I am about to order a mini tabletop PC destined specially for FS9 use - either the ACER AX3300-U1322 (AMD Athlon II X4 Quad-Core Processor 620, Windows 7 Home Premium, NVIDIA GeForce 9200 Chipset, 4096MB DDR3 Memory, Integrated NVIDIA GE FORCE 9200 Graphics, 1TB SATA Hard Drive, Digital Media Card Reader, High Definition Audio) orACER AX1301-U1312, 2.7 GHz AMD Athlon II X3 Triple-Core 425 Processor, 4GB DDR2 Memory, 750GB HD 7200RPM SATA, Integrated NVIDIA GeForce 9200 Graphics, High Definition Audio with 5.1 channel audio support, Windows 7 Home Edition.As a layman, the Quad-Core feature (more modern?), DDR3 memory, larger HD and such features for a nominal prince increase look attractively enough to decide the issue.However, a customer review of this choice U1322 states: "About the Processor Core: if you need a gaming machine, this is not for you. There are several differences between the Phenom sold in expensive gaming systems, and the Athlon II X4 620 quad-processor core used here: including the complete lack of an L3 cache - there is no L3 cache at all. That being said, the architecture is great for a plain-jane workhorse or a media center to play DVD video."This quote could be written in Greek or Esperanto for this layman cannot understand it. Except that I have also read about being a good HTPC (which I am guessing could mean a Home Theater PC...).Wonder if anyone could assist indicating which of these would you choose assuming that, along with the other usual home use of a computer, you are an addicted Flight Simulator enthusiast looking for nice and fast display of sceneries and aircrafts, good framerates and fast loading times.Any information, tip or suggestion will be most highly appreciated, and no one will ever be blamed for any final decision on my part, but will certainly will always be remembered for assisting this semi-ignorant undecided shopper.Thanks a million,Clarindo

Neither of the machines you have listed is a gaming machine. If you want to run MSFS with high settings you need a faster processor and a *real* graphics card, rather than the integrated graphics both of the machines you've listed use. If you don't care about high settings and add-ons, get the top system. Otherwise, look for something with a Phenom II or a Core i7, and an actual graphics card.

Neither of the machines you have listed is a gaming machine. If you want to run MSFS with high settings you need a faster processor and a *real* graphics card, rather than the integrated graphics both of the machines you've listed use. If you don't care about high settings and add-ons, get the top system. Otherwise, look for something with a Phenom II or a Core i7, and an actual graphics card.

Thanks for the reply. I am (or was) looking for a portable (mini) computer in this price bracket that could provide somewhat high settings and add-ons for FS9. Your assistance will orient met towards Phenom II or Corei7 processors.All the best,

The problem with small PCs is that they don't have room for high performance graphics cards, and that is a necessity for running FS9 or FSX with high settings.

Just a note, FS9 will play pretty well on almost any CPU that is clocked a decent amount it seems. I can run max settings, ai traffic, etc on my PC and never drop below 25 FPS. However, a intel dual core 2 or quad core 2 will more than likely be sufficient enough for FS9. a 512MB - 1GB graphics card and a mobo that allows easy over clocking.Mini table-top PC's are not meant for gaming, at all, almost ever. There are some small boxes that you can fit in a mini atx mobo in to, but again, you cut out a lot of options when you do this. If you're serious about FS, build something youself. Hell... almost any PC you can find at Best Buy or wherever you can physically walk in and buy a computer can be built even cheaper with your own hands.Cheers

Thanks for the information and suggestion. I had in mind the mini PC's to carry along when on frequent travels.Best of luck and appreciate the assistance.

This isn't what you asked about, but you might be more satisfied going with a normal-sized machine. You'll simply be able to get better performance for the money. You mention frequent traveling, but although lightweight, these machines are not exactly laptops. (According to Amazon, the ACER AX3300-U1322 is 3.9 x 13.9 x 10.4 inches and 12 pounds

Thanks a lot; I appreciate your interest in assisting me.I travel overseas for 2/3 months at a time and keep at destination a monitor, a keyboard, a modem and a joystick. The mini PC I carry in a back-pack with its power supply (currently at 2GB memory and I was planning to upgrade to a 4GB system) goes along because of all the programs including FS9 and its add-ons (Skype and Internet keep the wife and me in touch with the family). A shirt-pocket size WD USB HD of 320GB has all the programs I currently need and use.Back home I have a 4 GB memory laptop which would serve the purpose you mention except for the fact that its OS is Windows Vista with FSX and I am a FS9 fan.Guess I'll have to change its OS to XP and install FS9 in it - that will get me what I am looking for.Additionaly and in between flights, books will do just fine - particularly now with the Kindle and Ipad availability.Best of luck and again my appreciation for your thoughtful observations and comments.

Looks like you're a very modern man. :( The laptop would make your traveling easier and, since you already own it, would be a lot cheaper than upgrading the mini-PC. Would it give you the performance you want on FS9 though? You might want to research that before swapping OSes, it'll need more than just 4 GB of RAM. (I couldn't look at a laptop monitor for 2

Why not just get a 17"+ Desktop replacement gaming notebook. XoticPC has got some pretty awesome stuff, like the new Asus G73J model that looks like a friggin stealth fighter. I'm buying one to replace my current 4 year old notebook.Base model starts at $1650 and would be plenty capable of running FSX on medium settings and FS9 on max settings in most instances.