To have a decent FSX experience, I guess today one would recommend hardware like a Core2 Duo 8600 processor or an AMD 4870 graphics adapter because they've shown they're pretty fast in many benchmarks. The downside is that modern and fast hardware is very expensive.Theory and reality often are two pairs of shoes: hardware classified as being "fast" by somebody or some benchmark or so doesn't necessarily mean that "slower" or better "older" hardware wouldn't perform fast enough to drive one specific piece of software, namely FSX.When I look at the various hardware price comparison sites, I still see many older processors or graphics adapters in there at prices which are only a fraction of what a modern processor costs.So, I question wheter it is really needed to buy the latest and greatest and most expensive hardware to run FSX or if there's a "breaking point" where a better processor, more cores or a faster graphics adapter only neglectibly affect FSX's performance in a positive way. In other words: a heck of a lot of money invested in some hardware peace yields only 1 FPS more or so.Does anyone have experience with older hardware compared to newer one and if that hardware would run FSX sufficiently fast? I'd really like the idea to build a system spending only

Hi,start here :-smile12 http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=19406

---

[link:www.hifisim.com]http://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-beta-sigbanner.jpgPatrick/EBBR

Try this: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746Got an old box and an optical? How does < $700 sound. It will run FS within 10% of anything available today (sans liquid nitrogen cooling!)

>Does anyone have experience with older hardware compared to>newer one and if that hardware would run FSX sufficiently>fast? I'd really like the idea to build a system spending only>