computer upgrade/MD-11

[cavaricooper 2,613]

I just bought this:Product number GC674AAIntroduction date 29-May-2007Country/region sold in: USCanadaHardwareBase processor Core 2 Quad E6600 (K) 2.4 GHz1066 MHz front side busSocket 775Chipset Intel P965Motherboard Manufacturer: AsusMotherboard Name: P5BW-LAHP/Compaq motherboard name: Basswood3G-UL8EMemory Component Attributes Memory Installed 3 GB Maximum allowed 8 GB (4 x 2 GB) (64-bit OS) 4 GB* (4 x 1 GB) (32-bit OS) *Actual available memory may be less Speed supported PC2-5300 MB/sec Type 240 pin, DDR2 SDRAM Hard drive 640 GB (2 x 320) SATA 3G (3.0 Gb/sec)7200 rpm16X DVD(+/-)R/RW 12X RAM (+/-)R DL LightScribe SATA drive Must use Double-Layer media discs in order to take advantage of the DL technology Must use LightScribe-enabled media discs and supporting software in order to take advantage of the LightScribe technology I know that OEM systems are not great for overclocking- but I'm hoping not to (or at the most some light ClockGen stuff) and I got a good deal and didn't want to wait any longer. I am using my nVIDIA 7900GS from my old computer (A 64 4000+ at 2.4GHz) and will try to run FS9 on Vista until the DX10 cards are out (thoughts??).Ryan and Lefteris (and others with knowledge in this area), could you PLEASE review and advise if it will suffice for FSX (747400X/MD11/737NX). I plan on upgrading the VC soon (waiting on DX10). Also, the power supply, and MAYBE the memory (currently 3 GIGs of PC2-5300 but the Asus board supports PC800 memory).Also, the drives (2 x 320) are SATA3 and RAID 0 compatible. Any TANGIBLE bentfit to RAID 0 or just put FS on the second drive?I will look over all the Vista and FSX knowledge bases in OPS but again, planning on FS9 until the 400X is released (at least :)Thanks- and sorry for the rambling.Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[Guest mickeymouse]

I've been looking at some "name brand" gaming computers and came up with a few that might do the job for FSX. I just want to make sure that these systems will support flight sim X.The first one is the alien area 51 alx.second is from voodoo computers, "the insane" version, which is quite a bit more expensive than the first. It is not my intention to "plug" these systems, only to make sure that if I spend my hard earned money, it will give me the BEST performance available. I'm sick and tired of using a system that can not perform the way the game is intended. I've also looked into building a computer, but I run into the lack of support in case I have problems.Once again, any help would be greatly appreciated.Chris aka "ready to spend some money"

[cavaricooper 2,613]

OK- after considering wiping the drives and going back to XP I am trying to convince myself to stay with Vista- the thought is we will all (for the most part)be there eventually anywhere- so I might as well get used to it now......Ryan and Lefteris and other "gurus" PLEASE chime in with your thoughts on this and the rest.My questions now boil down to:a)Should I upgrade the RAM anytime soon (currently PC2-5300- not 800MHZ) or will this be ok? Do you think there would be a TANGIBLE difference- I really am not concerned about performance tests- just the overall FS experience.b)Should I convert to RAID 0? Currently Vista and everything else is on one drive :C (which is also partioned to :D for the restore directory) and the second drive :E has FS9 only. These are SATA 3G drives- so am I really looking at a TANGIBLE difference? There is a utility for this pre-installed so it should not be too difficult if needed.c)Currently using my old nVidia 7900GS- confirm that it would be best to wait for the 2nd generation DX10 cards instead of upgrading now......d)With this setup, and with SP1 for FSX- would the 747-400 and the upcoming MD11 run WELL- 24+FPS at EGLL/KJFK or KATL/KORD?Thanks- and keep your fingers crossed!Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[Guest D17S]

