I don't quite understand this debate. An XP 3500 is about $50. That is less then the price of the MD11 or the 747X. Both sims 'can' run on that chip, but to be honest, why would you really want to? Is it some kind of reverse heroism? "When I were a lad..." type stuff? Until about five or six years ago, the combination of Moores law and happy coincidence meant that a complete replacement system, just a little below cutting edge, cost about

I don't quite understand this debate. An XP 3500 is about $50. That is less then the price of the MD11 or the 747X. Both sims 'can' run on that chip, but to be honest, why would you really want to? Is it some kind of reverse heroism? "When I were a lad..." type stuff? Until about five or six years ago, the combination of Moores law and happy coincidence meant that a complete replacement system, just a little below cutting edge, cost about

Shall we just stick to the original question? Before the guy spends his hard earned cash here are the factsAMD Athlon XP 3000+ @ 2.1GHz1024MB RAMATI Radeon 3650 HD GC @ 512MBFSX - Yes it will run but like total crapFS9 - Yes it will run, pretty badly but if you crank the settings down it will be flyable, so if your happy to compromise go for it. I dont care how many people want to tell themselves otherwise, those are the facts.One last thing, running a 512mb card on a system that only has 1024mb system ram will choke your system, all your going to get is ooms and pure frustration.RegardsRob

Why would I want to run on that chip -because I want to! It runs well....

This is exactly what I don't understand about this debate. "because I want to". Fine, no argument, your right and your choice and all the best to you, but "It runs well"? What is that supposed to mean? It runs well for a six year old chip with a life expectancy of two years? It runs better then not running at all? It runs well [enough, in fact its crap but it is the best I can afford this month]? It runs well for a chip that Moores law suggests has been obsoleted 16 times over? Given that FSX struggles even on the latest hardware, and I am not suggesting that you need to drop multi grand on a liquid nitrogen cooled i7-980 OC'd to 4.77GHz with a mean time to failure of 57 seconds and the power consumption of a smaller African city, but I am wondering, from pure, mild curiousity, why you would suggest that it was OK for someone else to use this sort of chip if they didn't absolutly have to?

This is exactly what I don't understand about this debate. "because I want to". Fine, no argument, your right and your choice and all the best to you, but "It runs well"? What is that supposed to mean? It runs well for a six year old chip with a life expectancy of two years? It runs better then not running at all? It runs well [enough, in fact its crap but it is the best I can afford this month]? It runs well for a chip that Moores law suggests has been obsoleted 16 times over? Given that FSX struggles even on the latest hardware, and I am not suggesting that you need to drop multi grand on a liquid nitrogen cooled i7-980 OC'd to 4.77GHz with a mean time to failure of 57 seconds and the power consumption of a smaller African city, but I am wondering, from pure, mild curiousity, why you would suggest that it was OK for someone else to use this sort of chip if they didn't absolutly have to?

Calm down Paul -you sound angry that I can enjoy the PMDG 747 with my setup!My chip which I mentioned in an earlier post is a AMD 4000 and I have 2mb of marched ramplus a very good video card. My point is that nothing added to sfx and with sliders adjusted leftwards(but not completely)I can enjoy smooth play with 747 and MD11. Please note that I am not talking about scenery or AI aircraft or clouds etc.just the pleasure of using these aircraft. As I have said before -if it did not run well then I would update my system.RegardsDavid

Shall we just stick to the original question? Before the guy spends his hard earned cash here are the factsAMD Athlon XP 3000+ @ 2.1GHz1024MB RAMATI Radeon 3650 HD GC @ 512MBFSX - Yes it will run but like total crapFS9 - Yes it will run, pretty badly but if you crank the settings down it will be flyable, so if your happy to compromise go for it. I dont care how many people want to tell themselves otherwise, those are the facts.One last thing, running a 512mb card on a system that only has 1024mb system ram will choke your system, all your going to get is ooms and pure frustration.RegardsRob

Ive had that computer for a good 2-4years now. I will be upgrading to a:Intel Q9550 (OC'd to 3.75 ghz)Arctic cooling freezer 7 proCorsair 750 watt4GB ram g skillEvga 9800 gtx+ ko (512mb)Asus p5q pro turboWestern digital caviar black 640gb w/ 32 mb cacheCooler master haf 932

I have an old AMD3000+ in an older computer I haven't had running for over 2 years now. It was my back up work computer up until then. I had an Athlon 4000+ dedicated to FS9 use plus a few other minor things that I did not do simultaneously. It was completely stripped down in software terms, running around 19-20 services max. during an FS session.When I built myself a system based around an Intel E8500, the 4000+ unit became my work backup PC and the 3000+ was consigned to the back room...FS9 ran "okay" on the 3000+ system, nothing major but useable. The 4000+ allowed me to boost up settings a little and run a few addons that would never have seen double figures on the 3000+ box.Things changed with the Intel E8500 unit. It was like comparing night and day. I have a system now, slightly overclocked on air, with 4Gb RAM on a 32 bit OS, running the 3Gb switch. FS9 is smooth in all situations. FSX runs well at medium settings, although I will add that I do NOT use AI ground vehicles or AI aircraft at all. The ground traffic is a real performance killer... I am impressed with the visual appearance I get currently, knowing that things will only get better if and when I can make the jump to an i7 system or similar.If you are happy with your PC's performance that is fine. Beauty (read: smoothness and so on) is in the eye of the beholder. We all try and get the best out of what we have got. If we can afford it, we upgrade the system.But don't expect FSX to run smoothly at anything other than basic settings in a payware addon like the 747X or the MD11, or many of the recent high-end releases (I exclude many GA and Lotussim L-39) on an Athlon 3000+ with only 1Gb or RAM. The Barton core at 2.1GHz stock was released in February 2003...FSX wants the best clock speed possible and a nice chunk of RAM with lots of contiguous blocks available.My answer to the original poster's question: In my opinion, upgrade your system to something a little more state of the art, a good dual core with 4/6Gb RAM on Windows 7 (now it has been released) with a good SATA drive for FSX. Your experience of the MD-11 and/or 747X will be so much more enhanced...Andrew

Calm down Paul -you sound angry that I can enjoy the PMDG 747 with my setup!My chip which I mentioned in an earlier post is a AMD 4000 and I have 2mb of marched ramplus a very good video card. My point is that nothing added to sfx and with sliders adjusted leftwards(but not completely)I can enjoy smooth play with 747 and MD11. Please note that I am not talking about scenery or AI aircraft or clouds etc.just the pleasure of using these aircraft. As I have said before -if it did not run well then I would update my system.RegardsDavid

Not being rude here but your Athlon64 4000 with 2Gb matched Ram and a decent video card is quite different from the OP's AMD 3000 with 1G, so when you said your system ran well without making that distinction, you weren't doing anyone any favours, were you? Now you say that it runs OK, with sliders to the further left then right, and no scenery or addons. On a system between four and eight times better the the OP's. That is useful information which the OP can use to make informed decisions.