Hi guys!After looking at this video on Youtube I'm wondering what this disk would do for the FSX performance...anyone tried this yet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Jz7IMwBt4

If you have a real time application whose performance (framerate) is bound by the speed of your disk storage, you're watching a slide show.

I'll let you know if they improve the performance of FSX after I get my 2 SSD Torqx. They will be running in Raid O.I'll predict that there will be a nice performance improvement.

Hi Richard,FSX would love a quality SDD, both for load times and performance. FSX is massively random read/access and the extremely low latency of the SDD will work to your benefit there. But know that other HW needs to be up to the task. Everything works together. A slow CPU/graphics/memory setup won't benefit much in FSX, a little, but not as much as say a 4GHz+ i7/GTX 285. When you can match all those parts then the SDD will be more beneficial, just like the Vraptors still cream all other drives in FSX...low latancies that even 2Tb dense-platter drives can't touch.Don't use any benchmark you see like the one on youtube. That won't tell you anything as to how the sim will actually run. Just know that when SDD's are affordable and reliable then that'll be the ticket.-jk

The only thing I have seen a SSD do is make FSX boot faster. I had FSX on a SSD but go for it if you want to waste your money on it. I know I did.When you get the SSD installed take the f-18 or any fast jet, fly at tree top level in a big city and see how long it takes to out fly your scenery and auto gen loads.

FxF3 is correct - you will likely see a MASSIVE improvement in flight loading, however in-game performance will remain about the same. Sure, texture loading is improved, but the problem with blurries is not the hard drive systems inability to get to the textures, it is the core system itself not being ready to call them in. After your flight is loaded, the hard drive systems are really waiting on the CPU's to call them into action - even with a typical 7200 RPM drive. Your time between clicking "Fly Now" and being on the runway will REALLY speed up, but from that point forward, you probably won't see much measurable improvement. Good luck, and report back!-Greg

FXF3,Without knowing your specs and how you set up OS and FSX, I can't comment on your findings.I can however say with absolute certainty that I've seen an improvement on my system going from a single raptor to a raid o configuration. It's not a placebo effect because I've monitored the fps and using a Raid O I noticed higher frame rates and a smoother ride in dense airports.This to me means that a faster drive should improve performance in both the OS and FSX.I remember the days when folks were saying that a fast hard drive was not that important to fs. Find someone out there who loves fsx who is not using a raptor. There could still be someone out there, but it would be an aberration and not the standard.A faster hard drive will make a difference.

FXF3,Without knowing your specs and how you set up OS and FSX, I can't comment on your findings.I can however say with absolute certainty that I've seen an improvement on my system going from a single raptor to a raid o configuration. It's not a placebo effect because I've monitored the fps and using a Raid O I noticed higher frame rates and a smoother ride in dense airports.This to me means that a faster drive should improve performance in both the OS and FSX.I remember the days when folks were saying that a fast hard drive was not that important to fs. Find someone out there who loves fsx who is not using a raptor. There could still be someone out there, but it would be an aberration and not the standard.A faster hard drive will make a difference.

Hi DJJose it was just my 2 cents and what my SSD did.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...i=3403&p=14But to others they love them in a note book they are great. I would spend the $550.00 on something else when it comes to FSX SSD does give you less cpu use I think mine is 1 to 2 percent in HD tach benchmark. There is as of yet no magic bullet for FSX. I have seen to many post where people have tried almost everything and have been heart broken over it. I think Nick has done tons of test on FSX and it seems the best bang for the buck is still a good fast 10000 rpm hard drive.

The only thing I have seen a SSD do is make FSX boot faster. I had FSX on a SSD but go for it if you want to waste your money on it. I know I did.When you get the SSD installed take the f-18 or any fast jet, fly at tree top level in a big city and see how long it takes to out fly your scenery and auto gen loads.

I'm running an i7 975 at 4.4 GHz, with a 2GB GTX285 at 675 MHz. I use a 300GB VelociRaptor as my system drive (Windows Vista 64), and a 160GB Intel X-25M SSD for FSX/FS9.I can take the Acceleration F-18, depart KSEA, and fly all the way to Mount Shasta at >700 KIAS, jinking my way at very low level through the valleys, and never outrun my scenery and the very heavy autogen in this area (autogen is set to "Very Dense"). I get the occasional very small hiccup every few minutes, which usually coincides with loading a new scenery texture file. With the SSD, those hiccups are really more of a bump than a pause. With an HDD, even the VelociRaptor, those hiccups were pauses. The behavior with the SSD isn't perfect, but it's much less annoying.I also note that in normal sim flying with the SSD, I almost never see stutters in turns any more. I ran the exact same config with FSX on my well-optimized 10,000 RPM VelociRaptor and still saw some of the brief pauses in turns as scenery loads.I don't think the SSD makes an earth-shattering difference, but it does make some difference because when FS needs a new file it's there much faster than with any physical HDD. Once the file is loaded, it generally stays in the scenery cache in RAM, so the SSD doesn't help there.I'm also a die-hard tinkerer, and the massively faster loading times make a huge difference when tweaking involves starting and stopping FS lots of times (which it often does).IMHO, the $600 SSD was not a waste on an otherwise cutting-edge system. Certainly you can have fine performance without one, but it clearly helps iron out some of those last little bugaboos--the ones that drive us to build cutting edge systems in the first place.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