Never upgrade ram just for speed. Ram speed numbers (DDR2 this-or-that) are just speed ratings, like a tire. A tire rated at 80.0 mph will not make the tire run at 80.0 mph. You must drive the tire to that speed with something. For a computer, that 'something' is the Front Side Buss. So, . . . 1) First, you must be (somewhat) familiar with bios setups to get any speed benefit (at all) from ram that has a faster speed rating. Just pluggin' it in won't do it, 2) and Second, you will need scientific instrumentation to tell any difference between ram speed increases, even if you manage setup the bios correctly.3) It's entirely not worth the trouble (that is, unless you're a an entirely mad scientist, like me. There is a 'fun factor' to consider)Raid: Well, if you have the hardware, do it for sure. You will double your tranfer rates . . . but this is NoT the whole story for FS. Our game loads 15-25K files for a flight. That's why it takes so long. The drive has to transfer these files into ram. That's where an increased transfer rate will help. But first, the drive has to find the files. That's called "Access Time." This Access Time is an extremely large part of the total time it takes to load a flight. A Raid will not help decrease access times. Those 10K RPM Raptors have much better access times, but a raided set of 7200s will provide faster transfer rates every time. It's a trade-off. Performance wise, I'm guessing that a 2-3 drive 7200 raid will load flights in about the same time as one 10K RPM Raptor. With a Raptor, transfer rates will be slower (vs a raid), will loose 200-300% in capacity ($ for $), but you will get a 25% decrease in access time. Is it worth it? IMhO, this is a huge increase in cost for a marginal (at best) benefit. But this might be a final straw: It appears that Raptors are broken with Vista: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/06/25/w...ice-with-vista/Danger, Will Robinson.So, back to the 7200 RPM raids? Well, maybe. Consider this comparison for FS: I have found that the most noticeable decrease in load times came from using Ultimate defrag with a single drive. The theory is that data on the outside edge of a HD's platter can be accessed faster because it is rotating faster. Ultimate Defrag has a feature where you can select any folder to be placed at the outer edge of your HD. I told it to put the entire FSX/9 folders out there and I noticed a difference. The listed access times in the HD's technical data sheets are averaged access times. The fastest data loads are coming from the outside edges and the slower from inboard of that. The Raptor's access time numbers are averages too. Since the 7200 RPM-ers are accessing files from the fastest area, might the 7200-er's actual access times be approaching the Raptor's averaged access times? Hummm. Gotta take it where you can. Then, I tried to Ultimate DF my (2 drive, 7200 RPM) Raid 0 with this same method and found it made NO difference. Raid pre-Ultimate DF and post-Ultimate DF flight load times did not change. Bumnmer. However after Ultimate DF-ing my single HD and my Raid 0 are now loading the FSX splash screen, then the Amazon and Quito approach missions in exactly the same amount of time. Hummm? I don't think Ultimate is handling my raid in an 'optimal' fashion. If I could get the data out the the edges of my raid drives, that'd be the ticket, but so far it seem that isn't happening. Access time is a Big Deal in FS. To sum up. If you have the hardware, go with a raid 0. FS is not the only thing you do and you'll notice the machine feels much more responsive. You must have a backup (a 3rd drive). Vista has a whole-drive image maker that I can (thankfully) testify works fine. If you only have 2 drives, use one for you system and the other for backup. Do NoT Raid 1. Make an image onto the second drive, then unplug it.

[Sharpedge 0]

Hello all,If you are in the UK, the latest edition of Custom PC magazine has an article on what type of setup is required to run FSX. Get a copy and have a look, not only will you see what system they tested it on, you also have the best mag for getting info on future upgrades.Justin

[cavaricooper 2,613]

Thanks Sam-Thats EXACTLY the sort of response I was hoping for- clear and analytical. As I do not have an extra HD at this time, I will wait to RAID 0 the drives. Glad to hear the memory timings are also something measured by tests- not real FS experiences.Now- do the pundits think this will run FSX ok? Also, what is the best way to run successfully in a window- I hate Full Screen mode- and never have found it any faster (IMHO). Also- is there an app like Ken's FSAutoStart (or will it run ok in Vista as well)? I suppose I could manually shut these down- I lost my CH joysticks and button controls (no joysticks active in FS9- just through FSUIPC due to the TG) and then later a HUGE slow down in Denver last night- then I figured out that AVG was running a full scan :(Also, I am running the "texturemaxhold" and some other tweaks from this site- what frame rate do you suggest locking at- currently at the previous 24- but I would like to let this processor run wide open :)Thanks again- and please weigh in on the FSX opinions (i.e. if it will run successfully on this machine.Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[cavaricooper 2,613]

OK- up and running FS9 with a LOT more detail. Locked the FPS at 25 and using most of the VOZ/Koorby tweaks. What program killers (used to use FSAutoStart- what do I use now?) are available for VISTA what particular FS9.cfg tweaks work best for the 744/F? Also, if you run nVidia (and this is NOT a video chip preference survey ;)- what nVidia Control Panel settings work well for you, again, primarily for the 747-400/400F........thanks!If this turns into a good resource, I will upload to PMDG OPS for others- thanks and sorry for the psuedo-hijack mickymouse :)Uber Moderator :) Ryan and Lefteris and ALL other Computer Guru/PMDG Afficianados- PLEASE chime in- I value your opinions greatly- thanksBest-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[cavaricooper 2,613]

Ryan- from your prior postings it seems like you check this forum quite often- would you please review this post and comment re. the MD11 and 747-400F (X) running on this system under Vista and FSX? I would really appreciate it as you and Lefteris and very few others (perhaps Robert would comment as well?) are the only ones I know of actually running that software now. Thanks, I know its a pain to have to respond to one user, but please oblige when possible. Thank you very much- and if you could flag Lefteris for a second opinion I would be eternally grateful (ok, maybe just very grateful :).Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[cavaricooper 2,613]

