Found this interesting post on a user who installed FSX on a SSD and compared the load times to a dedicated raptor.Here's the key facts:On the WD Raptor 74GB (Dedicated HDD to FSX, no OS nor swap file on it):Loading FSX Time: 50secLoading the complex presaved scenery: 2min 24secOn the 32GB Masterdrive OX SSD:Loading FSX Time: 19 secLoading the same complex scenery: 48 secRead it all here: http://l45.sytes.net/?p=613#more-613Wow!, looks a dedicated SSD can do much more for FSX than a new CPU !The drive is only $125 on NewEgg too, it has slow write speeds but for FSX reading looks interesting?Maybe the Intel X25-M would be even faster?

32gigs?!?? LOL, you must be joking... That is only for FSX and couple of addons. Put some mesh and its full. My FS9 with all its addons goes up to 71GB, which I understand is NOT much.Now, 128GB NAND drive costs from 300

OK guys you gotta separate the perf from the flufHere is the skinnyYour storage system perf is very important and there is no argument there however its only as effective in FSX as the greatest bottleneck to the delivery of the sceneTranslation... assuming you do have the drives on the right controller the newer SSD HDD will in fact remove the bottleneck of delivering the textures to the system for render processing just like a VRap on a professional hardware controller, or, SAS drives in RAIDHoweverThe processor, memory and chipset along with the video card must take that information and render it on the screen. In that, there is such a thing a MAXED OUT. Some are MAXED OUT on a standard SATA II hard drive, why? Becasue they are running a slow CPU/MEM/VC system and the drive can keep up with the calls.Those who have taken my advice in the past and are running fast CPU/MEM/VC need more than what a typical SATA drive can deliver and some of people here have moved to SAS, SATAII hardware RAID cards and VRaps. Those stotage systems keep up and can exceed the CPU/MEM/VC ability to render the data being fed to them.Even the i7 will not exceed SAS hardware and VRap RAID0 therefore those who are already on that type of storage platform, buying SSD is pretty much useless for now... however SSD DOES remove physical drive mechanicals and they will increase perfSo lets keep in mind the REAL TECH when it comes to reading such things and keep it in perspectiveI do agree that SSD will eventually overtake value in storage/perf systems but right now their cost to perf and storage ability is very very high

....and one other thing I want to MYTH BUST which get tossed around here WAY too much... FSX FLIGHT LOADING TIME is NOT... REPEAT NOT about STORAGE... its about CPU/MEM/VC + STORAGE and therefore judging any HDD system on that test alone is complete and utter horse hockey. On first flight load after a system reboot its about ALL the components working n concert.Granted after the system has been booted and a flight has been loaded into FSX, and, you close FSX and reopen/reload the same flight or a flight within a certain radius of the first the storage system plays more into that load speed than the support components. However one can not use that test to make claim a storage system is better or worse than another.What counts is the speed of all components working in real time and the support system ability to process the data being delivered to it from storage, period

Thanks Nick...Assuming many have the CPU maxed 3.6-4Ghz and are running FSX and the OS on a newer high density SATA HD.Would moving FSX to a low cost dedicated SSD as mentioned above be a better solution for load times and random access scenery in game loading?How about the single SSD vs a single 150GB vRaptor or 300GB vRaptor?The single 32GB SSD costs $125US, vs $179 150GB vRaptor.

>Thanks Nick...>>Assuming many have the CPU maxed 3.6-4Ghz >and are running FSX and the OS on a newer high density SATA>HD.>>Would moving FSX to a low cost dedicated SSD as mentioned>above be a better solution for load times and random access>scenery in game loading?>>How about the single SSD vs a single 150GB vRaptor or 300GB>vRaptor?>>The single 32GB SSD costs $125US, vs $179 150GB vRaptor.>>Hey JackIf you do not expect to exceed the space on the drive and you are willing to throw down 3.10 per GB vs a buck per GB with a 300GB Vrap, go for it but BE AWARE

