Before "investing" (sounds more justifiable than "spending"!) what verges on an almost obscene amount of money on a new PC for FS9(.1), I have been researching this already very well-discussed topic online until my head is swimming. I'd appreciate some kind of a summary from people here. I have my pretty definite ideas, but would very much like to have them backed up by opinions from some of you regular experts before I go ahead and part with my cash! Given all other specs as equal, which one of these combinations would you go for in order to achieve best overall FS9 performance - I am thinking of smoothness and ease of texture loading just as much as frame rates? I am assuming 1024MB DDR RAM for both - not being convinced that more would be anything other than money down the drain:1. Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (3.73GHz, 1066FSB, 2MB cache) + 256MB ATI Radeon X850XT PE graphics OR:2. AMD 64 FX55 + 2 x NVidia 6800 GTs in SLI config.In addition, I have read amazing things dotted about various forums, including this one, about greatly improved texture loading and overall smoothness by running FS9.1 on the beta of XP Pro 64-bit edition. Are there really virtually no driver problems with this, as one or two posts seem to imply? (I am thinking of graphics drivers, and hardware drivers - like for my Logitech joystick, Belkin gamepad etc.). Are there downsides to installing XP 64-bit for FS9 at this stage?"Votes" and/or comments on the above very gratefully received! Thanks in advance.Martin :-)

i read all the way to the systems you have picked out.I have a A64 3200 and it was a great choice.I would go with the 2nd choice but use the X800. X850 vs X800 is the same as far as performance. Very little difference in the 2. The FX55 is a waste to me, Id go with the A64 4000 or 3800 is the check book allowed. The fx55 just has a larger FSB and increased Cache.

I'd go with neither unless they're prebuilt and you have no choice.For CPU I'd say both the "FX" and "Extreme Edition" are a big waste of money. You'd be hard pressed to notice any difference between a regular A64 like the 3800+ and the FX and the P4 EE is over $900 I think, which is almost as much as I paid for my whole 3500+ -based system with the X800XT.Will you be using the system for any other games than FS? Last time I checked, SLI wasn't even active for FS9 and evn if they'd activate it, the benefit would be small since FS9 is so CPU bound. For games like Doom3 SLI makes a big difference though.So for video I'd go with something like the X800XT PCI-E (or the X850XT-PE if you really want it, again, the improvement is small) and for the CPU I'd look at getting a Winchester-core Athlon64 like the 3500+. Go with a NForce4 board with PCI-E since you'll want that capability in the future.

If you must have the best based on your choices I would go with the AMD and the SLI setup for two reasons:1.) The AMD CPU has outperformed the Intel chips in gaming benchmarks2.) SLI will allow you to use a higher resolution with AA turned on since that is the main benefit (1280x960 and highter). If you normally run 1024x768 then SLI isn't worth the price.Personally, if I were you like the previous posters mentioned I would not get the FX-55 since the price is insane right now. Go with the 4000 and an SLI setup with two 6800GT's for video. Then enjoy how nice FS can be with "phat" hardware. Did I use the term "phat" properly? :-)Forgot to mention XP64, I know someone that plays Americas Army on that OS and it crashes on him constantly but things are smooth when it works. I don't know his hardware setup in detail but I wouldn't take a chance on a beta OS.

i think "phat" fitted nicely.. :) lol

Thanks for the replies so far - most of which don't exactly agree with what I have read on various hardware review sites (especially about the FX55). I think that in the end it may be that there are as many opinions as there are options and I will just have to make a choice as best I can and live with it.I agree abou the 64-bit O/S though - wait until it's out of beta (next month???) before even trying it.Martin

Oh, and yes, the SLI, I forgot to say that I too found out that FS9 has problems with it. From www.tomshardware.com (excellent site for those that don't know it):"According to NVIDIA there are games that are simply not compatible with SLI. Microsoft's Flight Simulator 9 and Novalogic's Joint Operations for example both cause problems. As of the test date we were unable to find out the precise reasons why. NVIDIA only talks about frame buffering techniques used in games of this sort that are problematic for SLI. Of the 10 games we included in this test, two of them were non-SLI-compatible".No SLI then - glad I found this out in time!! Now I've got to decide between Radeon X850 - X800s being phased out according to ATI sources in quoted current PC magazines - and NVidia 6800s. Swings and roundabouts as far as I can see.M. :-)

I don't know - Tomshardware seems to agree:"However, if we compare the substantial price difference between mid-range and high-end processors and take into consideration the narrow performance delta, there is only very little reason why one should one spend over $800 for an Athlon64 FX-55 or $999 for the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition."http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/...64_4000-16.html

If you can wait six months, both of those high priced chips will either be down to normal price ranges and or they will be discontinued due to lack of sales. Anyway in six months there will be something out there to beat them. I have always heard you buy as much performance as you can afford and hopefully in a system that allows you to upgrade. I have not bought a store sytem in years yet I update my computer about every 18 months.I think I will go back to AMD this time for the performance even though there is a big Intel Fab about five miles down the road from me. Terry

Well, I take your point, but after searching through page after page of comparative reviews in which FS2004 has been part of the testing process, there does seem to be a real performance increase with the FX55 - and if you get the system built by one of the big companies (e.g. Mesh, Evesham, here in the UK) the price difference is actually not all that great in relation to the overall cost of the PC. Buying and building myself does increase the price difference, so I am not going to bother this time - let someone else put it together, it costs little more these days. Pity, to say the least, PCs and components cost so much more here in the UK than in the USA!The waiting six months is fine in theory, but every time you wait six months, as you well know, another six months wait is then recommended for the next great advance which is just around the corner. I've been waiting for over six months already - I think I've reached the cutoff point. I'm not a very patient person in any case!!I reckon then I am going to go for the FX55/X850XT PE combination - it will doubtless run FS9 better than my current setup....M.

Yes there is a real notible difference in performance however what people say is they don

Very true P

Well I would probably believe that the X850XT would have a slight (hardly discernable) edge with high aa and aniso but anyway there is not much difference to talk about.As for the FX 55 sure if you want the fastest now go get it. However in a year it will be a budget buy so be prepared for that :). But it

Always the way: the top-of-the-range upgrades I bought for my PC 18 months ago now look very mediocre when compared with the best available today (though I'd be happy to stick with my Radeon 9800 Pro if I weren't having to upgrade M/B and CPU).Within 12 months, I know I may be looking greedily at the PC magazines again!! (Though in fact maybe not, if FS9 runs well enough with my planned FX55 and X850XT - that's my aim, not to keep up with the latest stuff just for the sake of it).Martin

Yeah maybe not for Fs 2004 but then FS 2006 is out and the never ending upgrade spiral is out again lol.