Help needed for new PC

[9Y-POS 0]

Hi Guys, I am seeking assistance in configuring an Alienware-51 7500 series PC for running both FS9 and FSX.I am technically challenged to say the least and after reading many fora on hardware and PC configuration, i am now more confused now than ever lol.I know that there are many able people around here and i besiege your experience and expertise.Much Thanksbtw, one thing that confuses me also is which OS to use.http://www.alienware.com/configurator_page...ode=SKU-DEFAULT

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi there, for a new machine, FSX and - depending on the resolution(s) you'll be using - more than 256MB GPU RAM is indicated IMHO. Buying a new Flytendo now, it might also be wiser to start with 2x2GB? Only get Vista if you don't want to do Windows Explorer work with the keyboard for example. Vista is not very good at that IMHO, but just to use it's good. If folks advise to turn off UAC, please take that with a grain of salt. Particularly if you connect to the internet with that same machine. The major change vs winXP - minus some 'disfunctionality' - is, users need to become acquainted with Vista's security settings. It's fairly simple once you get a grip. FWIW, the prices for the options are very high I must say. You can buy good 2x2GB modules for well under 200$ nowadays - likely closer to 100 than 200. Or, the >1100$ surcharge for the Extreme CPU for example, is ca 5-10% more than I would pay for the whole CPU. For FSX, get many cores and try to achieve the highest clocks possible. Memory and cores will give you smoothness, high clocks will translate into frames per second. And again, all of this can be connected and tuned to the display config you're using and - of course - your type of FS-use. Bushflyers could do with less powerful machines than those who want to fly to New York and a fully loaded JFK. ;-) The best would be, that you specify your needs (and budget) before trying to specify what kind of hardware is required. Without key info like 'type of use' and the display config (that's what the computer is driving after all), all advise here could be totally meaningless. ;-) Hope this adds to thoughts, kind regards Jaap

[9Y-POS 0]

>Hi there, for a new machine, FSX and - depending on the>resolution(s) you'll be using - more than 256MB GPU RAM is>indicated IMHO. Buying a new Flytendo now, it might also be>wiser to start with 2x2GB? >>Only get Vista if you don't want to do Windows Explorer work>with the keyboard for example. Vista is not very good at that>IMHO, but just to use it's good. >>If folks advise to turn off UAC, please take that with a grain>of salt. Particularly if you connect to the internet with that>same machine. The major change vs winXP - minus some>'disfunctionality' - is, users need to become acquainted with>Vista's security settings. It's fairly simple once you get a>grip. >>FWIW, the prices for the options are very high I must say. You>can buy good 2x2GB modules for well under 200$ nowadays ->likely closer to 100 than 200. Or, the >1100$ surcharge for>the Extreme CPU for example, is ca 5-10% more than I would pay>for the whole CPU. >>For FSX, get many cores and try to achieve the highest clocks>possible. Memory and cores will give you smoothness, high>clocks will translate into frames per second. And again, all>of this can be connected and tuned to the display config>you're using and - of course - your type of FS-use. Bushflyers>could do with less powerful machines than those who want to>fly to New York and a fully loaded JFK. ;-) >>The best would be, that you specify your needs (and budget)>before trying to specify what kind of hardware is required.>Without key info like 'type of use' and the display config>(that's what the computer is driving after all), all advise>here could be totally meaningless. ;-) >>Hope this adds to thoughts, kind regards >>Jaap Thanks much Jaap, just to be a little more specific now, i am still an ardent user of FS9 and would love to have it all maxed out, something that I've never experienced all these years because my current system is mediocre at best.I have had FSX since it's release but have also deleted it quite a few times from my PC because i just didn't have what it takes to enjoy it at it's fullest.Truth be told i want to have my cake and eat it to and be able to use both Sims on the same PC with more than average quality and performance on both, understanding that they each require differnt specs to operate well but just trying to strike a good balance.I would like to spend no more than 2500USD.Regards

[Guest baksteen33]

Ohhhh, you can go a long way with 2500 bucks! :-) FS9 maxxed out is no prob, even on mid end systems. FSX plays in another league, particularly RAM wise. Nevertheless, 2 fundamental details are still missing, do you mean the full baloney in New York or Tahiti? Another very important detail, what kind of resolution or screen config will that '3D renderer' you are anticipating to get have to drive? The smaller the screen, the cheaper potentially the GPU for example. ;-) Kind regards Jaap

[9Y-POS 0]

>Ohhhh, you can go a long way with 2500 bucks! :-) >>FS9 maxxed out is no prob, even on mid end systems. FSX plays>in another league, particularly RAM wise. >>Nevertheless, 2 fundamental details are still missing, do you>mean the full baloney in New York or Tahiti? Another very>important detail, what kind of resolution or screen config>will that '3D renderer' you are anticipating to get have to>drive? The smaller the screen, the cheaper potentially the GPU>for example. ;-) >>Kind regards >>Jaap Ah yes Jaap, I did not think of these things, "full baloney as in New York".Currently i have a 19" View Sonic that i use @ 1024 x 768 and i'm quite happy with it.Regards

[Guest wayupthere]

Great advice sofar Jaapsan ;) (yes im back :( )@9Y, are you planning to stick with 1024, or are you going to opt for a bigger screen in the near future?Regards,DT

[Guest baksteen33]

