After weeks researching and reading these posts I finally upgraded. Here's the story.I had:p4 2.66gig of ddr3336800gt runnning at 4x agp due to the moboupgarded toAMD 3200 64 bitsame video cardstill a gig of ram but went to ddr400I'm also running at 8x agp because the new mobo is equiped for it.Here's my FS9 setup:All settings maxed except for autogen, I don't use it.UT at 100%All weather settings(using FSW clouds) maxed except for visibility max is 60 miles.Mip-map 4Lighting at 6trilinear filtering no AAVideo card stting8x AFno AA11??x8?? resolution(sorry can't remember the exact numbers).On the ground at KORD with heavy storm selected for test accuracy, here's the comparison:Old system (PMDG 737-800) with max Ult. Traffic12-18 fps and very jerkyNewlockerd at 26 fps, in unlimited setting I'm getting 24-40, and fairly smooth. Once I get away from the terminal it's a very smooth experience. It really is night and day.With my old system flying through heavy clouds meant a big dip (10-18 fps) in performance, not anymore. I usually keep my frames locked at 30 and they VERY rarely dip below that, even when landing at large busy airports. BTW, I see NO difference when I set frames to unlimited. Textures now load quickly anyway. Sure my system gets some high fps, but I don't really care, I want consistent snoothness.I started up FS9 at Ksea with everything maxed including unlimited frames,,,,wow staring right at the terminal full of AI I was getting 40-50 fps with heavy overcast skies. My old system would have been around 20 fps, not smooth IMO.Cost100 bucks for new Gigabyte Mobo200 bucks for the new 3200 chip200 bucks for neww ddr400(probably could've done without that)I've built 4 computers for this obsession (FS) and have never been so pleasently surprised.Not trying to start and Intel AMD thing as this was the first AMD chip I've ever used, but Amd seems to have an advantage with gaming. I'm not discounting that fact that I also have faster RAM and 8x agp, but my increases are fairly extreme. My buddy said it so well yet so simple.Intel chips do more slower.Amd chips do less faster. Oh well the proof is in the pudding. I'm happy :-)

Chris,Thanks for taking the time to give us your report. It is of particular interest to me as I am considering jumping on the A64 bandwagon in the very near future.It is interesting to note that your old system could go as low as 12 fps, even with a fire-breathing 6800GT powering your graphics. Obviously, this is where your CPU is being tortured the most and shows that your add-ons have quite a collective burden on your system (as they do on mine).Gary

Yeah, my results proved to me that FS9 is definitely a cpu hog. When I bough my 6800gt, I figured my problems were over. It did help with heavy clouds a bit and overall it looked better. Now remember, I was also running my card at 4x agp, maybe 8x does give a nice push. I really think that the processor is the real difference. On paper my old p4 2.66 is faster than my new AMD, but I think that clock speed is kind of like horsepower or stereo wattage. It's all in how that horsepower, wattage or clock speed is delivered. I remember being a kid thinking that the 200 watt per channel boom box at K-Mart that cost $99 dollars was the best because of that number. Numbers don't mean much. Sorry, I'm not saying that a cheap boom box compares to a cpu, but obviously something there applies.