Perhaps the most significant tip I have found for running FS9 in Vista was from Ryan in the nVidia graphics forums. Apparently the nVidia drivers (for Vista) are not optimized yet and there is a flag issue with the AA function. Ryan points to the nTuner software. A download and setup later I was flying the -400 in resplendant glory. Thanks Tabs- see my confidence in you was well placed! BTW this "fix" apparently works for FSX as well- same nVidia issue. Hopefully the next driver release will have this resolved.I'm guessing Ryan, Lefteris et al are too busy (hopefully because of a pending release-we can only hope) to be bothered with this thread right now. Perhaps someone, anyone, who is CURRENTLY running the -400X could look this thread over and offer insight into how it will run on my specs?My concern is after all the upgrading, I am still locked at 25FPS, lens flare off, texture blending off, AI at 0 and sun glare off. Also low water texture and No dynamic scenery. It is smooth but I am only running default scenery. Admittedly I fly mostly in the EGLL area and almost always online, but Squakbox and ACARs run on a separate machine. Shouldn't I be able to turn on everything and STILL have good frame rates or is this just a by-product of Vista? Will the specific quad core support in FSX lead to better performance under FSX (yes, I have read all the initial reports PRIOR to SP1- so I am aware this might be a pie in the sky- no pun intended)?Thanks for your time! Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[Guest mickeymouse]

I had recently posted about upgrading to a new system. A few options which included some of the top five computers, i.e. dell, gateway, alienware, voodoo, hp, etc. Could anyone with a vast knowledge of what to buy, and what will be compatible with FSX stear me in the right direction. Trying to stay under $5,000.00 usd.Thanks again,ChrisPMDG aircraft are heavy hitters on the FPS. Need something that is not going to stutter when I look out the window at fl 310.

[michal 44]

There is never a single best answer what kind of hardware would perform best. If I were you I would simply wait until PMDG products are available for FSX and listen to what performance/problems people encounter and learn from that. Also on your list of high-end gaming PCs makers I see one name missing - Falcon Northwest.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[cavaricooper 2,613]

>There is never a single best answer what kind of hardware>would perform best. If I were you I would simply wait until>PMDG products are available for FSX and listen to what>performance/problems people encounter and learn from that.>Also on your list of high-end gaming PCs makers I see one name>missing - Falcon Northwest.>>Michael J.>http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpgMichael- were I blessed with more patience- that would be perfect. As I (and a few others) have been chomping at tht bit- putting off any thoughts of using FSX until there are PMDG birds to fly- I want to be READY for them- when they finally arrive!As the Beta team (and repainters) are the only ones actually using the combination (FSX and 400X)- their input is what I keep (unsuccessfully) trying to obtain :(. I would agree that Falcon Systems are worth a look.Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[razorseal 0]

the P35 chipset is nice, I wish I had gone for that... I just bought a new system with 680i, I'll be behidn the game rather soon because of this because mine does not suppot 45nm... :(however, if you are going to get a Q6600 MAKE SURE you wait until august or so because the new ones (post july 22nd) will have G0 stepping which means they will run cooler, which means more OC :) the vendors need to sell their curent ones before they order again :)I have a 4400 right now OC'd to a stable 3.2 I can get it to 3.7 but it start getting iffy so :(also if you can spare 300 bux or so, get a nice cooling kit from petra, well money spend imo. if not get the best air cooler out there. cooling is the key to perf.

[cavaricooper 2,613]

Am I just not getting it? What is the purpose of this silence? I have REPEATEDLY asked, nay begged, the FSX/400X team to respond and nothing! If you recall, in earlier heated posts, I was one advocating patience and non-insistance on time-lines- urging less patient voices to give PMDG time to release another superb add-on. This time- I am getting impatient! I cannot seek other opinions- as there is no other group running 400X. Surely 5 minutes of someone's time in the Beta group is not too unreasonable to ask for. I am sorry, but at the moment I do not feel valued as a PMDG "LOYAL SUPPORTER".Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[michal 44]

>This time- I am getting impatient! I cannot seek other>opinions- as there is no other group running 400X. Surely 5>minutes of someone's time in the Beta group is not too>unreasonable to ask for. I am sorry, but at the moment I do>not feel valued as a PMDG "LOYAL SUPPORTER".Instead of being "impatient" you should invest more time and read this forum more carefully. I distinctly recall that Robert made numerous comments within the last couple of months (since release of SP1) about the hardware and what seems to work better (for the beta testers). They also promised to eventually provide more concrete benchmarks what user might expect on some platforms.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg