This PC hopefullybe good enough for fsx!

[Guest IceWinGs]

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.

[Tabs 2,790]

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.

[smokeyupahead 6]

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

[stevenp 1]

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.

[Tony747-400 44]

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

[Guest Matthias1975]

Isn

[Tabs 2,790]

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.

[Guest IceWinGs]

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

[Jones 0]

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

[Guest IceWinGs]

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

[Banks 0]

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.

[BillC 135]

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

[smokeyupahead 6]

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

[michal 44]

>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

[BillC 135]

>>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 :)