Hi again! My previous post got some useful tips and advice replies, but maybe I should be a little more specific about what I am aiming at. My current system is from 2004 (the year); an AMD FX-55 single core 2600 mHz, 2GBs of RAM, an ATI X800 video card; a system which works fine, but doesn't cope with certain FS2004 addons, such as FSDreamteam's wonderful airports. With them (e.g. KJFK, KLAX, etc.) I get typically 13-15 fps using a lot of AI traffic (which I always want to use). So, specifically, what could I expect in the way of better performance (fps) if I upgrade my system to today's standards? My previous post says what system I have in mind (AMD processor, ATI video card, etc..) Very grateful for ideas about what performance I would get Thanks again! HanseSweden

And what's wrong with the other thread that you needed to start a new one asking the same question, that has already been answered there, Hanse?

And what's wrong with the other thread that you needed to start a new one asking the same question, that has already been answered there, Hanse?

Agreed... The fact that your shop recommends AMD processors/video cards is only to save them money. Intel CPU's are king these days. An AMD card would probably beat out nvidia for most games, but not FSX. You want nvidia and Intel. A 2500K would be more than enough power for FS9. There are cheaper options, yes, but might as well go with current technology.

Oh look it's this guy asking for advice again so he can ignore it and go with AMD/ATI according to his non-specific computer shop which does not know that in terms of MSFS Intel/nVidia is better.

Oh look it's this guy asking for advice again so he can ignore it and go with AMD/ATI according to his non-specific computer shop which does not know that in terms of MSFS Intel/nVidia is better.

Says the guy with a Phenom II. Bunch of elitists in this forum which is exactly why I didn't come here asking questions when I had a $500 budget to build my FS9 machine in April. Seems like if you're not using FSX with an i5 or i7, your questions and comments are not welcome. To the OP, look at my specs in my sig. FS9 rocks on it and is as smooth as can be. Good luck with your new machine!

Bunch of elitists in this forum which is exactly why I didn't come here asking questions when I had a $500 budget to build my FS9 machine in April. Seems like if you're not using FSX with an i5 or i7, your questions and comments are not welcome.

No, he already posted the same thing a few days ago. There's no point on upgrading if you can't get a mid-high end rig. I never go completely high end because the parts are too much. But you should be willing to fork out a decent amount. A nice Core i5-based rig will cost around 1300 USD including case.

Says the guy with a Phenom II. Bunch of elitists in this forum which is exactly why I didn't come here asking questions when I had a $500 budget to build my FS9 machine in April. Seems like if you're not using FSX with an i5 or i7, your questions and comments are not welcome. To the OP, look at my specs in my sig. FS9 rocks on it and is as smooth as can be. Good luck with your new machine!

It's not elitism or fanboyism. Intel is faster per core and that's better for an application like FS9 that runs in a single thread. An I5/I7 is overkill for FS9 IMO, but an I3 2100 is a lot faster than the Athlon II X4 640 per core / clock and costs just slightly more. A 2100 + H67 / H61 board is in the same price range and will outperform any AMD in single threaded apps. It's so much faster that even in multithreaded apps it's very close to an Athlon II x4, in some benches even faster: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=188 see Cinebench single thread for example. 10% more $ for 50% more performance As for graphics cards, ATI's are great too, often better than the nVidia's in the same price range, it's just that they don't play good with MSFS.

No, he already posted the same thing a few days ago. There's no point on upgrading if you can't get a mid-high end rig. I never go completely high end because the parts are too much. But you should be willing to fork out a decent amount. A nice Core i5-based rig will cost around 1300 USD including case.

The guy's excited about his new system. Good for him. A decent amount to you is different than a decent amount to someone else. Heck, I just picked up a 15" LCD monitor at the thrift store the other day for $7.50 for the overhead panel and I'm tickled pink. Lots of ways to get a good system for FS9 without spending $1300. Thank you for making my point.

The guy's excited about his new system. Good for him. A decent amount to you is different than a decent amount to someone else. Heck, I just picked up a 15" LCD monitor at the thrift store the other day for $7.50 for the overhead panel and I'm tickled pink. Lots of ways to get a good system for FS9 without spending $1300. Thank you for making my point.

In the original thread I recommended an Intel system with the same budget Hanse was on. I even stated it would get considerably better performance for the same price, and the answer to that was the shop recommends AMDs. Given the price of AMD systems, cheaper Intel systems and they're relative performance, it's a little nonsensical to go with AMD if you're a Flight Sim nut currently. Tell me Chris, if given the choice of two systems of the same price, one being slower than the other... Which would you pick? The faster one? I'm glad you're tickled with the thrift store purchase, though. I love finding bargains like that. It's rare I can find something I'd put in my room, though. Most second hand peripherals I find like that won't go with my black and glass desk.

Says the guy with a Phenom II. Bunch of elitists in this forum which is exactly why I didn't come here asking questions when I had a $500 budget to build my FS9 machine in April. Seems like if you're not using FSX with an i5 or i7, your questions and comments are not welcome. To the OP, look at my specs in my sig. FS9 rocks on it and is as smooth as can be. Good luck with your new machine!

Says the guy with a weaker Phenom II At the time I upgraded I really just needed 8gb of RAM and I was using a Core 2 which meant paying $200 for 8gb of DDR2. I didn't have the money for the i5-2500K that I'd prefer so I bought the X6 and switched to DDR3 for less than $300. It's not that comments and questions aren't welcome, it's just that at some point one must realise that there is a legitimate hierarchy of performance. In the case of MSFS that means 2500/2600K > i7 9XX > i5 7XX > Phenom II X4/X6 > ... > P4/Athlon 64. It's not set in stone but it is there.

In the original thread I recommended an Intel system with the same budget Hanse was on. I even stated it would get considerably better performance for the same price, and the answer to that was the shop recommends AMDs. Given the price of AMD systems, cheaper Intel systems and they're relative performance, it's a little nonsensical to go with AMD if you're a Flight Sim nut currently. Tell me Chris, if given the choice of two systems of the same price, one being slower than the other... Which would you pick? The faster one? I'm glad you're tickled with the thrift store purchase, though. I love finding bargains like that. It's rare I can find something I'd put in my room, though. Most second hand peripherals I find like that won't go with my black and glass desk.

The answer's obvious. I will say this though, We don't know if his "guy" would be able to build an intel machine for the same price. But to say you're wasting your time upgrading if your not going to spend $1300, as Ryan did, is a disservice to the flight sim community. There are many us with many more hobbies than Flight Sim, and we need to spread the money around. My build, for example, was budgeted at $500 and that included Windows 7. Doesn't leave a lot of room for hardware. I was running an Athlon64 @ 2.2 ghz with 2gb DDR 400 and an Nvidia GS8400. I think we can all agree that ANY upgrade was appropriate. Do I wish I could have bought an 2500K? Absolutely! Am I unhappy with the performance I get with my system? Not in the least. No stutters and great frames with all the sliders maxed.

Says the guy with a weaker Phenom II At the time I upgraded I really just needed 8gb of RAM and I was using a Core 2 which meant paying $200 for 8gb of DDR2. I didn't have the money for the i5-2500K that I'd prefer so I bought the X6 and switched to DDR3 for less than $300. It's not that comments and questions aren't welcome, it's just that at some point one must realise that there is a legitimate hierarchy of performance. In the case of MSFS that means 2500/2600K > i7 9XX > i5 7XX > Phenom II X4/X6 > ... > P4/Athlon 64. It's not set in stone but it is there.

I agree with this, but that doesn't mean you're not going to get great performance with a Phenom. For the record, I'm only talking about FS9. That's what I use and that's what the OP is using.