>>Translation... assuming you do have the drives on the right>controller the newer SSD HDD will in fact remove the>bottleneck of delivering the textures to the system for render>processing just like a VRap on a professional hardware>controller, or, SAS drives in RAID>>snip>>Those who have taken my advice in the past and are running>fast CPU/MEM/VC need more than what a typical SATA drive can>deliver and some of people here have moved to SAS, SATAII>hardware RAID cards and VRaps. Those stotage systems keep up>and can exceed the CPU/MEM/VC ability to render the data being>fed to them.>Nick -I just want to make sure I'm reading one point correctly. Do you recommend a professional hardware controller for a standalone VRap? Or does that apply only to multiple VRaps running in RAID (i.e. advantages of hardware vs. software RAID)?Trying to work out budget specs for a balanced Core i7 machine.Thanks in advance!Alan

>>>>Translation... assuming you do have the drives on the right>>controller the newer SSD HDD will in fact remove the>>bottleneck of delivering the textures to the system for>render>>processing just like a VRap on a professional hardware>>controller, or, SAS drives in RAID>>>>snip>>>>Those who have taken my advice in the past and are running>>fast CPU/MEM/VC need more than what a typical SATA drive can>>deliver and some of people here have moved to SAS, SATAII>>hardware RAID cards and VRaps. Those stotage systems keep up>>and can exceed the CPU/MEM/VC ability to render the data>being>>fed to them.>>>>Nick ->I just want to make sure I'm reading one point correctly. Do>you recommend a professional hardware controller for a>standalone VRap? Or does that apply only to multiple VRaps>running in RAID (i.e. advantages of hardware vs. software>RAID)?>>Trying to work out budget specs for a balanced Core i7>machine.>>Thanks in advance!>>>Alan>>Hey AlanI prefer to run all performance drives (single or RAID) on a PCIe controller card and use SATAII motherboard ports for storageIf its a single VRap then the motherboard ports are fine but if you really want to get the perf out of RAID then the controller card is the only way to go... and not the cheapo cards... one with 256-512 DDR2 memory onboard and runs off the spare PCIe 8x or 16x slot

Thanks for the clarification.If I remember correctly, you recommended the 3Ware cards (with backup battery) for RAID. I'll see if they fit the budget - or if not, will go with single VRap on the motherboard even if a controller would be a more ideal solution.Alan

LOL - I use 32G drives for doorstopsIMHO a 32g drive of any kind is an utter waste of $$. Obsolete before you use it due to storagelimitations. BUT if you're just going to run FSX with not much else in the way of add-ons.............Q9650 E0 CPU 3.0 o/c 4.06Asus Rampage Extreme X48 4G XP2-18200 DDR3 1800FSB Mushkin 996587 RAM 8-8-8-24-1T1-74G Raptor - XP System1-74G Raptor - Data1-320G 7200 - Programs 1-150G Raptor - FSX 1-500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx XG 174.74 702/1620/792Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyHannsG 28" 1920x1200Viewsonic 22" 1680x1050http://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-supporter-sigbanner.jpg

>Q9650 E0 CPU 3.0 o/c 4.06>Asus Rampage Extreme X48 >4G XP2-18200 DDR3 1800FSB Mushkin 996587 RAM 8-8-8-24-1TDAng thats a nice clock... must'a taken a bit of TLC to get that clock out of Mushie 1600you must'a dun 2 things1. Bought the right parts2. Listened:-hah BTW.. in the future this is the formula for VTT (FSB Termination Voltage) and CPU GTL when the BIOS wants a setting in mv instead of the multiplier:Its a simple algebraic problem45nm CPUVtt x 0.667 + Y = Vtt x 0.63565nm CPUVtt x 0.667 = Vtt x 0.635 + YNOTE: If its a 45nm CPU the answer will always be a NEGATIVE value, POSITIVE for 65nm that is why yours is set to -40mvI usually set the NB GTL mv between 60 and 70 and that would be POSITIVE so that is why yours is set to +60mv. If you see any instability, raise that to 65mv or 70mv and retest but I think you are probably set