Sign in to follow this  
kaydub

Recommendations for CPU?

Recommended Posts

Looking to return to Flightsim. Any hardware recs? I'm thinking Intel these days, maybe with ATI 1950? Kdub

Share this post


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

Hi K,Your really need to provide ALOT more info about what you want, before anybody can give you ANY advice.▪FS9 or FSX, or both?▪DX9 or DX10?▪Your Display Resolution?▪Budget?__________________FWIW FS MINIMUM specs according to Microsoft below:FS9:▪Microsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi K,>>Your really need to provide ALOT more info about what you>want, before anybody can give you ANY advice.>>▪FS9 or FSX, or both?>▪DX9 or DX10?>▪Your Display Resolution?>▪Budget?>__________________>>FWIW FS MINIMUM specs according to Microsoft below:>>FS9:>>▪Microsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best you answer these questions first, will make it a bit easier advising you.FSX doesn't sound that necessaryBE SURE I get the feeling your not really sure whether you want to or not. Think good about it first...either you want to or not, because you can get cheaper hardware since FS9 will be happy with a lower class CPU+GPU than FSX.Who needs DX10?Suggest you google DX9 vs DX10, only the user (you) can make the decision if its worth it for you or not.Do I need a PSU?That depends what components you are going to get.___Right now, the best choice (price vs performance) one can make is to get a E6600 (or Quad-core for future-ready) with mobo of choice (are you going to overclock?), regarding the GPU that all depends whether or not you go DX10 or not. DIMM-wise (are you going to overclock?) you can go with ValueRam or more heavy-duty OC-Ram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Best you answer these questions first, will make it a bit>easier advising you.>>FSX doesn't sound that necessary>>BE SURE I get the feeling your not really sure whether>you want to or not. Think good about it first...either you>want to or not, because you can get cheaper hardware since FS9>will be happy with a lower class CPU+GPU than FSX.>>Who needs DX10?>>Suggest you google DX9 vs DX10, only the user (you) can make>the decision if its worth it for you or not.>>Do I need a PSU?>>That depends what components you are going to get.>>___>>Right now, the best choice (price vs performance) one can make>is to get a E6600 (or Quad-core for future-ready) with>mobo of choice (are you going to overclock?), regarding>the GPU that all depends whether or not you go DX10 or not.>DIMM-wise (are you going to overclock?) you can go with>ValueRam or more heavy-duty OC-Ram.>Thanks for the advice. I know that I don't want FSX, because I want smooth operation. I flew FS9 for awhile, and I really want good frame rates this time. I won't go DX10 because I play no games. I just thought I may play FS9 again, after giving up on it about 18 months ago. The only cpu I successfully overclocked was the Barton 2500. All other attempts were less than pleasing. I always had high temps. Right now, my 754 AMD 3400(2.4) idles @ 52 degrees. I would like a cpu that does well out of the box. Is the e6600 really as fast as advertised? The extremetech site shows about 20% faster than an e6400. I may just get an Asrock board and try it out to see if the cpu makes that much difference before I spend hundreds for a GPU and DDR2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if your not going to go FSX, there wouldnt be a point in going about a very high-end GPU.What you could do is get an Asus mobo (mid-range stable overclockers)+ an E6600 and perhaps combine that with a Nivida or ATI DX9 GPU (Model depending on resolution)Well AMDs do run hot, but with 50ish on idle you probally either had a very high Vcore + bad airflow going in your case or were using a bad heatsink + thermal paste or maybe even both.For comparison, One of my other systems I have around here, an overclocked E6600 @ 3.5Ghz I have here, runs 32C idle, and around 53C underload, with aircooling.>>Is the e6600 really as fast as advertisedBoth the E6400 and E6600 are nice, but the E6600 on stock runs faster because its clocked higher (the diff. between the 2mb and 4mb cache doesnt matter clockspeed-wise), thus gaining more points during benches.The E6600 is really a very nice fast cpu even like you say "stock, straight out of the box" but its when you overclock it, it becomes even "funkier" a CPU that easily reaches 3.5GHz and even in some cases close to 4GHz just on air with an adequate cooler and airflow combined with the right DIMMS and Mobo.Meaning you can, if you did it all right and have the right components/settings, have it running fine with an overclock of "1GHz+"NOTE: Overclocking CAN KILL you components, reduces their life-span as indicated by the manufacturer, and does in many cases voids any warranties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's make it simple for the guy: Take a look at my specs - and I simply enjoy my FS9. No stuttering or low fps. Cost-point today, around 1000$?, if even that much... if not planning of going to FSX, then this or similar is your wanted setup, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone. The E6600 seems to be the right choice. I have gotten out of the knowledge loop the last couple of years. I'm trying to make a good decision.Kaydub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this