New Bird - New Computer - but what specs.

[Guest captbdel767]

*First* I want to say how wonderful it is to finally see the release of another FANTASTIC aircraft MD-11 from PMDG - Weldone guys and Thank You for all the hard work. I like many thousands of others have waited years!! he-he but worth it.Now, I've ran FS9 and FSX on an oldish type computer but I'm going in deep to buy a brand new one just for FSX and PMDG ONLY* aircraft. Here are the specs of what I'm looking at and will this be power enough in CPU and Graphics.Intel

[downscc 1,327]

Your primary goal should be performance required for FSX. The best place to get lots of opinions on this is in the hardware forum. IMHO the system you propose looks like beau coup power, sufficient for MD11 but as far as FSX?? I think you need a Cray to run all the sliders to the right.

[virtualstuff 750]

Running an E8600 at @ 4,2 Ghz and it makes meat of this one and FSX :-)only EGLL is heavy with AI around 20 FPS the rest is way above :-)http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[FLEX1978 373]

I got one of these and it runs smooth on air... FSX needs pure brute force from the CPU and despite having a top end system FS9 is still my main sim.http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct....HZ%20-%20RetailRob

[Tabs 2,790]

Get a different video card, SLI is pretty pointless in FS and that's an old and out of date card there. Look into the GeForce GTX 260 or the Radeon 4870.

[Qatsimo 7]

Make sure the Windows Vista is 64 bit. So the OOM will never bite you. I found it's a small performance increase also against 32 bit OS.Regards, Gerrit

[Sharrow 0]

>Intel

[Tabs 2,790]

>The video cards are a definite bad call! A single 9800GTX is>perfect for 1680x1050, larger resolutions will require a>single GTX260. The ATI 4850 or 4870 currently offer sub par>performance in FSX (driver issues?). Check out>tomshardware.com's FSX VGA charts for more info.Tom's is full of it - I have a new 4870 and it smokes my old 8800GT hard. They tested using early prerelease drivers I believe, and I honestly don't trust any mainstream review site to know how to configure FS properly anyway - many of them use positively wacky settings that no one in the actual sim community would use etc.I fully vouch for the ATI 48xx series cards, they're awesome.

[Arklight1 140]

>>The video cards are a definite bad call! A single 9800GTX>is>>perfect for 1680x1050, larger resolutions will require a>>single GTX260. The ATI 4850 or 4870 currently offer sub par>>performance in FSX (driver issues?). Check out>>tomshardware.com's FSX VGA charts for more info.>>Tom's is full of it - I have a new 4870 and it smokes my old>8800GT hard. They tested using early prerelease drivers I>believe, and I honestly don't trust any mainstream review site>to know how to configure FS properly anyway - many of them use>positively wacky settings that no one in the actual sim>community would use etc.>>I fully vouch for the ATI 48xx series cards, they're awesome.I'm with Ryan. Tom's has never been known to be very accurate. Not to mention, most hardware review sites in general seem to have earned their PHD's in Bovine Scatology. I would ignore most of them unless you just use them for general information. One of the ONLY sites I do trust is HardOCP. Those folks know their stuff and their forum is packed with knowledgable people. Check them out at www.hardocp.com. If I were the original poster, I would wait until January/February before I made any hardware purchases. See how Nehalem performs and if it does not meet what you are looking for grab an 8600 Wolfdale and OC the bejesus out of it. Quad core is all fine and dandy, but FSX is CPU intensive and it will profit from a faster CPU more than one with more cores. Now, if you can find a quad core with the same cpu speed, similar cost, and equal oc'ing potential as an 8600/8500 Wolfdale than I would probably go for that one....but I doubt that exists or will exists in the near future. Videocard wise, and if you have the monetary means, I would grab an ATI 4870. I have been an Nvidia user for a while now, ever since the Radeon 9700 (great card for it's time), but ATI does outperform it's Nvidia counterpart. Returning to my second paragraph, do yourself a favor, don't jump in to a hardware upgrade with some supposedly very nice stuff just on the horizon. If you decide not to go with the new stuff, all of the items you were considering before (and maybe some of the items you couldn't afford right now) will still be there and even more within your reach financially. I usually upgrade every year, but this time I waited (I upgraded in January 2007) and I am glad I did. Last but not least,

[Tabs 2,790]

HardOCP has been my gold standard review site for many years as well Shane. They're one of the only ones who get it as far as actually testing real world gaming (both image quality and FPS) instead of silly synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark etc...

[Arklight1 140]

>HardOCP has been my gold standard review site for many years>as well Shane. They're one of the only ones who get it as far>as actually testing real world gaming (both image quality and>FPS) instead of silly synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark etc...Great minds think alike. lolYeah, I never understood the point of all the synthetic benchmarks other than bragging rights amongst teenagers. "Little butterfly fluttering around stream" just doesn't give me an accurate representation of game performance with XXXX card. HardOCP really goes to great lengths to "weed out all non-hackers" in the hardware world. They are blatantly honest in their reviews as are their forum members. Their forum is a wealth of knowledge for anybody looking to beef up their hardware knowledge and/or learn oc'ing. Ryan, you summed up HardOCP the best by referring to them as your gold standard review site. I am with you 100%. It'd be nice if they were able to review everything that comes out...it sure would save me a lot of time.