That computer is too outdated to play FSX with modern add-ons at higher settings no matter how many upgrades. If that's your goal then you will not be able to achieve it with $200, so spending it would be nothing more than a waste of money.

In my opinion, you're best off saving until you can get an entirely new one. The slowest and cheapest computer that I would expect to run FSX well with addons is:


Intel Core i5-2400 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.4GHz Turbo Boost) $190
ASRock Z68 PRO3 GEN3 $112
4GB (2x2GB) DDR3-1600 CL9 $30
GTX 560 $180
Antec Three Hundred Case $60
500GB HDD 7200rpm $80
PC Power and Cooling Silencer MK III 600W $90
total: $742 + shipping not including rebates. Prices from newegg.

If you don't want to build it yourself then make sure to get that processor (or faster) as well as that videocard (or faster) and 4GB of RAM (or more).

Incidentally, this is about the same as the specifications that MS Flight runs on high settings with, according to MS.

I'm not sure about other countries but it seems in ithe U.K buying a system the can run FSX at high settings (i5 + with a dedicated graphics card) your looking at around at least £700 ($1 096.41US) and for something with an i7 you won't get much below £1000 ($1 566.3US). 

It seems to me that the base level processors never really change, I mean is a i3 any better than the bottom end intel of 5 years ago. I really don't think so.
I'm also only really talking about laptops, desktops are far to 20th century.



Anyway my point it I really don't understand who intel and such aim the i7s at because I certainly don't know anyone who is willing to spend that amount of money on a computer.

I run my FSX on a Dell Inspiron 15R 5010 3553 with an i3.
http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/Dell_Inspiron_15R_Core_i3_Gaming_Laptop_in_Black_...

I think that's probably the cheapest you can run fsx at a play able level.

I can run the VRS Superbug with scenery set to ultra high but autogen turned off with no anti Aliasing at about 20fps.

Same with the QW757. I can run the default props with everything on max with anti aliasing.
Having said that there's no chance you could run anything by PMDG on it.

I payed around £310 for the laptop.

Quote:



I understand that, I think computers really need to catch up, there's not many people who are willing to use a desktop these days. Apart from hardcore gamers. Also I'm a total computer novice and so are most my friends so overclocking isn't really something I would ever consider or have a clue how to do.

What's even more bizarre though is that in 2011 it requires an overclock state of the art processor to get the best performance possible out of a piece of software that was released 5 years ago.

I really hope microsoft get their act together with Flight.

Quote:

Higher frequencies with the same design will always put out more heat. Adding more cores will always put out more heat. So for the same amount of money, desktops will always be faster, there's no real way around it.

If you get a laptop you will have to spend a lot more to get the same performance if it's even possible at all.

Quote:

40% of PCs sold are desktops. Most users of which do not use demanding software like FSX.

On the steam (an online distribution platform for games (and simulators)) hardware survey, the top 14 graphics accelerators were desktop and 65% of users were using desktop graphics, 10% were using mobile graphics, and 25% could be using either.

Most people who use steam, an online distribution platform for games (and simulators) therefore are on desktops. I don't see why steam would be much different from the flight simulation community.

Quote:


Basically what this proves is real high performance in a computer system is only available to people who are willing have a desktop in there house with a cooling system comparable to that on your average size nuclear power plant. 

My comment that computers really need to catch up was basically saying manufactures of computer components need to deliver products to customers that do not require further modification (overclocking) and super cooling to make them run at their best.

Quote:


40% proves my point desktops are out dated for general personal use.

The only people I know who use desktops are my friends who use Macs, all of those are sound engineers and producers who need to be able to run Protools. The others are construction professionals who need to run autoCAD software most of them use Windows systems.

I am aware of what Steam is and it is hardly a unbiased place to conduct a survey considering it is a distribution platform dedicated to games. So anyone using is will be dedicated gamers. It's a bit like surveying the Xbox Live community on who is using an Xbox.

I guess the big decider is how you use FSX.

Obviously if you want to play something like Call of Duty you should have a desktop because it requires your full attention all the time.

Generally with FSX I will take off get to cruise, browse the net or watch t.v in my lounge then land.
Having a laptop means I don't have to walk to a different dedicated room every 10 minutes to check on what's happening with my flight.
In fact as I am typing this my Superbug is on it's way to Kai Tak. 

I do quite often fly manually but even then I would rather be sat on my nice comfy sofa with Comedy Central on in the back ground than be in a different room with a desktop.

@imagine

I've never built a PC my self by a friend of mine has and as far as hardware goes it's pretty simple. If you get the correct stuff that is all compatible then it just clicks together. 

