,b and c.This is my understanding as of today. I could be wrong. Manny

I'm just not buying it. FSX should use the second core as much as every other simulation or game that I've played that DOES.I haven't seen any other game that uses the secondary core as little as FSX. Come on here ... this is Microsoft we're talking about. They should have written a book on dual core cpu usage by now (if they haven't already :-).Anyways, pictures speak louder than words so here are some screenshots of CPU Usage in various games ...GTR 2 ...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157421.jpgTiger Woods PGA Tour 07 ...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157422.jpgSWAT 4 ...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157423.jpgFSX ...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157424.jpgLook at poor old FSX ... the first core is maxed out and the second core is hardly doing anything. I mean come on! Why not farm out the Traffic code or the Weather code or whatever else to the secondary core?! I'm not listening to any excuses here.

I'm heartened by the recommendation you made at the end of your first post. Just today I priced out an upgrade from this 4000+ and now I think I'll go ahead.How about your video card? I'm an nVidia devotee and looking at the 7950 GX2.CalCYXX

Anyone try the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer yet?Its supposed to help make single core programs run more efficiently on Dual Core chips. I installed the utility on my new system. I can't say if it made much if any solid difference but I did notice slightly smoother performance then before. It certainly did not hurt!!Below is a cut and paste from the AMD web site on what it does. Its all foreign language to me but it sounds good!!"AMD Dual-Core Optimizer - The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer can help improve some PC gaming video performance by compensating for those applications that bypass the Windows API for timing by directly using the RDTSC (Read Time Stamp Counter) instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for the affect of power management mechanisms on the rate at which a processor core's Time Stamp Counter (TSC) is incremented. The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer helps to correct the resulting video performance effects or other incorrect timing effects that these applications may experience on dual-core processor systems, by periodically adjusting the core time-stamp-counters, so that they are synchronized."

>not farm out the Traffic code or the Weather code or whatever>else to the secondary core?! I'm not listening to any excuses>here.The subject has been beaten to death - there are links in this forum to blog in which ACES developer explains why in some classes of simulation/game it is difficult to make effcient use of both CPUs. Find it and read it in its entirety - ignorance is not an excuse here..Michael J.

>The subject has been beaten to death - there are links in this>forum to blog in which ACES developer explains why in some>classes of simulation/game it is difficult to make effcient>use of both CPUs. Find it and read it in its entirety ->ignorance is not an excuse here..>>Michael J.I'm sorry I upset your blissful state of mind :-)

Here are a few more examples of proper dual core CPU usage ...Company of Heroes ...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157465.jpgFlatout 2 ...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157466.jpgGhost Recon Advanced Warfighter ...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157467.jpgI'm still looking for a game that uses the dual core less than FSX but I haven't found one. Oh ya, I forgot, FSX is "a special class" of software that's hard to cater to dual core ... :~P BALONEY!

It's not a blissful state of mind figure of his imagination. They really did post quite extensively on dual-core usage and why there is only so much that could be done...RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

Man I wish more people would pay attention to your post and screen shots.I agree with you 100%. I am very disappointed with the lack of better dual core utilization. The replies I have read from MS do not convince me one bit. Here is what I think really happened...MSFT, as usual is late to the market with FSX. They really work hard on the FSX to make the holiday 06 deadline. The software has tons of bugs very close to the release deadline (as witnessed by Demo 1). The team does not really have the time to sit down and figure out how to make the sim work better on dual cores which would inevitably require some code rewrite. They further think that, since mainstream America does not use dual cores as much as serious simmers (I read that less than 40% of all processor shipments is dual core), the dual core support is not critical.I used to do programming and wrote code for distributed computing so I understand the whole process interdependency, timing, etc. issues. I do not expect the FSX to run 100% balanced on both cores. But C'mon... why couldn't the stupid cars run on second core? How much dependency the car traffic has on main sim? Very minimal. How about the AI traffic? More dependency but still manageable. From Demo 2 I see negligible use of second core. If you read MSFT comments, you would expect at least some utilization where the Demo 2 shows negligible.As much as I think the sim has been improved, this area is definitely very dissapointing.

