Hello All,I would like to ask your opinion on a new computer. I run FS9 and would like to start working with FSX. I also use the computer for personal use. The computer is from Cyperpower and retails as is for $1500. I can tweak it abit and will probably wait until November before ordering to see if CPU prices come down any.CASE: Thermaltake Spedo Full Tower 420W Case w/ Side-panel WindowPOWER: NZXT PP800 Performance Power ATX 2.0 Power - Quad SLI ReadyCPU: (Quad-Core)Intel

SLI won't help FS, so that 2nd Vcard can go away. However if you want to run 3+ monitors, get the cheapest (same series) PCI-e Vcard available for the 2nd card. Raid 0 will help a bit, but no biggie. The difference in the 2 CPUs you mention is their multiplier. If you can afford one with an unlocked multi, that's the way to go.It's a little costy for what you're getting. Here's a homebuilt that'll go to 3.6 for a bit less. http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746

At the risk of muddling you with very slight nuances: 1) SLI won't help FSX and there seems little prospect that things will improve through new driver releases. The very best card at the moment is probably the GTX280; the second best is probably the much older 8800 Ultra.2) FSX does gain from RAID0 - but on your budget the downside might be worse than the gain. Your specs tell me that you mean to use the built-in motherboard RAID0 controller. This will probably ONLY improve the intial load time of FSX. While FSX is actually up and running, the motherboard RAID controller will take cycles away from the CPU, which is not at all what you want to be doing with FSX once you've actually loaded it. If you want your RAID0 setup to make an appreciable improvement while FSX is actually running, then you need to invest in a proper add-on controller: the decent ones - ie, the ones which actually make a positive difference to FSX! - are not cheap and will take you considerably over budget. Unfortunately, as with so much in FSX, to make a difference you need the good kit; the good kit costs a lot of money; and the difference it makes usually is not all that great anyway. A lot of the complaints you read about how such-and-such a piece of kit didn't pay off or won't pay off, are either because (i) the investment wasn't actually big enough; or (ii) the expectations were too high to begin with.The bottom line: on your specs, I'd get the second drive - preferably a fast Raptor - but not configure it as RAID0. I'd stick FSX on the second drive entirely on its own, keeping everything else on the main drive. This will help keep access and read times to a minimum because using a suitable defrag utility you'll be able to (i) sort all the FSX files into alphanumeric order and (ii) shove them onto the very outside of the hard disk platter, where data gets read most quickly.3) Most people say that the Q9650 will go to 4GHz in a decent motherboard. Additionally, on a clock-to-clock basis, it's said to be about 10% faster than the Q6600 through improvements in the architecture. Add that all together and you're looking at an improvement of, what, 20% over the Q6600 at 3.6GHz? Personally I wouldn't willingly pass up the chance of an improvement of 20%. I can do without the difference between 30fps and 36fps, but that's not where it counts. In graphically dense situations - that is, when you need it most - 20% can make the difference between a stuttery, unconvincing 15fps and a playable, immersive 18fps.TimPS: Check your power supply, too. 420W looks a little light for your components, especially if the available amperes are split across quad rails. I suggest 750W on a single rail supplying at least 60 amperes: this should give you plenty of headroom without being absurd over-kill.PPS: Don't forget that the first crop of the next-generation "Nehalem" CPUs is just around the corner. Even if you want to stick with current-generation technology, Nehalem may make everything cheaper in a few weeks time.