Will this PC handle FSX?

[emiliocardenasr 0]

Now that the patch is out, I really want to know if my PC will handle FSX. Of course as it is is going to stay stick to FS9 until every add-on for FS9 can be used in FSX.This are my specs:- 1 x Intel Box Pentium 4 650 3.4 GHZ 2 MB 800FSB.- 2 x 800MHZ DDR2 1GB Sticks.- 1 x Asus P5B Motherboard.- 1 x Nvidia GeForce 7300GT, PCX16X, 512MB (Buying GTS 8800 in December)- 1 x Caviar SE 16 250GB Hard Drive- Every other thing I bet it

[Guest Spud]

That rig w/ the new vid card will "handle" FSX, just not at top (or near top) resolutions...I would wait until you've upgraded your computer. I think you'd be partially disappointed in the performance in relation to your FS9.

[Guest icenine35]

I agree, you will be horribly disappointed. To get decent fps you will have to crank down the settings so low that FS9 will look and perform much better for you. Wait a year and buy a new PC would be my advice. I should have done the same.

[Guest LSflyguy]

I'll offer a different perspective: I'm running FSX on an older AthlonXP system (specifications not very different from yours, except that you have twice as much RAM), and with SP1 it's very playable as long as I don't try to max out all the sliders. I still feel it's a BIG step ahead of FS9, which I'll delete from my hard drive as soon as the Level-D 767 is updated for FSX. With FS9 you can max everything out, install lots of add-ons, move the sliders all the way to the right, and still get good performance. FSX is simply more demanding, mainly because its graphics are significantly better. So is your current PC good enough to "handle" FSX? Definitely yes. Is it good enough to handle FSX with the same performance that you'd get from a Core2Duo and better graphics card? Of course not. The answer is basically a matter of your own expectations, and whether you can live with performance that's "excellent" but probably not "outstanding." It's really something that only you can answer, but I'll say that I was enjoying FSX immensely, even before SP1. I just couldn't fly it in the most dense scenery areas with my current rig. Ciao! P.S. One other thing that helped my performance was to have a PCI sound card, as it frees up CPU cycles which helped boost FSX noticeably. I also use my video card's overclocking utility, which also adds a significant performance boost.

[Guest icenine35]

I feel your commentary is a bit misleading stating that he could see excellent performance with his hardware. First I should note that I really, really wanted FSX to perform well on my machine. I bought FSX Deluxe Edition with high expectations only to be horribly disappointed. After waiting for SP1, I am still not seeing the performance I would expect (e.g. a solid 20-25 fps which I feel is a very reasonable expectation.)On my AMD X2 4600+ w/2G of RAM and a 512MB X1950 Pro, I'm looking at 12-17 fps with regular dips down to 10 fps and my sliders are all set to med-low to med-high with bloom, lens flare, etc. turned off. If you feel this is excellent performance, your perception of performance is highly skewed in favor of FSX compared to mine. Also, with the settings I must configure to get those frames, FS9 is far superior visually with add-on aircraft, Ultimate Terrain, and GE Pro to name a few (not including my add-on scenery for airports, etc.) If you want to talk performance, why not post some real numbers and not anecdotes?I'm not trying to be harsh, but I feel some balanced reporting is in order.