Best System for PMDG Add Ons

[Guest Astrojet 112]

Hi Guys,I am thinking of upgrading and would like to know what you thinkwould be the best system for your add ons.#1. A P4 3.4 /800 FSB w/1 meg level 2/1 gig DDR 400/PCI-E Radeon X600or#2. an Athalon 3800 64 with a G Force 5700.Thanks,Astro

[B777ER 2,474]

Whatever you get, make sure to get at least 1GB of RAM. The PMDG 737 (through personal tests) uses around 150-200MB or RAM. Combine that with FS9 using around 550MB plus XP needing around 128MB and you can see where we are headed with this. Nevermind using a wx program or flying online with the associated programs required or third-party scenery. But just think, if your system can handle the PMDG737, it can surely handle other third-party planes as this one uses the most resources of any available payware out there. I dearly hope their 744 uses less than this resource hog does.

[Guest ahmedem]

I see you've chosen a pci-e x600, which is what I've got now. good card overall but I've seen it struggle an awful lot with clouds in FS, it handles the PMDG 737 well though. I think PCI-E is the way to go, but if you can afford to go for an x800 then it could be worth it imho.I'll echo what's written above about the memory, very important to get at least 1GB, personally I'd choose system #1 (in fact that's pretty much what I have now, and I'm pleased) I'm more of a fan of Intel and Ati and not so much AMD and nVidia that's why, personal choice really.EDIT: @Eric, if you think the NG is a resource hog try the PSS A330/340, almost kills my machine everytime, down to <10fps in the clouds, still think its a great plane though.Hope it helps,

[Guest Astrojet 112]

Thanks Eric and Ahmed,I notice that PMDG uses P4's as refrence for their system requirements.However, everything I read these days raves about the Athalon 64 chips over the Pentiums. Then I read posts saying that may be the case for Doom or Half Life but not for FS9. So it's confusing to say the least.Astro

[Tabs 2,790]

I think it's pretty well established that AMD is beating the crap out of Intel now as far as gaming performance, I'm not even considering a P4 for my next upgrade in a few months - it will be a socket 939 Athlon 64 with an nForce 4 motherboard and PCIe GF6800GT.If you're on a budget with the vid card, look into the GF6600GT - got great reviews and it's only like $180 in the PCIe version.

[Guest Buck Bolduc]

A few monthes back I built a new machine.Athlon 64-3400 754 socket 1 mb L2.MSI Neo fsr2 mobo, KT-800 etc.I gig Corsair pc-3200 400 mhz LLP memmoryAntec 430 watt True Power PSU.WD 74 gig Raptor x2 HD's RAID-0.NVidia 6800 GT 256.Dual boot Win XP Pro 32 bit & Win XP Pro 64 bit beta evaluation OS.This machine runs everything maxed out in FS9, AA set at 8x, Anatsrophic (or whatever the hell it is) set at 16x.FPS never falls below 40 fps or so, no matter what!I boot Win XP Pro 64 off of a 40 gig ATA-100 HD.FS9 runs faster on it, than it does on Win XP 32-bit, using NVidia vid driver 66.98.If I were to build a new one now?CPU, 939 pin fastest you can afford.MSI Diamond NForce 3-4 w/dual channel memmory.2 gig Corsair memmory, the fastest availible.At least an Antec 430 watt PSU, so quiet you cant hear this rig, once you have a machine this quiet you will never want to go backwards, trust me!It's a bit early for PCI-e and SLI, IMHO.The VIA KT-890 is a hell of a chip!Why not buy a 64 bit capable CPU?, it costs no more!Win XP 64 will be released soon.I grant you there are few 64 bit apps out yet, however, when will MS recompile FS to 64 bits? It may be a few years, or not? A 64 bit OS will make things possible wrt flight sims that one can only emagine now. But FS9 still runs FASTER with 64 bits!I'v built over 75 machines this year for customers, all custom built, all but 2 were Athlon-64's. Gamers love em!Good Luck

[Guest Buck Bolduc]

Forgot to say.Just got a Viewsonc 21" crt monitor.I can read the panel better now unzoomed, than I could with the 2D panel zoomed.The AC's and associated graphics are stunning, well worth the price.Best

[Guest Astrojet 112]

Thanks Ryan and Buck,I really appreciate the advice!Astro

[Guest Astrojet 112]

Buck,One more question if I may...How important is the 939 socket over a 754 socket?Would an A 64 3500 in a 939 be better than an A 3700 in a 754?Thanks,Astro

[Guest Buck Bolduc]

