This says it all !http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2059176,00.asp

Good frame rates, like beauty, are very much in the eye of the beholder. One man's fluid is anothers slide show. Nobody is truely right or wrong. If it's a good framerate for YOU then it's a good framerate. You shouldn't really care if someone else finds it poor because it's your copy of FSX nobody elses. Equally, if YOU think the framerate is poor then for YOU it is. It's your copy of FSX so it's up to you as to what you want to see.

I'm gunna stay way out of this one ;-)Gary

It's interesting to note that - according to the graphs - they used FS2004 for the last 2560x1600 test. It surely didn't fare very well either there, did it?

Nice try, but bzzzt! Two pages back on the review the six games that are benchmarked are listed, and FS2004 ain't one of them. Also, why would they change one game title for just the last test? It's a typo.Gary

18fps @ 3.8Ghz now you do the math..

Interesting! It's strange FSX gets an avg 8-14 fps with AA/AF turned off and 5-13 fps with AA/AF turned on. I'm thinking there should be a bigger difference in fps. If the sliders were turned on to the max, then the fps aren't too bad. Thanks for the link!Jim

I will do the math turn off bloom use different A.I. you can double the FPS easy.OR save a ton of money and get a single core cpu its that simple.For now I will enjoy my FSX But I only run mine at 1280x1024 with good FPS.

Yes I get good frame ratesWith regard to AA and AF I notice no difference with FPS at 4xAA/ 8XAF same as with zero on both.John

Well, to everybody that is enjoying FSX, I am happy you are :)I never got the bugger to satisfy me , so I remain a FS9, or a X-Plane flyer. It's supposed to be fun! I am just glad that MS has a return policy, which I say is quite decent, no matter what you think of FSX!Smooth landings to you, no matter what you fly....

just goes to show what a pathetic piece of programming junk FSX is, if a $5000 machine gets 15 fps, this is pathetic.

Well it's a great game all things considered. It just has a SERIOUS frame rate problem. The Aces devs have to get this performance problem under control soon. This is by far the worst performing sim I have flown and I started with FS2000. This is equal to or worse in performance than FS2000 was easily. Every time i think I am doing ok on frame rates then i get socked in the nose with reality when i take off from some remote ranch in Montana to be greeted with 13fps with mid to low sliders...ughhh.

Each core runs at 3.8GHz, which I'm sure would spank anything else earlier Intel or anything AMD right now with just one single core in use. The math is pretty simple. FS is almost entirely CPU bound. 18 FPS divided by 3.8GHz of the most optimised CPU out there at the moment = 211MHz per FPS. So to see the 40 FPS many of us are seeing as an average with the old FS9 right now on even lesser rigs, we'll need an 8.4GHz core in a couple of years time. But wait, cores are getting more plentiful but not any faster if you look at the current AMD and Intel roadmaps, so how will FSX ever come to fruition in its current form?Gary

>just goes to show what a pathetic piece of programming junk>FSX is, if a $5000 machine gets 15 fps, this is pathetic.I spent an hour or so flying around FSX's Hawaii yesterday in the default CJ jet. 25 fps with water "off" which still provides several shades of blue around the island of Oahu. Auto-gen is still off, but all those high rises and airport buildings are there. Subdivisions now have photo-type textures. Also had a good mix of clouds for some excellent looking effects. One thing for sure, smooth and no stutter.Ever compared FSX's Hawaii to FS9's, even with addon mesh?I'll just say, that the FS9 version looks very drab in comparison. The increased resolution of FSX's textures puts those of FS9 to shame. And the default mesh is much more refined too. I'm more into the photo clarity look, and FS9 just doesn't do it.After the FSX flight, I did the same in FS9. The Honolulu airport experience is better in FS9 with a lot of traffic, vehicles, etc. But once I'm in the climbout, it's no contest. FSX just wins, as FS9's auto-gen becomes a bit on the cartoonty side along with less than pleasant looking muddy ground textures. Try a wing view such as the default 777 on climbout in FSX. It's a very real look. L.Adamsonedit: Athlon64 3800+/2GIG/Geforce 7600256MB/1600*1200*32Perhaps does better than some multi cores?

Lets see $50.00 for FSX $5000.00 for computer. I would thingk the computer costing $5000.00 is more of the pathetic piece of junk. Really do you some of you think you need $5000.00 worth of computer to have fun with game software.If you can afford it fine if not try something else like the sliders.:) My FSX runs great on my old almost 2 year old computer..............FSX is better out of the Box then FS9 so it needs more computer power just a fact.