If the load on scenery setup is high enough to matter, then yeah, two cores will beat a 35% clock increase.

But if the limitation is JUST the main rendering loop trying to max out fps, you want the 35% fps increase.

E8500 (2 x 3.16ghz) = $188
Q8200 (4 x 2.33ghz) = $190

The E8500 is 35% faster when talking single-threaded speed or apps using a max of 2 cores, but with an app that can fully utilize every core you have, the Q8200 has a theoretical 47% more processing resources available.

I think Jens' comment was basically just to try and get confirmation that X-Plane uses >2 cores by enough of a margin to make up the 35% deficit in single-threaded performance due to the Mhz loss.

What the extra cores give you is the ability to crank up 3-d settings (so that you can DO something with that graphics power) without the 3-d prep interfering with that main loop.

In the case of the quad vs. dual there’s more to it than that — you’d also need to look at how much cache they have, etc. I can’t say what’s going on with European prices – they tend to be higher than US prices across the board.

– I can get a Quad 4 x 2.4GHz for EUR 170

– I can get a Dual 2 x 3.17GHz for EUR 178

won’t the much higher clock speed of the Duo be of more use for overall performance (FPS) than the additional (but slower) cores on the quad which help only during certain operations (scenery loading)?

Just to make sure people will not be disappointed when going for a quad instead of a duo for the same money…

Now, a Quad 4x 3.2 sure is another thing but one has to hand over about EUR 1,350 for that 🙁 but you will save on heating in your flat 🙂

Jens