Good FSX Rig

[Romeo_Tango 143]

Hi all,I am planning to upgrade to a new setup that is capable of running FSX if not wide open then close to it. I know that I would like to have water setting all the way to the right.I am interested in the following setups. The first costs $1700.00 and the second $1200.Intel

[Guest D17S]

Here's a starting point. There's no need to spend that much . . . at all:https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedW...aspx?ID=7159746Wait 2 weeks for the Nvidia's new GTX280. Will it help FS? We don't know yet. Likely, it will NoT (except at very high resolutions). A $150 8800GT provides all the V-Horsepower FSX can use at 19x10. This game is CPU limited. Stay with an Intel chipset. SLI does not help FSX. There's no need for water cooling. A good air cooler will get you an identical O/C. The Penryn provides no intrinsic benefit. Of the current core2 generation, the $200 / 65nm / Q6600 is still the best value/performance choice. It will go to 3.6GHz and stay there 24/7. The quad will help FSX, but is also for general future-proofing. A buy right now implies a builder will Not upgrade to Nehalem and then wait 2 years for Sandybridge. Any dual core will never keep up as software transitions to multicore functionality.A quad at least stands a chance.Sam

[Guest poschrob]

"A $150 8800GT provides all the V-Horsepower FSX can use at 19x10"But is a 512 MB card (to be more specific: EVGA 8800 GTS 512 MB, ~ 300 EUR) sufficient for running FS9 fluently (FPS not less than 30) when heavy clouds are building up? That's my only concern. For the money I will spend I expect the highest quality (with add-on sceneries, in the VC of highly detailed planes) - SO NO STUTTERS. The other option would be to go for a 9800GX2, which basically consists of 2 8800 GTS cards. It costs around 400 EUR.Regards,Robp.s. other parts of the rig will be similar to those already mentioned (4 GB DDR2 1000 MHz memory, Q6600 etc)

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Ever since I upgraded from a Geforce3 Ti200 64M to a Radeon 9800 128M and beyond, my low end (ie. heavy clouds building up in complex scenarios) FPS in FS9 has been entirely dependent on CPU speed. As Sam says, an 8800 GT is plenty for FSX - for FS9 it is complete overkill!Gary

[Guest poschrob]

Hello Gary,thanks very much for your input.Please take a look at my current config which costs just under 1200 EUR. Further recommendations are always welcome.Intel C2Q6600 (will be overclocked to around 3 GHz)Board: Gigabyte EP35-DS3 S775Memory: 2x2048 MB GSkill DDR2 1000 MHzGC: XFX 8800 GTS 680 MHz750 GB Samsung harddriveLG GSA-H58N optical driveATX Coba Nitrox 600W power supplyTower: ATX Midi Antec Nine Hundred GamerCooling: Scythe Mine Rev.B22" Samsung SyncMaster LCD displayRob

[Mace 1,927]

I would get the second of the two rigs, but possibly not with the 9800GTX. I'd probably get an 8800GTX, which has HALVED in price in the last 6 months and yet still kills FSX like dahmer.If you need a quad, you could always drop one in--cheap. But right now, you don't need the quad, and the E8400 will reach YOUR stated goal of running FSX as close as possible to flat out as you can find today (you realize, there still is no cpu that can do that, yet).The Q would not be able to hang with the E8400 in any way, shape or form. However, you may need the quad for later.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 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

[Guest D17S]

>>The Q would not be able to hang with the E8400 in any way, shape or form.FSX frames per second performance ramp is linear with CPU clock. The Q will go to 3.6. The E will go to 4.0. That's 10% . . . and that's it. 20 FPS gets you to 22 FPS. 40 FSP gets you 44 FSP. In other words (hyperbole aside), it's a Non-FSP event. The cost is those 2 full cores that (BTW) Will help scenery loading . . . and maybe just save an interim build between now and T?heN.

[Mace 1,927]

>>>The Q would not be able to hang with the E8400 in any way,>shape or form.>>FSX frames per second performance ramp is linear with CPU>clock. The Q will go to 3.6. The E will go to 4.0. That's 10%>. . . and that's it. 20 FPS gets you to 22 FPS. 40 FSP gets>you 44 FSP. In other words (hyperbole aside), it's a Non-FSP>event. The cost is those 2 full cores that (BTW) Will help>scenery loading . . . and maybe just save an interim build>between now and T?heN.I know that. And I also know the consideration of interim build vs. longer term buildAnd I stand by what I said.I'd still get E8400/E85 over a Q at this point in timeQuads are cheap, if he needs a quad, he can drop one in easily, especially in a year or 1.5 yrs when a Q9450 is $150.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 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