LOL, you don't like Tahiti?!? :-) One thing to keep in mind when you think about a new system, a new display always risks to overthrow a strategy behind a machine. It's fairly unlikely you'll still be at 1024x in a couple of years. If your monitor is to last a while, your small resolution could allow to put a lot of money into CPU and RAM now. Hint: Always think of display(s) and GPUs as units. ;-) This could mean the difference between DDR2 and DDR3 (although still horrendously expensive). Now, you said ca 2500$; 4GB DDR2 (2x2GB) plus an Extreme Quad CPU will set you back ca 1400$, that's ca 1100 to go for mainboard, harddrive, PSU, GPU, optical drive, case and OS. Alternatively, do the same with DDR3? In this case, I hope you have a 'hidden from wifey', separate budget for software somewhere. :-) Or maybe a couple of potential carry-on components? FWIW, this is the first time I think an 'Extreme' CPU could be worthwhile if somebody is prepared to invest. The free multiplicator apparently allows incredible overclocks with those new, 6MB cache CPUs. If you don't know about or don't want to do these kinds of things yourself, there are builders who factory overclock them for you. For New York, you'll want as many CPU-cycles as possible. My cheapo Quad or AMD64 at >3GHz both eat FS9 for breakfast. But FSX is a different ballpark. As for RAM, I had 5.5GB on the counter with Vista64, FSX and 8GB the other day. Next week I'll certainly be exceeding 6GB memory consumption. Adding another 512MB VGA RAM... LOL Always interesting to know - hope you don't mind - what are you upgrading from? Cheers and kind regards Jaap

[9Y-POS 0]

>Great advice sofar Jaapsan ;) (yes im back :( )>>@9Y, are you planning to stick with 1024, or are you going to>opt for a bigger screen in the near future?>>Regards,>DTHi DT, I was planning to stick with 1024 for the time being but of course they say, never say never, so i might upgrade further down the road but my present screen is fairly new, so i think i can get a few more years out of it, it a Viewsonic 19" LCD.Regards

[9Y-POS 0]

Love Tahiti Jaap, As a matter of fact that reminds me got to re-install all of Bill Melichar's scenery :-)So GPU's are the important thing here, yeah! You guys really know your thing, i can't thank you enough for all of this great information.I have to sit down and read over all of your posts and assimilate all of this and make the right choices.I haven't looked at my old rig in a while, I'll post my dinosaur specs in a bit :-)Ok here it is, just don't laugh 1.67 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP128 kilobyte primary memory cache256 kilobyte secondary memory cacheBoard: ASUS A7S333 REV 1.xxBus Clock: 133 megahertz1024 Megabytes Installed MemoryNVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Regards

[Guest wayupthere]

Just post your final setup here BEFORE you make the purchase 9Y, that way it can be overlooked here for possible missmatches or the likes.Regards,Davis T.

[9Y-POS 0]

>Just post your final setup here BEFORE you make the purchase>9Y, that way it can be overlooked here for possible>missmatches or the likes.>>Regards,>Davis T.How's this thus far guysIntel

[Guest wayupthere]

Hello 9Y,Looks good for FS9, adequate CPU power. Two things, looking at a performance standpoint vs. the space within your budget.Id opt for the Low-latency RAM, that could give you a slight boost in performance, as well as opting for the 10k rpm HD. Will load things a bit faster than a standard 7200rpm.Now again, these are NOT necessary, but if you have the cash to spare it might be worth investing in, to finish off your rig to push out its max performance.Regards,Davis

[9Y-POS 0]

>Hello 9Y,>>Looks good for FS9, adequate CPU power. Two things, looking at>a performance standpoint vs. the space within your budget.>>Id opt for the Low-latency RAM, that could give you a slight>boost in performance, as well as opting for the 10k rpm HD.>Will load things a bit faster than a standard 7200rpm.>>Now again, these are NOT necessary, but if you have the>cash to spare it might be worth investing in, to finish off>your rig to push out its max performance.>>Regards,>Davis>OK, how's this now? I noticed you didn't say anything about FSX :-)Intel

[Guest wayupthere]

Hey 9Y,Yeah didn't mention FSX ;)FSX IMO, your best off with the stronger range of CPUs, preferably a Quad-Core, since FSX is SOO much more demanding than good old FS9.But the new (Intel)Quads do come with a price right now, since you said yourself your not yet an avid FSX user, your setup will give you more than enough joy for FS9 at its max :)Upgrade when your really feel the itch for FSX, by then Quad should be lower in price, so all in your favor by then hopefully.As to your current setup, that looks nice, in the sense that now it is able to push out all it can. :)Regards,Davis

[9Y-POS 0]

>Hey 9Y,>>Yeah didn't mention FSX ;)>>FSX IMO, your best off with the stronger range of CPUs,>preferably a Quad-Core, since FSX is SOO much more demanding>than good old FS9.>>But the new (Intel)Quads do come with a price right>now, since you said yourself your not yet an avid FSX user,>your setup will give you more than enough joy for FS9 at its>max :)>>Upgrade when your really feel the itch for FSX, by then Quad>should be lower in price, so all in your favor by then>hopefully.>>As to your current setup, that looks nice, in the sense that>now it is able to push out all it can. :)>>Regards,>Davis>Good stuff Davis and Jaap, thanks for all of your help! This will be the order! of course when i get the rig i shall post how it's running.Thanks again