Archived

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

Guest IceWinGs

This PC hopefullybe good enough for fsx!

Recommended Posts

Well the MD-11 comes closer and closer each day and the fact that it will be released on the fsx platform (not sure how long it would take to crossover of fs9) first iv decided to fork out over the next coming months to build a current spec pc and dump my dx9 rig.iv attached my specs which ill be buying, ill have both xp and vista OS's. So yeah the question is will this bloody run fsx fairly high? (even on xp). atm fsx looks like a pizza even pretty much the lowest running bairly 20fps with the 747-400X, i hear also that the MD-11 has been optimised quite abit so iv got my hopes up atm :D.So any feedback from what u think or ppl that have similar parts r already getting with the 747-400X would be greatly appriciated.Many thanks,Kaveesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Kaveesh, The Intel Core 2 CPUs are far superior to AMDs right now. I'd suggest getting an Intel X48 or P45 based motherboard (something like the Asus Rampage Formula or the Asus P5Q Pro) and a Core 2 Duo or Quad CPU (either the E8500 Duo or the Q9550 Quad) CPU is much more important in FSX than the graphics card - you won't see much benefit from the 4870 X2 in FSX - only in GPU intensive games such as Crysis. If you're buying this just for FSX and not other games, I'd save money and just get a single regular 4870, not the X2.The Ageia PhysX card is completely useless by the way - do not buy that. Ageia was bought by Nvidia last year and Nvidia's already integrating physics into their graphics cards. Nothing further is going to come out that supports that board and almost nothing does right now even. It's a waste of money.You could save some money on Vista too by getting Home Premium instead of Ultimate - there's virtually nothing a gamer really needs in Ultimate that isn't in Home Premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kaveesh! I have that same cpu,it's good but Intel based cpu's are faster right now just like Ryan is saying.Go for a fast cpu,never mind quad-core,just go for speed instead of multiple cores.I still can't run FSX decently even with that cpu!I still have fs9 and I'm sticking with it for a long time to come...Flight simulator is hungry for cpu not graphic cards (that's another truth).I would spend more money for the cpu.David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not get that setup. Go with an intel quad i.e. q9450, get a 750i from evga, buy very low latency 4gb memory not 5-5-5-15 but lower, get a 8800gts 512mb or something of that caliber. If I were you I would spend spend you money different than what you were going to do. Oh and for your cpu cooler buy a thermalright hr01+ or a thermalright ultra 120 extreme. The biggest mistake I saw you doing was buying an amd nvidia board and then buying ati graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.I would say to buy the best PC you can afford.I know there are people on here saying about Duo Core is better than Quad Corefor FSX and graphics cards are not as imporatnt as processor speed etc,they may be right as we stand at this moment in time.But take alook at FSX now and see how visually great it can be,especially the water effects.My thinking is things will only improve with the next Flight Sim release and the add-ons other companys like PMDG release.Dont be stuck with something that is out of date in about a years time, try and future proof yourself as far as poss and if that means having high spec graphics cards,Quad Core processors,vast amounts of RAM go for it.I will agree though I wouldn't go for ATI graphics cards,Nvida all the time,though try to avoid the GTX260 and go for the 280 if you can afford it.My system is Windows Vista 64 bit, Quad Core 2.86,8gb RAM,2x512mb 9800GTX+ graphics cards in SLi configuration and FSX runs fantastic in ultra High settings.Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are wrong on the ATI cards - I've had a 4870 for about a month now and it's an awesome card. Beats anything out there aside from the much more expensive GTX280.