Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jordanal

Request info on system specs

Recommended Posts

Hello all.I'm sure a lot of you will be relieved to know that this has nothing to do with FSX judging by the things i'm reading about that.I have been away from simming for quite a while. In that time I see that things have moved on quite a lot and I am no longer content with flying my 744 with poor graphics options in order to keep the fps up. So the obvious thing for me to do is upgrade my pc. The 744 was always the hardest hitting plane in my collection which is understandable considering the relic machine I was using. What i'm intersted to know is what system specs are you running and what kind of performance are you getting from it with the 744. Graphics options, fps etc etc. I'm not really concerned with vista and fsx because i'm not about to go out and spend a few grand on a new rig. I'm thinking more RAM, a duo core processor and graphics card. My aim is to get a steady 20-25 fps with most graphic detail on high especially weather and clouds at a decent resolution in FS9 and preferably in the VCSo anyone running fs9 with this bird I would like to know what your using and what your getting.At the moment i'm thinking of a modest 2.2ghz duo core setup with 2g of ram but am unsure what I could expect from it. Not very impressive for most of you i'm sure but a big leap from what i'm suffering at present. Also i'm curious to see any fs9 benchmarking sites you may know of.Thanks in advanceJames

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I get 40+ at basically all times in FS9, sometimes as high as 100 with my latest machine:Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600Gigabyte X38-DQ6 mobo (I don't recommend this board though due to BIOS issues I've had - get Abit, Asus or DFI)4GB G.Skill DDR2 1000BFGTech GeForce 8800GT 512MBCorsair 620HX 620W modular power supplyFor FS9 solely, I'd get the E8400 dual core CPU instead of the quad, since it has a higher clock rate and FS9 is not multicore aware. Video card really doesn't have all that much bearing on anything because FS is CPU limited. Better cards let you run higher resolutions and higher AA/AF levels, that's about it. I'm running 1920X1200 with 8XS AA and 16X AF on my 8800GT and it's a very cheap card now. (below $200)

Share this post


Link to post

Ryan,Could you answer that question again with a slant toward FSX and Vista please?Thanks,Don

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Don,See the FSX-Server specs in my sig below. I've been very happy with FSX and these components which will work just as well with Vista. Although, I still prefer XP-Pro becuase I can absolutley strip all the unwaneted processes and services to maximize the box just for FS. Conroe cores and DDR2 setups are not that expensive anymore and a prudent shopper will have no problem putting together a very very reasonable DDR2/Conroe sysetm.Another thought. Get a 64-bit (x64) copy of Vista or XP-Pro and 4GB of RAM. Doing this will alleviate the potential of running out RAM when combining FS, scenery addons, AI Aircraft, and the PMDG-744X, the combination of which, could generate an intermitent and very nasty OOM problem that many of us fought for a year or two in FS9. FSX and the 744X use even more RAM (or more correctly, user memory space). Utilizing a 64-bit OS allows the box to use more than 3GB which is the limitation of any 32-bit OS.Many folks (with very-open wallets) are now moving on to 45nm Intel cores, & DDR3 sticks of RAM, and a motherboard that supports them. Whether its a dual-core with a higher clock (or overclock) speed, which directly affects FPS or a Quad-core for an argueable improvment in scenery generation and smoothness. The choice is yours. Hope this helps...Regards,

Share this post


Link to post