Best FS9 Rig

[BFLANN 0]

Hi All,This may seem to wide ranging but if only experienced FS9 users and engineers of the game reply, it will save a lot of time. Reply only if you can address all aspects of the post please. OK, Im interested in viewing what spec FS9 will run as near as perfect as is possible on a 1980x1020 22" screen @ FULL SETTINGS with a Samsung F1 1TB HD. That means Im hoping to see the full computer spec, Motherboard, RAM DDR3 ( to guide Im told 4GB is the max for FS9 ), GPU card ( single 1GB, or only 512, or other ), Power Supply Wattage, and most importantly Intel Processor ( Im thinking i5 not i7 ( overkill Im told ) ), anything omitted by all means contribute.All good advice welcome.Berne :(

[Guest Astradan]

Not sure if my response will meet your strict standards Berne, :( but here we go :-For FS9 I don't think you even need to go donwn the i5 route, never mind i7.You can pick up a Q9650 CPU pretty cheaply since the i5 and i7 came out and although you won't get full benefit of the 4 cores in FS9, it will still laugh at what FS9 can throw at resource-load wise.Here are my specs - I can honestly say that with this unit I can run FS9 with all settings maxed, good weather with lots of clouds and about 60% airline traffic and get 40-100 FPS, even in complex aircraft like PMDG, Level D, etc :-Mobo: Intel DGCPU: Core 2 Quad Q9650 (standard 3.0 Ghz)RAM: 4Gb DDR3 (w/3GB switch activated in Win XP)GPU: Nvidia 8800 GTS 512Mb (G92)OS: Win XP SP3PSU: 450wIf you intend your rig to be for FSX too, then none of the above advice would apply; go for i7 .... but if FS9 is your sim of choice, we're lucky these days because not a lot of money can buy a rig that runs FS9 maxed, with great performance.Regards,

[BFLANN 0]

Hi,What are the FS9 four cores and what is required in order to utilise their existance? I have a preference leaning towards the i5 2.66, more than enough at a fair price, thank you for the reply.Regards,Berne

[scoob 18]

What are the FS9 four cores

the current design route by the chip makers to increase processing power is to put multiple cores (CPUs) on the chip. (simplified ex., a P4 is a single core chip ... the i's have four CPUs).

... what is required in order to utilise their existance?

the OS will use the cores ... but FS9 will not. the only way for a program to use the multiple cores is to be written to use them.

I have a preference leaning towards the i5 2.66

unless you are planning on using your computer for other games (ie, FSX) the i5 is more chip than you need (ie, wasted money). a quad is more than enough for FS9 (and faster than an single-core because of internal design). my rig, see signature, has more than enough 'power' - and home built for $900 (could put togther for less now).--

[mackintosh 0]

The only thing that you should care about when it comes to FS9 is a decent gfx card (any current or previous gen will do fine - don't waste your money on top of the line cards or SLI/CF setups, these are utter overkill and FS9 doesn't take advantage of them - at least nowhere near their full potential) and a CPU with maximum horsepower. FS9 (and FSX, albeit to a lesser extent) are CPU-speed centric. Get a chip that's a good overclocker and overclock the hell out of it. I have my i950 overclocked to 4Ghz and FS9 performs quite well on it. Pretty much any chip running between 3.8-4Ghz will give you good FS9 performance. Admittedly, the i950 would be overkill, as the i920 is an extremely good overclocker and is much cheaper. The i5s also overclock pretty well, so there's always that route and the overall cost would be lower.If you can't overclock (i.e. you don't want to invest in cooling), just get whatever has the fastest clock. FS9 scales pretty linearly with clock speed, so the faster the CPU, the better the performance.Edit: For reference, my specs below:i7 950 3.06@4Ghz (watercooled)6Gb Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz DDR3 Memory2xGTX 285 1Gb (SLI)Windows 7 64bit2X WD Velociraptor 150Gb (Raid 0 for the OS)2x WD Caviar Black 1TB (Raid 0 for data, including FS9)Performance ranges from 100+ fps in the air and at default airports through 20-25fps at Imaginesim's Atlanta with 100% AI traffic and weather in PMDG's MD11 (around 200-250 aircraft on the ground). The lowest observed FPS has been 18, can't remember the exact place where (could've been FSDT's JFK). FE, GEPro, UT Europe, US and Canada installed and maxed. Running at 1680x1050.

