Archived

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

Guest proggerD

Building a new system for FS...opinions and advice welcome!

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone...I am new here and am building a system for FS9/FSX with one real goal:I want to fly at 1080p on my 52" Aquos.To that end, here's my spec so far (parts either in hand or on the way)...-Dell Precision t3400 case, MB, 525w power supply-Intel Q6600 G0 SLACR (would like to pad mod for 1333fsb/3.0Ghz)-Nvidia 8800GT (possibly 2 in SLI if needed for the resolution)-4gb 800mhz dual channel RAM (corsair XMS)So, I need to pick up some drives, and a tasty Saitek yoke and pedals setup. Any advice on the drives? I was thinking of Barracuda 7200.11s, or perhaps just picking up any 32mb cache sata drives to get going. Is anyone here running FS9/FSX at 1080p (or at 1900x1200)? Any advice or comments would be appreciated!

Share this post


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

You're right on target. What's the mobo? I'm using a 1080p (which is 1920x1080, btw). I had an 8800GT and came across an 9800GTX. I can tell NO difference between the two cards. However, the GTX280 will be out in a couple of weeks. It has a gig-0-ram and 256 shaders (v 512k/128 for the current gen). I'm a little concerned the 256 shaders will make no difference cuz FS is CPU bound. However I'm interested to see the gig-O-ram's effect on scenery loading. In any case, I'm not expecting much. We'll just have to wait and see. There's no need for SLI (or the GTX280's 256 shaders?). At 1080p, all my video related sliders are full right with the single 88/98. I have a rack full of the seagate -11 and they've been fine. Unless you just have dollars to burn, the raptors are more marketing/bragging-rights related. Do Not mod anything for that 1333FSB, please! You are going to use simple bios adjustments to O/C the FSB to 400mhz (aka 1600) anyway to get that Q to 3.6 . . . . right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new Raptor -- and everything loads up a LOT faster. If that doesn't matter to you at all, pass on it. I can't go back now though -- I've been spoiled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a moment, let us know what it can do. First, make some general notes. For instance, is the 'preload=0' line in your config? Maybe a general list of scenery addons GTx/FEx/UTx/ETCx) might be helpful too. Now get out a stopwatch and time an FSX game-load right after a fresh boot. For the sake of comparison, then Set all Settings Screen sliders to Ultra High. Use your normal resolution, but otherwise don't adjust any individual settings within the tabs. Let "Ultra High" do it. Then load (for instance) the Aspen mission then (for instance) the Amazon mission. The initial game-load, then initial flight-loads are the performance events a faster HD might help. Then reload the Aspen and Amazon missions. Those should reload in way less than 10 secs (probably 3-5). Whats cha get? Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. I knows what I knows from only my experience, and that's good enough for me. FS9 loads up cold in about 1/2 the time it did on my Seagate or WD 7200 RPMs, flights and FSNAV about the same.All screen sliders are full right, FlyTampa airports, AS v6.5, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FS9 loads up cold in about 1/2>the time it did on my Seagate or WD 7200 RPMs, flights and>FSNAV about the same.I don't see how this is possible given the speed difference of data coming off between a 7200 and 10000 RPM drive is at best a raw 38.8%, not 100%. Still, load up times are obviously quicker for you, which has got to be a good thing!Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yeah, right. I knows what I knows from only my experience, and that's good enough for me."But the drill will only take a minute (or less!). Just get out that watch with a second hand on it. No calibrated dooda needed.Could you tell us too? Please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"Yeah, right. I knows what I knows from only my experience,>and that's good enough for me.">>But the drill will only take a minute (or less!). Just get out>that watch with a second hand on it. No calibrated dooda>needed.>>Could you tell us too? >>Please?What are you interested in?I can tell you the difference between a Seagate 7200 rpm with the 32 cache, vs. a Raptor.18% increase in FSX save flight load time.Scientifically tested, mother approved.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Saved in flight load times" Yes? If so we can put that in perspective. For instance with a 7200 RPM seagate -11, if . . . : 1) FSX takes 50 seconds to load after a fresh boot. A raptor will get that down to ~ 41 seconds. Savings: 9 seconds. 2) The first flight (immediately after that program load) occurs in 50 seconds too. A raptor will get that down to ~ 41 seconds. Savings: 9 seconds.3) While still in the same session, all additional flights load in 30 seconds. A raptor will load all these in 25 seconds. Savings: 5 second per additional flight.4) All FSX program and flight reloads are less than 10 seconds and game play is not effected, so those are a push. The 300GB raptor costs $300 while the 320 GB 7200 seagate costs $70. We're saving ~ 20 seconds for first 2 initial game/flight loads, then 5 seconds per additional flight. For instance (at this 18% time savings), a 4 flight session will save ~ 30 seconds. Wait time will be decreased from approximately 150 to 130 seconds. That time savings cost $230 to achieve. The raptor is more about 'toy value' and deep pockets than any significant benefit. My point is (and has always been) that "Speed costs. How fast do you want to go." That last little bit is Always EXtremEly expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No actually