Now that Microsoft has announced FSX, I like many in the hobby spent some time cruising the net getting a feel for what others think. One of the sites I visited I hadn't been to in some months, and well... let's just say they ain't what they used to be!I studiously read through the reviewers' "predictioins" of what we can expect, until I came to the section on hardware recommendations. I simply shook my head!The review states that their "best recommendation is a system with an Intel Pentium 4 Processor 670 that runs at 3.8 GHz with an 800 MHz front Side Bus (FSB)." Now 3.8Ghz and 800Mhz isn't bad at all, but who wouldn't prefer a PR of 4800 with a 1000Mhz FSB and on die memory controller. And that's today! What hardware can we expect to chose in Q4 of this year? This recent would have most folks giving serious pause about the reviews' CPU suggestions. Additionally, it was recommended that we'll "also want hyperthread technology (HT)". HT was a bust the first time around, what would make us think it will fair any better now on a gaming rig. Dual core CPU's look far more appealing. And then there was the suggestion that we should consider a RAID array. See [link:overclockercafe.com/Articles/RAID/]this and then think where else you could spend your money to enhance gaming performance. Finally, it was suggested that 512MB of VRAM is "probably overkill and over-spending". The screenies we've all been looking at the past few hours make me think that 512MB of VRAM might come in handy.The point of all this is to urge folks to be wary of anybody making sys recommendations for a sim that is almost a year away. We still have too little information, and the product will surely mature and change as we get closer to it's release. Don't start making hardware upgrade decisions now for FSX. Let's just watch and learn.Oh, and be mindful of what site's recomendations you follow. :-) Sim well,Greg

Yes, be mindful of who you listen to, because everyone is speculating at this point. Except you can listen to me. I *know*. :)"Lets just watch and learn". Well say that to me again, 'cause I'm running FS9 on a P4 1.8 and a GeForce3 card! :) I am having trouble holding out on not rebuilding my rig. I feel the need to do my once-every-four-years upgrade.

The main gain of waiting,apart from the obvious one of actually KNOWING what's needed rather than listening to non-expert guesses and wild speculation, is that if MS repeat the usual policy they will be desiging the new sim around hardware that exists in retail TODAY. By that I mean real hardware as of January 2006. The OS and optimisations remains to be established (excuse my distrust, but OF COURSE MS would like us to upgrade to the new operating system to run FS!) but if you budget NOW for `upper middle 64-bit compatible` hardware - but don't buy until after FSX is out, you will save a fortune. I am holding off any further upgrades this year for that reason.Allcott

Hi Greg, thanks for taking your time and for articulating your balanced thoughts. Great read as usual. I think I read the piece you're refering to and was - mildly put - fairly surprised... :-) Thanks and kind regards Jaap

I,too, was suprised at the hardware recommendations in that article. And a bit shocked also. I see nothing there that can be relied on at all. We know neither the hardware requirements nor what cpu/mobo/gpu combinations will be available a year from now. I would also strongly urge anyone who is thinking of an upgrade for specifically for FSX to not buy anything until the dust settles a bit. Will a 64-bit processor be advantageous? How about dual-core CPU's? Will FSX support SLI? Will HT make a difference? How much physical RAM is really needed? Unfortunately, we don't know any of the answers yet.Doug

I know, I should hold off, but how can I resist? the thing is, I _want_ to be able to enjoy FS9 at it's max, like most of you are, with decent slider settings, and add-ons like AS6. But I can't, not with a P4 1.8 and 64meg GF3 card. What if you were in my shoes?

I wouldn't read too much into that article, for one thing the guy doing the review is probably used to games like FEAR and Far Cry and Half-Life and Doom, where you would expect to need the latest and greatest to run it well. If I could hazard a guess as to what kind of sys it would take to run FSX decently well, I'd guess...for Intel...P4 3.0 ghz or higher, 1 gig ram (2 better), and 256 mb gfx card (6600 or x800 or better)...and for AMD... 3500+ Venice core or better (for sure 3700+ San Diego would be fine), ..same specs as Intel rigs for ram and vid. conjecture off>

>I know, I should hold off, but how can I resist? the thing>is, I _want_ to be able to enjoy FS9 at it's max, like most of>you are, with decent slider settings, and add-ons like AS6. >But I can't, not with a P4 1.8 and 64meg GF3 card. What if>you were in my shoes? What if, in twelve months time, all the hardware you went out and purchased based on our recommendations, was useless for FSX?OK, if you want hardware recommendations for FS9 then a 32-bit processor around the 3-gig mark, upper-midrange graphic card, a gig of RAM and a decent sound solution will do you nicely - but may be of NO USE TO YOU FOR FSX.FS9 is a three year old engine. FS is known to be more CPU than GPU limited. FS9 does not support hyperthreading, SLI, 64-bit, dual processors. So why pay for the hardware that does? But although we don't have confirmation yet, Windows Vista is the recommended OS for FSX. Windows Vista is a 64-bit Operating System. Possibly, the new sim will have features only accessible with a 64-bit system. 64-bit systems require 64-bit processors and mother boards. My recommendation above will potentially leave you with an oboslete computer when FSX is launched. You're quite right, we wouldn't want to be in your shoes!Allcott

>>What if, in twelve months time, all the hardware you went out>and purchased based on our recommendations, was useless for>FSX?>Do you think that today's top-line to upper-eschelon hardware will be useless for FSX?>>FS9 is a three year old engine. FS is known to be more CPU>than GPU limited. FS9 does not support hyperthreading, SLI,>64-bit, dual processors. So why pay for the hardware that>does? I am *not* going to pay for such hardware. I am 90% likely to go for a single-core cpu, and 100% likely to go for a non-SLI setup. >>My recommendation above will potentially leave you with an>oboslete computer when FSX is launched. >Hm well we are all conjecturing. My educated guess is that with top line hardware of January 2006, you'll be pretty fast in FSX. Pretty darn fast.>You're quite right, we wouldn't want to be in your shoes!>Ah well heheh, I'm a size 9.5. I don't think it's that bad...I could spend $500 on a new rig and it would be 10 times better than what I have right now. I bet you can't make that "boast". :)

Two days ago I took delivery of an HP Pavilion D4100E with the Athlon 64 3800+ processor, 1 GIG of RAM and the GeForce FX 6800 video card. Cost me about $1200. (using old monitor). I sure hope this PC can cut the mustard on FSX because I can't afford to keep up with the "moving targets."Airbus

My dubious recommendation is that you will be ok in FSX with that system :) Surely it will be enough. Keep in mind that, IMO, Very soon, I think, 2 gigs of ram will be standard fare on any PC that is expected to run games (or simulations hehe), though.

If we think about the same site and the same "speculation", they recommend buying dual core Pentium CPU (!!)I have no more comments after reading it.Honestly, just wait a year then buy whatever is current.