>Man I wish more people would pay attention to your post and>screen shots.Barty, those pictures just show what is happening with respect to core usage and do not show why those multi-core/processor patterns are possible.>I agree with you 100%. I am very disappointed with the lack of>better dual core utilization. The replies I have read from MS>do not convince me one bit. Here is what I think really>happened...If they don't convince you, they don't... However, it would be fair to make and apples to apples comparison. I think tdragger's blog post makes it clear why fsx is an apple while many of the other titles in those pictures are oranges (or apricots, plums, etc, but not apples).>MSFT, as usual is late to the market with FSX. They really>work hard on the FSX to make the holiday 06 deadline. The>software has tons of bugs very close to the release deadline>(as witnessed by Demo 1). The team does not really have the>time to sit down and figure out how to make the sim work>better on dual cores which would inevitably require some code>rewrite. They further think that, since mainstream America>does not use dual cores as much as serious simmers (I read>that less than 40% of all processor shipments is dual core),>the dual core support is not critical.This could be true, I have no idea really. Making deadline and not being finished is par for the course in this business no?>I used to do programming and wrote code for distributed>computing so I understand the whole process interdependency,>timing, etc. issues. I do not expect the FSX to run 100%>balanced on both cores. But C'mon... why couldn't the stupid>cars run on second core? How much dependency the car traffic>has on main sim? Very minimal. How about the AI traffic? More>dependency but still manageable. From Demo 2 I see negligible>use of second core. If you read MSFT comments, you would>expect at least some utilization where the Demo 2 shows>negligible.>I suppose you are qualified to understand their reasoning - I suppose ACES couldn't tie the myriad of simultaneous elements together. Perhaps also the 25 year legacy of the product means that the sim only works because very old bits are kept side-by-side with newer bits. Maybe the "legacy" elements within the code base are holding back the true implementation of concurrency.In any case, I still don't think we have the information available to make an "apples to apples" comparison between a game like GTR2 and FSX. I still think tdragger's explanation is reasonable. Few games attempt to do what FSX does: model the world. When an aircraft can be paused and then slewed rapidly in any direction, the game engine has to accomodate that. On the other hand, the variability of movement in games like Company of Heroes or GTR is far more restricted in comparison to FSX. Again, I don't think it is possible to do an even comparison, which makes the simple display of core usage on other contemporary title misleading.>As much as I think the sim has been improved, this area is>definitely very dissapointing. >No doubt it is disappointing. I, as is the case with many others, was hoping that my Core 2 E6800 would sustain me for years to come.

In considering your disappointment that dual core is not utilised enough in FSX, take note that the task manager screen captures in this thread for other games show each core running at just over 50% utilisation versus FSX which shows one core at 100% and some overspill to the second core. From a combined CPU usage perspective (ie. both cores combined give 100% of total available CPU power), all games shown here, including FSX, are running at around 55-60% combined CPU utilisation. If these other games are so dual-core optimised, then why aren't they running closer to 100% combined CPU utilisation? I think the dual-core issue being discussed here is more about load balancing than effective use of two cores.Gary

Gary,Couldn't have said it better myself.

Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, FSX (or `The Sim` becasue this isn't just about FSX although it is in this thread) is only part of the overall equation. What MS ACES should program for, even if they can't be arsed to do it for their package, is to allow for the integration of addon elements that run outside of The Sim so that they can utilise spare capacity on the other core, leaving The Sim to run on just one. Did they do that, knowing that dual core is increasing in market penetration? No. Then its not dual core.Come to mention it, it's not even supporting distributed computing, which is a real shame, as network usage in the home environment is now at an all-time high, as people integrate home theatre, and home audio into the overall computing experience. And MS are at the forefront of that technology.But there is DX10 around the corner, and who knows what the new shader architecture may permit? If the API permits dual core, then we may still get it, through the back door.Allcott