[scoob 18]

my rig, see signature

opps, i changed my sig so no computer info ... here are the basics -Core2 Duo E8400 at 3GHz w/2GB : Windows XP w/SP3 : nVIDIA 9600GT 512MB--

[BFLANN 0]

Hi All,Again great advisories thanks. Its all about the best performance ( moreso knowing the correct processor for the job ) for lowest cost, I thought of upgrading the pro of my now old board but that seems a nobrainer. I suspect it will be a good board , 4GB DDR3 and a low end i5 or Q9550 taking a stand. Ive been researching this issue over recent days and all replies say i7 is overkill for FS9. Regards,Berne :(

[Philip Foglar 0]

I just upgraded to a new PC specifically for FS9 and built around the i7 860 CPU - check the link below to see some screenshots that I posted a few days ago:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=266495Specs:MSI P55-GD65 130W DDR3 GB LAN ATX S1366MBDLG 22X DVD WRITER SATA NERO 7 + FACESIGMA AEGIS 0.8MM BLACK - NO PSUPROLINE 600W ATX12V V2.2,12CM FAN, NON PFCMSI N260GTX-T2D896-OC 896MB DDR3 448BIT x1Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1 TB SATAII 32MB 3.5" x1APACER 2GB DDR3 1333MHZ DIMM PC3-10600 x2INTEL i7 860 QUAD CORE 2.80GHZ 8MB 2.5GT S1156Philip.

[BFLANN 0]

I wish you all well with your respective setups, Im now getting a much better understanding of a good - great rig for FS9....lastly browsing recently I learned from quite a respected source that FS9 uses at best 4GB of ram, perhaps worthy of note?Bootup, all the best,Berne

[scoob 18]

...that FS9 uses at best 4GB of ram, perhaps worthy of note?

FS9 like FSX is a 32 bit program and can only use a bit more than 3GB-ish of memory.if you build a system with winXP you really have no need to purchase more the 3GB ... but good luck finding sticks to 'just get' this value. as a default most just set 4GB (note: my system has 2GB and runs JUST FINE).if you chose to use win7 and/or VISTA you can use more the 3GB of memory for the OS. this will 'free' some memory for the sim, but the improvements are minimal.also note that win7 support for all addons may take a while ... if at all for some of the older releases. most folks report good things with win7 v. VISTA. me, i'm all for you purchasing an OEM version of winXP. stable, mature OS that is more than enough for FS9 (remember, FS9 was designed for a winXP environment).--

[BFLANN 0]

Again thank you all on the advice.Now as a result of browsing, reading , and filtering the info supplied...I have come to a hammer down decision ( some say a miracle ) ...I will be choosing either...the Q9550 2.8 12MB or the Q9400 2.66 6MB ...now the spec for the pc is a mid range Intel board...4GB DDR2 ....650W Earth Power Supply....GTS250 1GB GPU. Id like to know if the 2.66 would be ample for FS9 Full settings performance on a 1920x1080 Asus screen.All good advice welcome.Regards,Berne

[ZachLW 37]

Id like to know if the 2.66 would be ample for FS9 Full settings performance on a 1920x1080 Asus screen.

I suggest an over clock, if that's in the question. Other wise go for the Q9550, or go for it anyway to possibly allow a better overclock. Will make a difference when the manure hits the ventilation (heavy AI traffic, scenery, aircraft, and various other flight sim/non-flight sim stuff running in the back ground).I also suggest a ton of research, regardless of what you buy. :(

[mebull 27]

Hello Bernie, Just to add to what is posted so far, here is may experience and some of my system specs. (1) I am running a QX9650 3.0 Ghz. OC'ed to 3.83 with liquid cooling; 2g DDr3 ram on XP32bit and using the 3G switch with the large address aware tweak of FS9. Almost forgot: 1200 watt PSU. (2) My only regret is I went for a high end GPU GTX820 card with 1G. It turns out that it uses more resources than it is worth because of the greater ram on the GPU. I have read that perhaps the 8800 series of GPUs with 512G are the best for FS9. With that said I am able to run FS9 all sliders set to full. Just about all real world traffic I can find. Real world weather and add on scenery and a complex aircraft. All very smooth (frame rate locked at 30 and averages 29.8). The QX9650 does a fine job, and even with its short comings so does the GTX280. My advice is do not give in to 'overkill'.Best regards and I hope this helps some,MelP.S. Sorry, forgot: 22" dia LCD running native resolution 1680x1050