The things you want for your FS will not go on this machine.
Honestly, fs9 would run reasonable.
Processor nothing less than 3.0 GHz (you might now that FS9 doesnt use more than one core, and FSX uses top 3 cores)
More RAM (fs9 would run ok with 3gb, now fsx thats a diferent ball game)never less than 4 gb ( im just following what you expect from FS).
Geforce 8200, thats a BIG NO, for both FS9 and FSX.Try 8800 gtx or the 260 gtx or something better.And be sure your PSU nothing less than 650w
I would look for something better.
Maybe you werent expecting this but, try to look some posts and you will see what the Experts say.
My comment is based, once again i need to say, in what you want from FS.

I have 9800 and it could be better.

For what SIM?
FS 9? its ok!!!
FSX ? forget it!!!

The problem with pc's is....we spend money and then we dont have the result we want.Building a machine and stay on MEDIUM i guess takes the moral of everyone.

For the comum mortal we need to make a choice.Or we have $ power and we can buy top hardware and it will work.Or we need to see our budget and choose, or we build a nice machine to run a "MAX" FS9 and a Medium FSX. Or we gather more money and we build a Max (if there is one) for FSX.

If someone cames here with a budget of $5000 i can give everything, even if you want a pink PC. But most of mortals have what..$600 or even $1000.Garantee a MAX FSX?Well it doesnt.

Take a look:
Quad core for FSX....for what?FSX it will not use more than 3.So you might put maybe $100 on your pocket.$100 you can use for memory, PSU, even a better graphic card.

I think like this (this is me thinking) i can't reach for now, to a machine that runs FSX the way i can run FS9.NO MONEY.
I look to my machine and i see, i need a PSU and a video card.
With a PSU of 650w, and a 8800 gt or gts or gtx, i spend $300.For now i get 25 fps with mine in FS9 with 80% traffic and with Aerosoft pro airports and pmdg, level D and so on.My FSX runs MEDIUM.If i upgrade this things i can get a few more details on FSX.Will it be 100%?
Never, but 70 or 75%.Maybe.

Can you buy a a good machine with $300? If you do, tell me, i want 10 of those.

But at least you spend some money and you improve a bit.
I see guys sepending $2000 and $3000 on a pc and you see them on the forums asking for help.Many things, we know have to do with tweaking? Yes, but not everything.

A choice as to be made. I WANT FSX AT MEDIUM, well at least you know you dont need a Quad for that so you can balance the budget.
Read whats going on. There are very good posts to help you decide and see what your budget can do.
And another thing, dont try overclocked before you know your Hardware.You can get good results but also burn your effort in seconds.

Cheers

SubZer0 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2009 at 11:47pm:


Not entirely so. From what I have read, it is my understanding that FSX uses core zero approximately 90% of the time and the remaining 10% is spread among the remaining 3 cores.

Taken just now on my i7 system:




As you can see, all 4 cores were being used...

They all averaged out at about 80%, Core 0 (1st core) being the most stable


That was with autogen set to VERY DENSE, over London, with FPS locked at 30, no stutters WHATSOEVER...

I dare you to try to get that performance with the same settings as mine (not just autogen, but everything else) on a dual core

Ok, After long discussions with my brain I finally decided I'm going to just get the computer to run FS9. I've now got my eye's on these: What one would you buy?

Baring in mind I have addon's like:
Active Sky
Ground Evironment
Flight Environment
Custom Made AI Traffic loads and loads of airliners
Level-D 767
Aerosoft airports
PMDG
and many more.

Option 1:

AMD Phenom X4 9750
(2.4GHz, 2MB Cache)
4GB memory
500GB hard drive
Blu-Ray player and DVD Rewriter
512MB ATI Radeon HD4350 graphics

£699 In PC World.

Option 2:

Intel® Core 2 Quad Q8300
(2.50GHz, 4MB Cache)
4GB memory
640GB hard drive
1GB NVIDIA® GeForce GT220 graphics

£699 in PC World.