Two questions regarding FS2004 and FSX

[catmar 0]

Well I guess the topic title and description say it all. I am still using FS2004, although I have bought FSX.The reason I have not installed FSX is because I believe my system may not handle it very well.CPU: E6750 @ 2.66GhzGPU: Geforce 9600GT 1Mb MemoryMobo: ASUS P5B StandardOS: Windows XP ProI have FS2004 Set up pretty well although I do have some micro stutters every now and again. I useDisktrix Ultimate Defrag 2008 to put all Flight Simulation files at the edge of the hard drive disk whereit is running at it's fastest.Question one.What can I expect if I just install FSX on this system?Question two.What can I expect if I install Windows 7 and FSX?Supplemental to Q2 would there be any mileage in upgrading the CPU to the E76 @ 3.06Ghz andupgrading the GPU to Geforce 8800GTX, I do not wish to change the Motherboard at present ifI can help it.Thanks in advance and opinions appreciated.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

This is one of those upgrades that actually does make a little bit of sense. You'd go from barely being able to run FSX, to being able to at least scratch the potential.Your current setup won't do well with FSX, at all.. and while an 8800GTS and E7600 would be a step up, and can be found relatively inexpensive.. that would be one of those "piece-meal" upgrades that end up being more expensive than they're worth. A rig built around those components (the E7600/8800GTS), would have made sense a couple years ago, as a bare-minimum FSX computer, but at this point; you're better off saving that money towards a complete, new build... According to NewEgg .. E7600s are going for $144 .. and an old (these are three year old cards) 8800GTS can be had for $90. If you're certain that a new-build is not in your near future.. then that $234 will probably give you $234 worth of performance.. but when you consider that you're putting 3-year-old parts on top of a 3-year-old platform... I'd suggest saving and waiting.Bottom line ? If you're absolutely sure that you won't be building in the next year, to year and a half.. go for it and know that you'll have problems and will have to do a lot of FSX tweaking. Otherwise.. wait and put that $234 into the new computer.

[catmar 0]

Well I guess the topic title and description say it all. I am still using FS2004, although I have bought FSX.The reason I have not installed FSX is because I believe my system may not handle it very well.CPU: E6750 @ 2.66GhzGPU: Geforce 9600GT 1Mb MemoryMobo: ASUS P5B StandardOS: Windows XP ProI have FS2004 Set up pretty well although I do have some micro stutters every now and again. I useDisktrix Ultimate Defrag 2008 to put all Flight Simulation files at the edge of the hard drive disk whereit is running at it's fastest.Question one.What can I expect if I just install FSX on this system?Question two.What can I expect if I install Windows 7 and FSX?Supplemental to Q2 would there be any mileage in upgrading the CPU to the E76 @ 3.06Ghz andupgrading the GPU to Geforce 8800GTX, I do not wish to change the Motherboard at present ifI can help it.Thanks in advance and opinions appreciated.

Brett,Thank you so much for your advice, this is just the kind of service I like, quick and to the pointon your advise I shall just keep saving until I have enough money to build a rig that will beworthy of running FSX very well.I think something similar to this would be a good start:Intel CPU i7 975,Asus P6T Deluxe V.2,12 gig RAM 1600,GTX 285 (182.50 Vista Driver)Windows 7Thanks again for your much needed advice.

[Guest UlfB]

I think something similar to this would be a good start:Intel CPU i7 975,Asus P6T Deluxe V.2,12 gig RAM 1600,GTX 285 (182.50 Vista Driver)Windows 7

If money is an issue I would recommend you to avoid the i7 975 and go for a less expensive i7 CPU. Maybe a 960? And 6GB RAM would be more than enough for FSX.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Intel CPU i7 975,Asus P6T Deluxe V.2,12 gig RAM 1600,GTX 285 (182.50 Vista Driver)Windows 7

