I tend to move about a lot with my job, which means a desktop PC isn't really an option. For the last year now I've been using an HP ZD8000 laptop (P4 3.2Ghz, 1gig RAM, 80Gig HDD, 128MB Radeon X600 Mobility graphics, 17" widescreen display).I want to buy a new laptop sometime over the next couple of months. I want a really powerful system that can cater for all of my needs. I use my laptop for MSFS, as well as other stuff such as Lock On, IL-2, Rome Total War, Civilization 4, etc. I also use it for the internet, watching DVDs and the occasional bit of work.I've been looking round and I've narrowed the playing field down to three options:Dell XPS M170 (www.dell.co.uk)Alienware Aurora M7700 (www.alienware.co.uk)Rock Xtreme 64 (www.rockdirect.co.uk)Looking at these three, the Dell is the cheapest, but is also the most weakly specced system. The Alienware system looks nice, but is several hundred pounds more expensive than a similarly equipped system from Rock. The Rock Xtreme 64 looks very tempting, and I've heard nothing but praise for their laptops.I'm looking at getting a dual core CPU - will I see much difference between an Athlon X2 4800 and an FX60? There is certainly a considerable price difference between the two. Will a Geforce 7800GTX be able to handle MSFS properly? Would a RAID-0 configuration or seperate disk configuration be better for the 2 HDDs? Would 2Gig RAM be overkill? My budget limit is

IMO your current notebook is reasonably well specced for FS. Expect only to see an incremental, not revolutionary, bump in FS performance and prettiness with any of the new systems you list. Having said that, you should see a significant boost in performance on just about everything else.The notebooks you list are fairly similar in FS performance. Given enough RAM (1gb+) and hard drive space (HDD speed doesn't count for much once you are flying), CPU speed then graphics performance count for most in the FS performance stakes. The Pentium M is quite a performer versus the standard AMD and Intel fare (ie P4, A64 and even P4EE), and it takes the high end A64 X2 and FX series CPUs to pip the 2.26GHz Pentium M. The M170 has the fast graphics option, having the 7800 Ultra, but expect to see neglible FS performance difference this graphics card and the standard GTX.If you want to throw another viable option in the mix, consider the Dell 9400 which offers the dual core flavour of the Pentium M as well as the more-than-adequate-for-FS 7800 GTX graphics engine. Granted, you will not get RAID or flashy LEDs like the others may offer, but it will give you performance where it counts (and for a lot less money too might I add). Here is what 2113 Pounds will get you:N02947 Inspiron 9400 Qty 1 Intel

Thanks for the advice Gary! It's much appreciated.After looking again I think I'll rule out the Alienware system - it offers nothing much over the Rock system but is quite a bit more expensive.Would there be a noticeable performance difference between a standard Pentium M, a dual core Pentium M, an Athlon X2 and an FX60? Would I be right in saying a Pentium M system would run cooler than an AMD based one?

Out of the four CPU variants you mention, I have only had the pleasure of using a Pentium M with FS and it punches out similar FPS to my desktop A64 running at 2.35GHz (3700+ ish). As far as I am aware, the dual core Pentium Ms are at least as fast as the same clocked Pentium M and obviously pull into the lead when dual core processing is utilised.From what I have read in these forums, the Athlon X2 runs a little slower in FS than the same performance rated (PR) A64, but that's likely because they run a slower core to get that same PR. Throw a bit of overclocking in and the X2s pull ahead, but overclocking is not really an option with a notebook computer. I'm sure the FX60 wipes out all the current competition in the FS performance stakes, but it also shaves a lot of pounds off your wallet for the privelidge (pun intended!).As for running cooler, the Pentium M running at 2.26GHz consumes less than 27W. I'd say the other contenders consume much more than this, with the the FX heading into 100W+ land. Having said that, don't discount the heat produced and power consumed by the video card. The hot side of my 9300 is definately under the GPU area.Gary

Thanks for the info Gary, it's much appreciated.Cheers,Nick