I have seen many references to the speed of multi-core processors and how it relates to FS9 performance. People saying that a multi-core processor with a clock speed of 2.8 would give less performance than a single core processor of 3.0 speed. I am not so sure on this. There are many factors involved in the total performance seen from FS9. Yes, FS9 is very CPU dependent...but a modern multi-core system with an equal, and possibly slightly slower clock speed, will give much greater FS9 performance due to increased speeds in other areas.
Here's what I am basing this on:
My old system was a Win XP based, P4 3.0gig system with 2 gig of DDR-400 PC3200 RAM and an Nvidia GForce 7600GT graphics card with 768meg of video RAM. C drive was a 500gig IDE drive and D drive (on which I had my sims installed) was a 250gig SATA drive. In reality, the overall performance of this system was not as great as it would appear just looking at those stats. The DDR-400 ram actually ran at half speed due to a slow MOBO. The 250gig SATA drive was bottle necked down to IDE speeds.
Running the highly detailed Boeing Stearman by PropTrash...the Bull Stearman....I could only get a high of 13 FPS out in open country. If I were around any detailed scenery...such as the KSEA airport....frame rates were low single digits.
Now, I have a new system that I built back in late February/early March of this year. Spent just just over a grand for all the parts...and that included a new 19-inch DVI/HDMI ACER non-wide screen monitor, Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit Builders Pack, a new SATA LG Multi-Drive DVD/CD reader/burner. Intel i7-950 at 3.066Ghz, 6gig of Corsair DDR3-1333 PC12,800 RAM, MSI MOBO built to handle the full potential of the I7 CPU and the RAM, 768meg Nvidia Geforce GTX 460, a ITB SATA drive. Tons of cooling fans and tons of room for expansion. Currently have a 250Gig SATA as C drive, the 1TB SATA as D drive (my sim drive) and a 500gig SATA as my internal archiving drive.
If FS9 performance were solely based on CPU clock speed, then I would see little difference between my old system and the new system in terms of FPS. But this is far from the case. Using the Bull Stearman as a base line....I can run that bird at 80 plus FPS over detail heavy scenery...such as KSEA and the city there about. If I take the plane out into the country, away from heavy scenery areas....I see frames rates well over 100FPS. And all this while running FS9 on a single core with all background apps running.
Why is this possible? Because my new system is simply much faster all around. The MOBO speed is 8 or more times faster than the MOBO in my old system. The RAM speed is 8 times faster in the new system than in the old system. The video card in the new system runs DDR5 video memory...which is something like 20 times faster than the memory on the old 7600GT I had. My SATA drives are now running at their full speed and are not bottle necked down. Even with a CPU clock speed that is nearly identical, my overall system speed is 8, 9, 10 times of that of my old system. Information and commands get to and from the various components much faster, computations are transmitted from memory to cpu and back 10 times faster than on my old system.
So, even if a modern built multi-core system has the same, or possibly slightly slower, CPU clock speed, a huge improvement in overall FS9 performance will be seen due to the overall increase in speed of the new system. Faster RAM, faster MOBO, faster bus speeds, faster graphics processing. It all ties together....even though FS9 is a CPU heavy application.....the overall speed and power of a modern system will give you a world of improvement in your sim.
Having said all that...I can attest that assigning your sim to run on its own core, away from Windows, will give you a huge gain in sim performance. I haven't done this with FS9, but last night I had FSX fired up. Without setting affinities, I was getting around 35 FPS with all sliders maxed out. I sent FSX to core 2, Windows on core 1, some other apps to cores 3 and 4....and my frame rates went through the roof. Flying the FSX version of the Razbam A-6 Intruder, frame rates ranged from 140 FPS to over 200FPS...depending on the complexity of the scenery overvwhich I was flying.
That makes me want to see just how high frame rates will be in FS9 if I set the same affinities for the various programs on my system.
OBIO
Oh...even with all the power and speed of my new system....I still keep FS9 locked at 25FPS. Can't really tell a difference in the sim at 25FPS or 100FPS. It is equally as smooth, as sharp and as flawless at either speed. No point taxing my system running at 100FPS if there is no readily apparent gain in how well the sim looks or feels. And for those times that I fly on the SOH dedicated flight server, frame rates have to be locked at 25FPS anyhow....so I just keep them at 25.