Yeah.. that would be a good platform for FSX.. and I think we're near the point where prices will get reasonable on those components.Just for reference (I'm on my third FSX computer): I built a Q6600/8800GTS for FSX just after it came out (o-clocked the Q6600 to 3Ghz). I paid $500 for the Q6600 and $600 for the 8800GTS.. the whole computer + O/S was well over $2000. I'd have been better off waiting a year or so, and spending that $2000 toward what I'm running now (Q9550@3.6Ghz). I'm STILL using that 8800GTS, because even at 4-cores and 3.6Ghz.. the CPU is still the bottle-neck. Spending a few hundred bucks on something like a high-end 285 might smooth things out a bit.. but by the time I go with whatever the next-gen CPU might be.. that few hundred bucks will have been wasted.

[WallysWorld 4]

I think something similar to this would be a good start:Intel CPU i7 975,Asus P6T Deluxe V.2,12 gig RAM 1600,GTX 285 (182.50 Vista Driver)Windows 7

catmar,I just recently built the following machine:i7-920Asus P6T6GB DDR3 1600MHz 1GB GTX 285Cooler Master HAF 932 High Flow caseWindows 7 64-bitMy machine can handle almost everything at FSX can throw at it and remain at 30+ fps after overclocking the i7-920 to 4Ghz. The only time it bogs down a little is at busy airports. This is with the FSX display settings set to full and MyTraffic 5.2b's AI set to 55.I agree with UlfB's comment that you can save money by not buying the i7-975. The 920 (or 960) should be able to reach 4Ghz quite easily. Just make sure to get a very good CPU cooler and maybe a case with good air flow as well.I also think that 12GB of RAM is overkill. 6GB does me just fine.

[Chock 17,769]

The Asus P5 motherboard family was a good motherboard series, but the operative word here is 'was', i.e. it is getting a bit long in the tooth these days. Don't get me wrong though, I had an Asus P5 running FSX a few years back, and whilst it did okay, it never really was able to do FSX justice, and the limiting factor was mostly RAM speed, although processor speed support had some bearing on matter too.Now, I know you said you'd prefer not to change the motherboard, but I really think you are building in a lot of obsolescence if you go that way, and I wouldn't mind betting you'd not have to spend much more to change the motherboard and give yourself some future options.The trouble with thinking about upgrading and not wanting to change the motherboard, is that it severely limits your choices when the motherboard is old. It is certainly true that you or I could get the fanciest graphics card in the world and plonk it in an Asus P5, and even find a fast processor in the correct slot form for a P5 and sling that in too, but it is a bit like putting a V8 in an old car; it might make it a bit faster, but it is still an old car, and all the other components such as the chassis, the wheels and brakes will not be up to snuff. Back with computers, what would limit souping up the Asus P5 more than anything, would be, as noted, what RAM it can supportI had this dilemma a while back when I decided to upgrade one of my desktop computers. For a long time I considered simply upgrading the RAM, which I think would have worked out at about 120 quid in the UK for what I needed, but of course it was back to that 'put a new engine in an old car' argument where the RAM I could have chosen to put in was not DR3, but DDR2; more like a V6 than a V8. So, after a bit of research, I found that I could actually buy a new motherboard, new faster DDR3 RAM and a new processor, all for 166 quid, which was of course only 46 quid more than if I had gone with putting some DDR2 RAM in alone.That's the weird thing about RAM, it is a commodity, and you often find that the very new stuff is proportionally much cheaper than the older stuff. And as you probably know, any 3D applications such as flight simulators love fast RAM. So, it turned out to be the wiser choice performance wise to ditch my motherboard in the case of that upgrade, and is also a bit more 'future-proof' (not that any computer could ever really be considered that).So, I would seriously consider looking for a motherboard that could support faster RAM and preferably one that can support good high end multi core processors whilst you are at it, even if you don;'t buy one of those straight away. This is because multi core processors have been around for quite a while now, and you can get some good first and second generation ones for not a lot of cash. What I went with on that aforementioned upgrade, was an Asroc M3A77ODE motherboard, some DDR3 RAM, and an AMD Athlon II X2 245 processor, which was very cheap, but of course uses the AM3 socket that the Asroc motherboard has, and that was the main reason I chose that motherboard, apart from its RAM speed support, since the AM3 processor socket is one that still has development potential and can support much faster processor than I went with in the II X2 245. Thus, when the fancier ones come down to that same price, it will be a no brainer to shove one in that motherboard.Anyway, just some ideas.Al

