Will I need a new system for FSX to run at medium speedsAthlon 64 4000 at 2800MhzRadeon X850XT1 gig ramRegardsDennis

Depends on what your expectations are. I ran FSX on the same cpu at 2.6 ghz and 2 gigs of ram and it was 'acceptable' to me. You only having 1gb of system memory, that will be a big problem for you running FSX. You really need 2gb. If you went to 2gb of mem, you would be able to run FSX acceptably, but you would have to make compromises.RhettE8500, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64

I used to play FSX on an Athlon64 3500+ and X800XT.. Or try to play...RTM ran at single-digit framerates because of the poorly optimized autogen.SP1 fixed this, but because they spent so much time optimizing the sim for multi-core CPUs, single-core users were left in the dust. SP1 or SP2 are still not playable on single-core machines.Sure, framerate is fine.. But the *blurries*.. They're everywhere. No scenery textures are the sharp 1m variety you'd expect, they're all 4m or 8m tiles. Turning nearly every rendering option down helps some, but you'll still see blurries. The really stupid thing is that at this point, the sim runs at 40-60 FPS, but it still doesn't render scenery textures correctly. The fiber fraction tweak does nothing for the blurries post-SP1, it only eats into the framerate.The only way to make the sim playable on a single-core machine is to run RTM (no service packs) and turn autogen off.With a dual-core machine and SP2, you get *almost* the same loading speed of scenery textures as you would with RTM and a single-core CPU, plus the added bonus of optimized autogen. The only way to play FSX, IMO. In other words, after Microsoft's "optimizations", it takes twice the CPU horsepower to do exactly the same thing ;)