Hi guys,I

Hi,Same 3 words here: wait, wait, wait.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://dot.kelder.net:8080/fseconomy/

Now that AMD has cut the prizes of their CPUs, I would recommend that setup. It is for about one more week once of the fastest systems around. However, if you build everything from scratch and want the absolute bleeding edge, I would suggest you wait a few weeks to go for the Conroe 6600 with DDR2 Ram and a (granted) more pricey intel mainboard.However, if you want to stay with AMD and don't want to spend more money than you really have to, then your proposed setup should perform very, very well on FSX (with dual-core support) and Vista.As for your question about FS9 performance: SimHQ has benchmarked the 4800X2 with FS9 and reported a whopping 117 fps(!) at 1280x960 with highest FS9 settings and a X800XT. The benchmark seems to me a little bit on the high side as far as I am concerned *shrug*, but still shows that the 4800X2 is an excellent performer. I would expect the same performance, if not better. on FSX due to the dual-core code optimization. For FS9, you would also be able to run Active Sky and various other add-on simultaneously without any decrease in performance at all.The average human eye can't do more than 24fps anyway, so, well, anything in the 20-40 fps range should just be fine for everyone.Pat

What Jim said!Gary

"The average human eye can't do more than 24fps anyway, so, well, anything in the 20-40 fps range should just be fine for everyone."I read in Anand tech or somehwere that it is not true. That only apply for film. But for computer screens higher fps is discernable to the naked eye.

I did some research and stand corrected. Here is a very good article about the relation of the human eye and fps:http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htmPat