On the other hand though I have no idea how to get it going once it's all put together. I'm guessing it's a case of putting in the windows disc and running it.

I'd also be interested to know how that works because it's the thing that has always put me off building a system in the past.  Hardware is simple there things that fit together. Software is like magic.

imagine wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 7:55pm:


Personally, I cannot stand buying computers from Dell, ACER (and so on) because even if they have the right processor, ram, and videocard... (they often don't) which are the important parts regarding performance... they may be difficult to upgrade or fix due to non-standardized design. As an example, years ago, my father had Dell 8400 that had a defective cooler that manifested itself outside of warranty period. The cooler did not use a standardized design so to fix the problem I had to import a cooler half way across the world, at significant cost (and it took over a week), to fix the problem.

Another issue is parts like the power supply and case may be skimped on leading to lack of upgradability and a loud computer. The power supply on a different Dell 8400, my one, was loud, inefficient, and not powerful enough to run a modern graphics card so it had to also be upgraded: and since the case wasn't designed for standardized power supplies in mind, the case had to be modified with a dremel. Speaking of the case, it was a loud bit of plastic fantastic crap made for dells proprietary cooling system and motherboard mounts and to top it off it had "DELL" plastered on the front.

Eventually the first Dell 8400 died in flames after about four years of use. The second died after three years of use due to reasons unknown. I also knew someone who had a Dell 8300 that eventually would only start booting up on hot days. Turns out the power supply had to be hot to turn on, so to start the computer you needed to blow a hairdryer at the power  supply to get it to turn on.

This sort of nonsense is typical, it's as if they want you to buy an entirely new computer each time something goes wrong with the old - because you have to jump through hoops to repair them. Maybe it's better today or I was just unlucky and the average user gets a much better experience but since I haven't dealt with one in years (because I make sure nobody I know buys them) I wouldn't know. I sure haven't looked back.

Today, the case I have is very quiet, easy to work on, very high quality, will fit anything and will probably last 10 years. The power supply has a five year warranty, is almost silent, and will last till the rest of the electronics is long gone. Everything is standardized. Since I don't mind working on the computer, I think it's much better. I plan on upgrading CPU, motherboard, and RAM later this year. I can do so without changing anything else. There is only warranties for the individual components, but not the entire thing as a whole, so I suppose that's a disadvantage.

Regarding building your own PC, I've seen people on forums kill components because they didn't know what they're doing - it's not really that hard to assemble yourself, but you need to do an hour of research to make sure you do everything properly. I suggest getting a computer store to build your computer for you (usually for a fee of $50-$100). It's usually about the same price as a Dell / ACER etc for what you get. That way you get the best of both worlds: you don't need to build it yourself and you get much better components. What part of the world are you from? What state or region? I can ask some people elsewhere to see if there's a good store they can recommend near you.

Here's some resources:

Should you build your own PC?

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/dmp2j/is_it_cheaper_to_build_my_own_de...

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/


How to:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-your-own-pc,2601.html

video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPIXAtNGGCw

If you don't want to deal with all these complications in choosing parts, finding the right store, I'm sure most don't, then maybe get a dell, acer, hp, or whatever. Just make sure it has a 2nd generation core i5 quad core at 3.1ghz or faster (i5-2400), 4gb of ram or more, and a gtx 560 or better.  That's my opinion, based on reading forums like this, on what will minimally run fsx well on decent settings with addons and flight without addons.

Your PC however should run FS9 well. Maybe more-so with a cheap graphics card. But I doubt you will ever get good performance with FSX without changing the entire thing.

I cannot guarantee that the recommended previous system will meet expectations, since I haven't tried it and everyones expectations vary. It's also possible a cheaper computer will give what you consider to be satisfactory performance. I also cannot guarantee the previously recommended system will work, even though I see no reason it shouldn't (and I would buy the exact same thing if I wanted decent FSX performance at lowest budget).

As always, get multiple opinions. 

Some other thoughts:

I forgot to add the cost of Windows 7 64 bit to the cost.

This applies to desktop computers only, you can't custom build a laptop in the same way. Some of the model numbers are different also on laptops.

A 1920*1080 or better screen makes MSFS much more enjoyable.

Out of interest I just had a look at desktop systems and in the U.K a high spec system i7 2600k at 3.4Ghz, Nvidia 1GB GTX 550 Ti etc your looking at around £760+ ($1,186US). Is that a comparable price around the world or are we being over changed here in the U.K because £760 for what is called an 'Entry Level' gaming systems seems an awful lot of money!