And remember not all these SDDs are the same quality or even worthy of ditching a Vraptor for. Some of especially the early ones are actually junk. The Intel drive is one of the few good ones...and good luck getting a new one of those for less than a fortune. So I agree their time has not yet come in terms of affordability or reliability except for those with a lot of extra money. But it's approaching. I have never outrun my scenery/autogen even screaming along in the YF-23 at 500+ kts since I went i7/DDR3. That's something that could happen back when I was running a Q6600 on DDR2 but since I went i7 and Vraps that just doesn't happen. -jk

To me this is amazing I thought FSX even brought the best system to its knees with that test.Bob have you done this in a bigger city with the auto-gen and scenery sliders at extremely dense do you have any AI on or traffic? Are you staying just at tree-top level in the F-18. You being retired USAF you may have been in a real F-16 or something close to the F-18? :( So Bob you have had the best of both worlds both FSX on a top of line computer and maybe flying some of the best USAF for real. Thanks for your service to our country.I see your system is top of the line with a great over-clock is it on air. I guess the I7 975 overclocked that good is it for FSX.

That's a great point. The new ssd's are even faster and more reliable.If Bob is seing an improvement with one SSD imagine 2 in a Raid O configuration.I can't wait to see the results.Bob,With my system, in the non dense areas and locked at 40, I get silky smooth frames too. No blurries, no stutters, etc. In dense areas like NYC that's a different story. Thanks for your input.

To me this is amazing I thought FSX even brought the best system to its knees with that test.Bob have you done this in a bigger city with the auto-gen and scenery sliders at extremely dense do you have any AI on or traffic? Are you staying just at tree-top level in the F-18. You being retired USAF you may have been in a real F-16 or something close to the F-18? :( So Bob you have had the best of both worlds both FSX on a top of line computer and maybe flying some of the best USAF for real. Thanks for your service to our country.I see your system is top of the line with a great over-clock is it on air. I guess the I7 975 overclocked that good is it for FSX.

You're welcome, and thanks for taking the time to say so.Traffic is set at 60% via UT II.I have a few r/w hours in the back seat of the F-15D and F-16D, but no tree-top time...that's something the AF frowns upon.My system is water-cooled...I built a custom external cooling tower--300 gph through two 360mm triple-fan radiators in series. CPU stays below 50 deg C at 4.4 GHz with FSX running.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Thanks alot guys for all your input!This was exactly what I was looking for and it has helped me decide to go for this Intel X25-M SSD drive. Surely the money/size ratio isn't that nice yet for SSD drives but I can pick up the 80 GB version for about $360 which I think isn't that much considering the money I already put into my current FSX rig running a similar system as Bob with a Core i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz, a GTX 285 and 6 GB DDR3-1600 with both the CPU and GPU beeing watercooled.Now to a more practical question...since I'm currently running FSX from it's own HDD I'm planning to simply copy everything over to the new SSD drive - any reason that wouldn't work? Is there a risk some of the FSX stuff is "locked" to the current drive and thus would give me problem when on a new disk? I'm currently running the Windows 7 RC x64.Thanks again guys for your valuable input!!

Thanks alot guys for all your input!This was exactly what I was looking for and it has helped me decide to go for this Intel X25-M SSD drive. Surely the money/size ratio isn't that nice yet for SSD drives but I can pick up the 80 GB version for about $360 which I think isn't that much considering the money I already put into my current FSX rig running a similar system as Bob with a Core i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz, a GTX 285 and 6 GB DDR3-1600 with both the CPU and GPU beeing watercooled.Now to a more practical question...since I'm currently running FSX from it's own HDD I'm planning to simply copy everything over to the new SSD drive - any reason that wouldn't work? Is there a risk some of the FSX stuff is "locked" to the current drive and thus would give me problem when on a new disk? I'm currently running the Windows 7 RC x64.Thanks again guys for your valuable input!!

I don't see any problem with that. As long as the drive remains the same. All you're doing is speeding up the drive.