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your quick replys, yeah i agree with ryan the current generation ati's are impressive both with peformance and quality iv always prefered ati shader qual. but anyway thats another debate that changes day by day model by model.Yeah i had a look at the intel cpus, boy they r lightyears ahead but pricey. The way i go about building a system is find a high end chipset that i want (nvidia right up there so i went for that) and then find a manafactur (ASUS ROG have high engineering standards) then build everything incl cpu and ram etc around it. As for the an ati card on an nvidia been doin it scince the nforce 2 chipsets and had not a single problem or drop in performance. Although putting nvida cards on an nvida chipsets gives some turbo and bandwidth boosts on slected nivida cards but not much iv heard and vid card can be changed anytime too.btw ryan i went for the X2 not just for fsx but im hoping there are no compatiblity problems with it if there are ill go for the single 4870 cos FSX is the priority atm.So ill have a look around at intel stuff tnight but yeah u guys recon the performance is worth the price? i didnt want to end up forking another grand to realise i got like a 8fps boost. Thats the reason why i went amd its cheaper overall for some avergae peformance. And also are the intels in the same price range at the amd better performance wise?hope theres no bias in this repsonse but anyway thanks for ur feedback.ThanksKaveesh Singh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to agree about the ATI cards. second I have to ask about the XP Pro 32 and 64 editions would you be able to use more ram with 64 edition of XP Pro or is 4GB RAm still the only max you can get.I think he has a bit more then enough for FSX and the MD-11, My 3 cents worth of an opinion.Capt. Eric Wade Joneswww.usairwaysva.orghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/1900driver.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4gb limit only appllies to 32-bit XP OS the others have a much higher capacity.ThanksKaveesh Singh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only several days into my Vista x64 install in prep for the MD-11, but I already see conclusive opportunity to advance those sliders based on improved memory management. I never thought I'd see the day where my system would be screaming for MORE than 4 gigs but here I am. GPU memory utilisation is still minimal and remember, there is a direct relationship between frame rates and CPU clock speed. Spend all you can on CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went with this setup built in the last month. I'm loving it! 45FPS in the attached 747 climbing out of Athens. The 4870X2 probably is overkill at present but I built this with FSXI in mind as well nad just bunged it in I also do a lot of stuff other than flying which will use it properly anyway):Quad Extreme QX9650 3ghzATi HD4870X2 2gb Vid cardGigabyte X48T-DQ6 m/board4gb Corsair DDR3 RAM (can't remember the latency specs but they're low)2 x 750gb HDDsVista642 x 22" TFT Monitors1Kw (yes, 1000W) PSUPlus various optional bits like Bluray and memory stick drives. It's screaming along, as it should. Quite ridiculous frame rates with FSX, ASX, 747X, UTX, GenX etc etc. http://www.casey.tgis.co.uk/web/vatsim/athens1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with Ryan!I had invidia based graphics cards for many years, I recently purchased two radeon sapphire 3870 for less than half the price of an nvidia 8600 with the same performance and visuals.Don't listen to people that say that ATI is crap and INVIDIA is the best.I've had them both,my conclusion is that you can have the same performance and quality graphics spending less for an ATI.No one can contridict that...only someone that never had an ATI before.I'm really happy with my ATI less with my quadcore phenomen!Bye ya'all!David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I went with this setup built in the last month. I'm loving>it! 45FPS in the attached 747 climbing out of Athens. Yeah, but such exterior views are hardly performance limiting. Try with even denser clouds and from inside the cockpit of the same PMDG 747 or while on short final to a really large/detailed busy airport ;)Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>I went with this setup built in the last month. I'm loving>>it! 45FPS in the attached 747 climbing out of Athens. >>Yeah, but such exterior views are hardly performance limiting.>Try with even denser clouds and from inside the cockpit of the>same PMDG 747 or while on short final to a really>large/detailed busy airport ;)Oh it's been tested and the above was online with plenty of traffic about. Not seen it below 30FPS yet :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system I am using runs FSX OK. The system is probably way over the top for FSX as it was built for primarily working with HD TV video editing/production and very large image editing. Yes a Mac would have done the job, but it won't run FSX as nicely.......even dual boot.System Spec:EVGA 790i Ultimate MoboIntel QX9770 Quad Core CPU @ stock 3.4GHz - no overclocking as the 790 mobo is very twitchy about oc!!Tagan 1100 Watt PSU4GB (2x2GB) Corsair 1600MHz RAMCreative X-Fi Titanium Sound CardDual XFX 1GB 9800GX2 Graphics cards running in Quad SLiVista Ultimate SP1 32-bit (may go to 64-bit later)Twin Samsung 750GB RAID1 System array1TB Samsung Data drive2x Blu-Ray DrivesDell 3008WFP DisplayThis runs FSX just fine (and FS9.1 even better)at 1920 x 1200 but the image is not so good at the full 2560 x 1600 resolution the Dell is capable of, but I guess the game (and the add-ons) isn't really set up to go that high.Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Oh it's been tested and the above was online with plenty of>traffic about. Not seen it below 30FPS yet :) Bill,Just curious, what kind of frame rates do you get at a gate at a very busy airport add-on like Heathrow or Chicago with bad weather and heavy traffic? And what do you have your sliders at in FSX?I'm assuming that you have some of the new FSX airports that are out now. I have a new E8600 with almost every add-on available and only manage to get 10-12 fps at Chicago with the PMDG 747X. This is with FS DREAMTEAMS Chicago airport, ASX(running off a laptop),UTX,etc.The same can be said for Aerosofts Mega airport Heathrow.That being said, the sim runs pretty smooth even at these low frame rates which leads me to believe that it's very hard to judge performance on frame rates alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of information floating around about PC specs and running FSX.. there are a few points I would like to make..1 - There is NO.. PC spec currently that will run FSX with very high frames with addons like scenery and complicated aircraft out the box.. It just isn't here yet.2 - There is NO point.. at all.. in spending massive amounts of money of graphics cards if you want to use the machine for FSX, it makes no difference, the bottle neck is the CPU you are wasting your money.. honestly.. and 8800GT is more than capable..3 - There is virtually no advantage in DDR3 ram that you're likely to be able to capitalise on in FSX.4 - Current AMD CPUs are not even close to delivering what Intel current CPUs can at this time, they are not competition.5 - There is virtually no advantage to SLI or Xfire in FSX, in fact it's most likely to cause a reduction in overall performance, this has been seen in a lot of reviews I have read and confirmed by friends when they removed the second card..6 - Whatever you spend your money on now, REMEMBER.. it's already not good enough so don't spend a tonne..These are not just my opinions, but pretty much provable and demonstrated in many reviews and benchmarks on the web.. I did a lot of research when I built my system and looked into Extreme Intel chips, water cooling, Quad SLI etc.. These are my views and I am sure they probably won't be shared by all others, but my conclusions from months of selection were as follows:1 - Get a quad or dual core intel chip that won't break the bank and provides scope for over clocking, like the Q6600, or E8500.. These are plenty good enough... I went for the Q6600.. it's overclocking ability is high (3.6Ghz on air with a tuniq 120 tower), it's very cheap, and the FSB1333 disadvantage of the higher chips isn't going to reduce anything much at all.. (o/c will cancel out any advantage anyway)2 - Get a motherboard that supports overclocking that chip.. I chose an ASUS P35.. a tried and tested chipset with plenty of OC ability and DD2, which is very cheap RAM.3 - Get 4GB of ram.. DDR2 is fine.. I got some DDR2 1066Mhz.. but even that is overkill.. it's not actually clocked at that speed even after the CPU overclock.. but since it's the same price as the lower speed just get this..4 - Get a sensibly priced, reasonably powerful GFX card.. I went for the 9800 GTX+ it's got plenty of pump for buck (I got a deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>That being said, the sim runs pretty smooth even at these low>frame rates which leads me to believe that it's very hard to>judge performance on frame rates alone.You're absolutely right, FSX runs smoother with lower FPS than previous versions did. Slider-wise most are high or max but water is on low, no ground scenery shadows etc and at a UK2000 airport, with traffic, online, usually about 30FPS now (with ASX/UTX/GenX etc running). Having said that it is quite possible, I've tested it, to get the 747X running at 2FPS depending on sliders, PC setup, other progs running etc etc. Performance is as much about PC setup and FSX tuning as it is about the horsepower thrown at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites