I have seen some videos and with a Core I5 - 2500K running at 4.5 you can get FSX to look really took. Check out the ORBX Scenery. Looks great to me:

However, I still have an old core2 duo and a heavy investment in add ons for FS 9 so that is where I spend most of my time.

Another comment about FSX and FS9...I have an old 2008 dual core E6850 3GHz with a GTS250 nVidia Graphics (don't forget the essential MSI Afterburner) running XP SP3 and 4Gb of 800MHz memory. A modest setup by anyone's standards nowadays. Thanks to FPS limiter, Nick N's great advice and ******* Bojote's Shader 3.0 and fsx.cfg tweaks, I can now fly a Carenado Cessna 185F HD plane in the PNW demo from from the PNW Port Angeles enhanced to PNW's beautiful Bowman airstrip, all mostly in the mid 20s to 20 fps and ultra smooth. Most probably I could do this in a new i7 2600K rig at 60-90 fps, well for around £1000, and then I could also land at Boston in the pouring rain at dusk flying a PMDG NGX at 30fps. (if I had one).But I don't - instead I land an Airsimmer A320 Airbus at Boston (a nice addon), in FS9 with REX and ENB series bloom, at dusk in the pouring rain at 20-30ish fps. I do this less than once every six months. Its beautiful and immersive and looks quite like the Youtube videos of the real thing I've watched. However infuriating the Airsimmer can be, there are currently no Airbusses in FSX that are nearly as accurate.However, unless you are addicted to flight managing commercial jets between large airports day in day out (OK I'm just saying, nothing wrong with that:-), the real need for a large expensive FSX machine is still limited. Real pilots also often get their kicks in small GAs doing dangerous and addictive things...to alleviate the boredom of flight management day in day out. Just go to the Farnborough Airshow and see how many top BA pilots risk their lives to entertain us and themselves in fighter jets, aerobatics and gliders.Microsoft Flight! (don't forget the 'bang') looks nice - a bit like my FSX with FEX, GEX, UTX, ASE and the PNW demo, and of course better than the default FSX. It will probably be DX11 and all the rivets and paintwork will really shine etc and probably it will hardly move on anything less than a 990X or a 2800K rig and many of our existing addons for FS9 and FSX will not work - more $$$£££. Few of us will be either able or willing to go there unless we win Euromillions and then well all have real planes anyways. The Flight! news flashes talk a lot about fun - I am not tempted.There are times when I swear to assign my machine to the skip, but I must have scared it into still working. So I am not going back to FS9, I never left it and have no incentive to go completely to FSX either (what and lose FSNav!?). I reckon the bulk of us feel something like that. Half the fun of it is the satisfaction of getting your own digital world to work properly. Wouldn't you get bored just flying around at 90fps all the time? (OK that was a joke lol)So FS9 stays and FSX shines when required.Wonderful flying and full immersion to all.Ray

Hi Ray..<< However, unless you are addicted to flight managing commercial jets between large airports day in day out.... see how many top BA pilots risk their lives to entertain us and themselves in fighter jets, aerobatics and gliders. >>I agree. I am addicted to flying (not managing though) commercial jets (the NGX) AND F16's, AND Grobs, AND Archers etc. I like zooming through Hawaii/through the grand canyon/under Tower bridge in anything that flies.See my earlier post in this thread re my retaining FS9 and moving on to FSX. Having both FS9 and FSX gives me the best of both worlds (Sorry - best of both flying worlds). No doubt when I upgrade, I'll still keep both. (..but I also like those shots of Xplane...I may add that also)RegardsBill