[Brett_Henderson 5]

catmar,I just recently built the following machine:i7-920Asus P6T6GB DDR3 1600MHz 1GB GTX 285Cooler Master HAF 932 High Flow caseWindows 7 64-bitMy machine can handle almost everything at FSX can throw at it and remain at 30+ fps after overclocking the i7-920 to 4Ghz. The only time it bogs down a little is at busy airports. This is with the FSX display settings set to full and MyTraffic 5.2b's AI set to 55.I agree with UlfB's comment that you can save money by not buying the i7-975. The 920 (or 960) should be able to reach 4Ghz quite easily. Just make sure to get a very good CPU cooler and maybe a case with good air flow as well.I also think that 12GB of RAM is overkill. 6GB does me just fine.

This is an excellent post/point.. I always leave o-clocking out of the discussion.. but if you're comfy with it, you can get (as noted) 4Ghz speed out of a 920. Now of course you can get the 975 up 4Ghz more easliy stable (and cooler).. but that just gets into the "what if" spiral.,, i.e.. go back a few years and ask, "why buy a Q9550, when you can clock a Q6600 to that speed ?"... Welllllll.. aside from speed, there are stability issues.. and MOST important of all.. the sizes of the cahces (L2).Overclocking can get you more for your dollar.. but more dollars raises the scale too .. you still end up getting what you're willing to pay for.

[catmar 0]

I would like to thank everyone that has responded to my question, I have some great positivethoughts which will give me a lot to ponder upon before shelling out scarce resources on ahobby.Thanks everyone, I've archived this thread and will use it in my next purchase of mysystem to enable me to run FSX without too much aggravation.P.S. I do not over clock so I will have to bear that in mind.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Just a quick note on over-clocking... It's not the bizarre science that it once was. In fact, most modern CPUs are UNDER-clocked as rated; so that they won't cause problems with the cheap mother-boards and RAM, that OEMs use.The reason that I never over-clocked back in the "day".. was because to get any useful performance, you had to push the CPU into life-shortening temperatures. That, combined with the high-end RAM needed, and the CPU cooler needed.. and you were actually better off just paying for a faster CPU. If you wanted that insane 2Ghz.. it was better to just pay for a 2Ghz CPU.Now we're into an arena where even a shortened CPU life, is longer than its useful life. Even if reasonble over-clocking did cut the life from say, 4 years, to 2 years (it doesn't), people needing fast CPUs don't keep them longer than 2 years anyway.A modern CPU can be brought up the speed that it's naturally capable of (and perfectly happy at), with every-day RAM.. a little research, and a few minutes in SETUP.

[Paul J 349]

Here's a great starting point for o/c'ing the i7 series, CatMar:-http://forums.pureoverclock.com/showthread.php?t=5736You'll see most use the 920, as it will hit 4.0 without issues; it's cheap, and there are lots of good, inexpensive mobo's that will take it. You also don't need a "fantastic" gpu: my sig shows an old-ish 9800GTX, and that's more than adequate.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

You also don't need a "fantastic" gpu: my sig shows an old-ish 9800GTX, and that's more than adequate.

That's for certain.. I'm running an 8800GTS, and there's little point in going to a newer card, because for FSX, even the 8800 is "waiting" on my CPU (Q9950@3.6Ghz)..Something like a 290 would smooth things out a bit.. but not enough to warrant its cost.

[catmar 0]

Thanks for the update everyone, I've saved the link on overclocking so I'll take a look at itlater. All points noted, and more to think about.Rgds to all.