>Buck,>>One more question if I may...>>How important is the 939 socket over a 754 socket?>Would an A 64 3500 in a 939 be better than an A 3700 in a>754?>>Thanks,>>AstroThe 754 pin socket is allready nearing it's end of life as an Ahtlon-64 socket. It will continue as a Semperon socket however. AMD has announced thier intensions to upgrade the onboard memmory controller, however it's not sure if AMD will include the E0 stepping for 754 based processors. The other question is: Will any mobo makers build mobos to take advantage?The new 90nm E0 processors with the updated mem controllers will allow for much more flexible memmory. You will be allowed to install example: Three double sided dims of 1 gig each and maintain a 400 mhz speed, right now I can only use 2 of the three slots on my mobo and keep 400mhz speed. If I install memmory in all three slots the memmory speed drops to 333mhz. Thats one difference. So I am limited to 2 gig (2x1 gig dimms).The new procs will be released shortly and will be much improved over what is now availible. They will run cooler and faster. You dont need the fastest, IMHO the 939 pin socket will be around for quite some time as a high end proc socket. So when you build a machine using a 939 pin you will an oppertunity to upgrde to a faster proc at some future date.Good Luck

[Guest cw1011]

The Prescott P4s run very hot - limiting over-clocking, and in the faster models, Tom's Hardware has theorized, the problem is so bad that they are seeing heat-related throttling back of the clock speed. I would go with the Athlon 64 3500+ and put the extra money saved over the 3800+ into the very best video card and mobo you can find. The 3500+ is a great deal at around $300, the new 90 nm architecture is running very cool - lots of OC capability. I'm driving that cpu with an AV8 mobo, 1 gig of Samsung pc3200 ddr, and an x800 XT platinum card and the sim is running smooth as silk, pegged at 27 fps with fairly agressive settings, though still using the reduced fps cloudset from way back. I havn't even opened the bios yet to start exploring over-clocking. My only regret is not going for the SLI capability, but right now FS9 does not support SLI, and no word on the next version. Good luck.

[Guest nat2005]

hello,I have just had a new motherboard (ASUS K8V-X), and processor (AMD 64 3000+) fit. I have 1.25GB DDR RAM, GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB RAM Graphics card, and two 60GB hard drives. I have been reading your forums, Buck Bolduc, and you quote that you get 50FPS i think it was, you also said something about running WIN XP or FS2004 in 64 bit mode, how do you do that? And last of all, i have allot of add-ons, and at the moment i average 10-20FPS (i have the 737PMDG aswell). Yours and my system are very similar, apart from the graphics card, do you think if i was to buy a GeForce 6800GT 256MB it would increase my FPS up to 30-40?I know its allot of questions, soz,Cheers,Nathanial

[slip-stream 5]

This is my new rig...Processor: Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939 CPU fan: Standard Fan Motherboard: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe Socket 939 PCI-Express Graphics card: Dual GeForce 6800 GTs in SLI configuration Memory: 1GB Corsair TwinX PC3200 Hard disk drive 1: Caviar SE 200GB S-ATA 150 Now you say that FS9 does not support SLI, correct, but we just need someone to use nHancer to convert it. http://www.nhancer.com/help/sli.phpI currently run fs9 maxed out on just the one card at X16 PCIe.

[Guest Robin.B]

Why bottleneck excellent processors with average video cards? I would recommend the second choice but with a 6800GT instead. If you can't afford the 6800GT then ease back on the processor and get an A64 3500 instead with the 6800GT. Also as everyone said you will need 1GB ram min.Remember; a computer is only as fast as it's slowest piece.

[Guest Buck Bolduc]

>Why bottleneck excellent processors with average video cards?>I would recommend the second choice but with a 6800GT instead.>If you can't afford the 6800GT then ease back on the processor>and get an A64 3500 instead with the 6800GT. Also as everyone>said you will need 1GB ram min.>>Remember; a computer is only as fast as it's slowest piece. >>Update: After doing a little tweaking, my frames are a bit higher.Lately I'v been flying the long hauls with LDS-767. My frames are up to 80-90 in spot view, about 40 FPS avg. in 2D panel, 25-30 in VC view.Once in a while I see the FPS flash to 100 FPS in spot view, alas, just a glimps.A question was asked in an earlyer post about the difference 754 vs 939. I'v built a few machines using the 939 A-3500/512 L2 cache. They benchmark allmost the same as the A-3400/1Meg L2 cache. The additional L2 does indeed make a difference. The diff. between those chips are too small to measure in any meaningfull way. The A-3500's were not E stepping.If I were to build myself a system now I would go one or two ways.1:939 mobo, A64-4000, 2 meg Corsair memory 2-2-2-5 Comand Rate T1.And keep my GT-6800, 2x WD 74 gig Raptors.2:939 mobo SLI Nvidia 4, same memory as above, dual NVidia GT 6800, A64-4000, same memory as above.In both cases I would keep my Anrec 430 watt PSU.In any event, you really want the 1 Meg L2, really makes a diff. with FS & addons.Luck