Would upgrading to a 3.4 Ghz Pentium D from a 2.8 GHz CPU Pent D make a reasonably noticeable difference in performance improvement overall espically with high detail -, or would it be an overall drain of cash, (a mistake) ??I am also using a 7600GS Nvidia card with 256mb ram and 2gigs of DDR ram as well.Thanks

In my personal opinion, I would hold off on dropping cash for a CPU only upgrade to possibly enhance performance within FSX.I myself am contemplating a new system build, but after reading extensively on the new technologies and some hold ups relating to dx10, PCIe 2.0, Vista, Amd 4x4/Intel Quadcores, 680i/a boards, Nvidia 8800 and beyond, Mid-Late 2007 is looking to be an exciting time for the new platforms to be released. Save the cash and plan for a new system :)Good luck in whatever you decide!

I think I agree with Steve... I would hang off unless you could justify the upgrade for things OTHER than MSFS. The best upgrade path right now is going into a Core Duo class processor, and if that isn't in your gameplan right now, I'd certainly wait. Any processor upgrade will give you a degree of performance improvements, but given how much FSX taxes systems, it would be minimal. Even now, a Core Duo isn't guaranteed to give you "full right" slider performance - if that is your goal, wait!Fight the urge and keep putting money aside for the processor upgrade. Perhaps you could save enough to outfit yourself with a niiiiiice motherboard, processor, memory, and video update! -Greg

I just purchased a used (new for me) P4 3.4 650, which replaced my P4 3.0 5 series (530). The two biggest differences are obviously core speed, but also the 650 has a 2MB cache vs the 530's 1MB. It can also be used on my board if I decide to go to a 64 Bit OS. Not sure I'll do that, but it does offer the possibility.Is it worth it? Well, for $100 I think it was (got it on eBay). Only having it for a couple 'FS days', I can tell you that the differences are not 'staggering', but as I do fly in real weather, the system has still been taxed quite a bit, as the weather lately has been 'dark and dense'. That said, it does look like I've got a nice performance bump in terms of steady Frame Rates, and overall, I would say scenery 'snaps into' sharpness more quickly. At the default start-up, I can also see a very nice increase. But I have not flown in 'stock weather', and never do.Here's the thing, I highly doubt I will build a new machine for at least another year. I'm going to wait for everything to settle out, especially the video card situation w/DX10. Dual Core does seem the way to go, but who knows? In a year Quad Core may actually be the better decision. The fact is neither FS9 , or X is optimized for either one....as I understand. Not saying both will not run quicker/better, but the 'return' on that investment may not be fully realized as I can justify a $100 used processor (if I have it for 12 months it will have cost me $10 per month+/-, and the fact is, this computer will still be around for years as a second computer anyway. And my current 'second' P3 450 will be 'put to rest').I'm not even purchasing FSX until I get a new rig, so anything I do right now is simply to make FS9 perform better.