Again, all just speculation based on the half-truths and piecemeal information out there in internet-land.Although we know that FSX will work with dual-core, we still don't know whether that's preferable to a faster, single core used with multiple GPU's or whether the new Physics Accelerator chips might have a role to play - I don't know that YOU don't know that so to make purchase decisions on that basis is dangerously optimistic I reckon.Me, I think that whatever you get now will lack the horsepower to push FSX properly under DX10. And you will need to upgrade more than just the graphic card when the final `best-option` specs for FSX are actually known. Meantime, take the budget you WOULD be spending now, put it in an interest-bearing account. In six months time if you are right, you can buy all this hardware at a considerable discount, and the interest earned will pay for the difference between the old GPU and the new DX10-capable card.Maybe.Allcott

This is certainly a nice system, if you're targetting a uber-high system, but even at this point in time, it does seem to be a little bit overkill.I have yet to see any game that makes full use of 2GB Ram. FS9 with all its goodies uses currently a steady 800MB on my system, so, for now, you can save yourself the money until the first performance data of FSX are available. 3GB is a 'nice to have', but not required or even needed for today's games. By the time we'll see 2GB *even less 3GB) to become the standard RAM size for desktops, there will be yet another technology on the market, which will be, of course, incompatible with all the current slots.Why would anyone want to get a DX10 card in October, if you cannot use it (at least for DX10) until at least Q1 2007? Hmmm.Just my 2 cents,Pat

Alcott, I recall seeing a note from MS somehwhere that FSX will not make use of Physics Accelerator chips. Just FYI.Good luck,Pat

You make some good points but for me FS9 is fairly painful now and I want to use it for a few more months. Also, I have the Matrox triple head-to-go. I can only use that at 2400x600 on the ATI card. To use it at maximum resolution I need an Nvidia card and this means a general upgrade as my current MB is AGP.Anyway, I don't expect to have an optimum FSX system until well into the second year of FSX. After all this will be my fourth upgrade on FS9 and it expect it will be the first time I can run all my add ons at max settings.

"Why would anyone want to get a DX10 card in October, if you cannot use it (at least for DX10) until at least Q1 2007? Hmmm."Taking that a bit further... would anyone want to buy a DX10 card for FSX (anytime) if FSX isn't coded for DX10 video API's?Lot's of folks calling for DX10 cards for the new sim, yet the last 2 iterations (that's as far back as this old brain can remember) of the sim weren't coded for the latest DirectX video API's (at the time of their release).This is one simmer who will wait till the dust settles and we know more before upgrading.Greg

Agreed, there is way too much talk about DX10.FIRST, we have to have DX10 hardwareTHEN, we need to have Vista andTHEN, we need applications written or patched for DX10.We know that FSX will get patched for DX10, but my wild guess is that this will not happen until at least one year into the release, when DX10 is well established and slowly becomes mainstream.Pat

>>Meantime, take the budget you WOULD be spending now, put it in>an interest-bearing account. In six months time if you are>right, you can buy all this hardware at a considerable>discount, and the interest earned will pay for the difference>between the old GPU and the new DX10-capable card.>:) heh. What a coincidence. Just today, I was thinking about putting about $1500 into an interest bearing account (5.5% interest) for a full year, and then next summer I would upgrade with that money. FSFinance v1.0.Rhett

FSX was supposed to be the flagship application for DX10 in Vista, but with the delay of Vista, this has been put on hold.I would expect it to become one of the first DX10 applications after the release of Vista.

>>Agreed, there is way too much talk about DX10.FIRST, we have to have DX10 hardwareTHEN, we need to have Vista andTHEN, we need applications written or patched for DX10.<< Agreed 2! Perhaps add a functioning, stable Vista and well matured hardware including drivers to those points? :-)

I probably won't be an early adopter this time. I'll get FSX upon release but major hardware/OS related things are likely on hold until summer 2007. :-) Kind regards Jaap

Yeah, I get where you're coming from Jaap. We can get fixatde too easily on FSX, without considering that NONE of the technology - software or hardware - is yet mature enough for Vista, let alone DX10.I've typically been an `early adopter`, but not this time. Thhis time it could be all too easy to be wasting money. Lets get FSX working under DX9/XP, then see what new hardware developments are supported. THEN let's think about DX10 as a `mid-life upgrade` for the sim. Allcott

Fully agreed, Allcott. OTOH, early adoption almost is a vicious circle, isn't it? I always swear to my myself: Neeevvveeer again! In the past I've ALWAYS broken that promise. :-) Nooo, nooo, certainly not this time! Well, time will tell... :-) Anyway, it's excellent Intel has come back with a highly competitve product. Best of all for us users (and unlike i.e. the DRAM market), the CPU market seems to be one in which price-fixing doesn't work. IMHO, we're seeing an almost ruinous competition. It's good to know AMD has a (pretty solid) foot in the server field because otherwise I would be worried... Seen the 'availabilty' of the C2Ds, maybe AMD overreacted with their price slashes and could have waited a couple of weeks? Here's another review re Intel vs AMD. Pls excuse if it's already been posted: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/27/co...thlon_64_fx-62/Kind regards Jaap

2GB Ram: BattleField 2 is the worst offender in this area. Frame rate different is huge. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory: Same as above. This game is heavily shader/pixel acceleration dependant.Prey: Quicker load times, no frame-rate difference. (Doom3 engine game)FS9 you will only see quicker loading times and less stutter when popping from different views (where textures are pulled from the RAM/HD into videoram). Frame rate difference for FS9 is tiny.Just the most recent examples. Also remember that Vista (in Beta 2, no promise on release) uses ~900 MB for itself while in operation.I pick systems for longevity. The current one I have is a year old and would function acceptably for another year for normal people. This is my unpaid job and hobby (hardware acquisition for a LAN center), so I try hard to be accurate. That's where you see the predictions coming from. Just experience on picking the right hardware at the right time to keep our customers paying to play on our computers. =)In case you're interested, here's what I recomended last year (built ~ November for $700): AMD 64 +3300 (2.0 GHz)DFI LanParty Ultra-D nForce 42GB RAMGeForce 6600GT (later upgraded to 7800GTX)200 GB Segate SATA 1

You might want to have a look at this page : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1989025,00.aspJean-Paul

Thanks for the link.It could do with some more details though....What is "High Resolution"? 1600x1200 ??By looking at the figures, I think I will most certainly get better FS performance per $ with an E6600 than the X2 4600 / 5000 I was previously considering.It will be interesting to see how FSX performs with it's new dual core capability and offloading more work to the GPU.Time will tell.....Glenn

Yep, I am very anxious to see how the latest dual-cores will have an impact on FSX performance. Either way, neither the newer dual-core Intels nor the latest dual-core AMDs will be ultimately a bad performer and you just cannot go wrong by getting either one. They're all top-of-the-line and relatively inexpensive.Pat