we are spending 140 for that on sale, 170 full price, if you READ his sig, not 300 because he is not talking about a VRap and there is much more to it than a silly stopwatch on a flight load and even the favorite benchmark test around here is full of it as I have pointed out several timesPut the VRap in there and all your numbers are off, againYes speed costs.. I'll buy it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The raptor is more about 'toy value' and deep pockets than any significant benefit. Toy value? Hardly. My "uberloaded" (your term, Sam) FS9 loads in 20 seconds, saved flight in about 10. That's a significant time saving for me and I greatly appreciate it.I have the 150 gb drive, less than a month old. Cost about 140 USD. I'll never go back -- it does make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The raptor is more about 'toy value' and deep pockets than any>significant benefit. My point is (and has always been) that>"Speed costs. How fast do you want to go." That last little>bit is Always EXtremEly expensive. >That was exactly my point, too. ;)18%. Empirical data baby. Whether it's worth it to the user or not, is up to the user to decide.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 150GB drive retailing for $170, then on sale for $140 continues to cost ~ $300 for 300GBs of storage. That comparison metric remains intact. All of the seagage -11 "for instance" examples were FSX. Checking that same set of load-runs on FS9 retains the same personality, just more quickly accomplished. For instance:1) FS9 takes 20 seconds to load after a fresh boot. A raptor will takes 20 seconds too. That's a push.2) The first flight (immediately after that program load - in this case Wright flyer) occurs in 50 seconds. Since the load time was the same for the initial load, we might assume the performance will be the same through out. 3) While still in the same session, all additional flights load in 20 seconds (in this case Mail Run). Since the load time was the same for the initial load, we might assume the performance will be the same through out. 4) All FS9 program and flight reloads are less than 10 seconds and game play is not effected, so those are a push too. There appears to be no advantage to a raptor in FS9."18%. Empirical data baby. Whether it's worth it to the user or not, is up to the user to decide." And therefore, we might also want apply whatever additional Empirical information is available to assist the decision. ~ 20% sounds big, however when related to the more communicative context, "20% of what?" the advantage comes more clearly into perspective (i.e., None for FS9 and not much for FSX).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be honest, I stopped reading this at about point 3. I'm really glad I bought the Raptor -- load times in FS9 were always very annoying to me, and now they're much shorter. Perception is reality, and the cost was well worth it.If you don't want to spend the money, don't. But for me, the WD Raptor is now a must have, and I know I have done what I can within a reasonable budget to shorten those load times to their minimums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And therefore, we might also want apply whatever additional>Empirical information is available to assist the decision. ~>20% sounds big, however when related to the more communicative>context, "20% of what?" the advantage comes more clearly into>perspective (i.e., None for FS9 and not much for FSX). Come now Sam, you are preaching to the choir on bang vs. buck and computer hardware. You appear to be leaping to the conclusion that I have a bias one way or the other with regard to Raptors. I do not. All I was doing was reporting the results of the testing I did with the exact hardware you asked about.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation really isn't helpful to, nor focused toward toward those that Have already spent the dough (or recognized the obvious bang v buck dynamic!) However those that Haven't (yet), might find it helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You're right on target. What's the mobo? I'm using a 1080p>(which is 1920x1080, btw). I had an 8800GT and came across an>9800GTX. I can tell NO difference between the two cards.>However, the GTX280 will be out in a couple of weeks. It has a>gig-0-ram and 256 shaders (v 512k/128 for the current gen).>I'm a little concerned the 256 shaders will make no difference>cuz FS is CPU bound. However I'm interested to see the>gig-O-ram's effect on scenery loading. In any case, I'm not>expecting much. We'll just have to wait and see. >>There's no need for SLI (or the GTX280's 256 shaders?). At>1080p, all my video related sliders are full right with the>single 88/98. >>I have a rack full of the seagate -11 and they've been fine.>Unless you just have dollars to burn, the raptors are more>marketing/bragging-rights related. >>Do Not mod anything for that 1333FSB, please! You are going to>use simple bios adjustments to O/C the FSB to 400mhz (aka>1600) anyway to get that Q to 3.6 . . . . right?>>Awesome...right on target is what I like to hear! The mobo is a standard Dell t3400 part...hence the desire to 'pad mod' the chip, which may or may not be done. It is based off of the intel X38 chipset. I understand that 1080p = 1920x1080 too...was going for the pc resolution in my post of ~1920x1200 or so to see if anyone was running at that resolution. Thanks so much for the advice and opinions on my system...I'll be sure to benchmark it when it is all ready and post some results if anyone is interested!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check my post in this page....how much of a hit.......I use 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 ....both work just fine.Abe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites