Please advice before I place order

[Fall_guy 1]

Hi Everyone,Been reading up on computer jargon for weeks now so I can go ahead and build a better performing PC for FSX. (I'm a flyer not a geek :He He: ) So from what I have managed to figure out this is what Ive come-up with. Therefore I could do with your advice/guidance on compatability issues before I go ahead and order the items. The rig is purely to run FSX. Case: Lian Li PC-B25FWDProcessor: i7 2600k (1155) Sandybridge (would like to overclock to something around the 4.2G mark)Power Supply: Corsair AX1200 WattMotherboard: ASUS Sabertooth P67 (1155)Heat Sink: Antec 920 HeatsinkMemory: 2x4Gb: Corsair VengenceSDD Drive: 240Gb (Purely for Windows 7 - 64 Bit)SDD: 240Gb (Purely for FSX) + 3rd party additionsGraphic Card: Nvidia GTX590The one thing I'm not to sure about is the Memory (Ram) if anyone could advice on mhz/speed etc Id very much appreciate it. Also I'd prefer to increase this form 4gb to 8 or possible 16 (if you think it will be to any advantage)Thanks Guys for help and adviceRegardsJohnp.s Id just like to say a big thanks to ALL who have posted here, without these forums I would'nt have been able to learn what I have over the last couple of weeks.

[cmeeks 8]

For RAM, you want more MHz and lower timings. I would advise either 2133 CL9 or 1600 CL7. You don't necessarily need to know what the timings (for example: 7-8-7-24) mean. Just know that lower = better! 8GB will be plenty, but try to get 4GB modules instead of 2. Populating all four ram slots can sometimes lead to instability unless you add more voltage.Regarding the GPU, I'm not really sure whether or not a GTX590 is a good idea for FSX. I'm not really knowledgeable on graphics cards, so perhaps someone else can chime in.Also not real crazy about the Sabertooth. It seems kind of overpriced for what it is, but I suppose mobos are more personal preference with Sandy Bridge.

[alainneedle1 97]

http://www.guru3d.co...67-tuf-review/1It's a good board, like Corey said get 2 x 4GB at 2133MHz with the lowest timing you can get,

[ryanbatc 12,857]

In the past dual GPU's such as your proposed GTX 590 have been said to possibly decrease performance with FSX because it doesn't take advantage of SLI/xfire (if ATI), but I've seen a few people run dual GPU cards without any issues in FSX.If you play any other games I'd definitely get that or an AMD 6970 instead... the amd card would be more powerful outside of FSX applications (and about half the cost of a 590)... and you can also run eyefinity (3 monitor setup) without having to purchase TH2G.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102915&cm_re=6970-_-14-102-915-_-ProductThe downside is driver support SUCKS for FSX and AMD products... the nvidia stuff is much better hence why most the people recommend nvidia card for FSX. I personally run a GTX 570 and like it. I only use 1 monitor though.

[alainneedle1 97]

Here is the answer about FSX and SLI..http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/03/03/fsx-more-on-sli-and-multi-core.aspx

[ramrunner800 10]

I've spent about 12 hours over the last 3 days benching my new GTX 590 using FSMark11, and I've found a few interesting things about it that you may want to know before you purchase. The details of my rig are in my sig. Single Display Testing: The absolute fastest benchmark result I got was when I turned one GPU off. In single GPU mode I got an average of 42fps during the bench. When running in dual GPU mode I only achieved a stuttery 32. By forcing AFR through NVidia Control Panel, and setting BP=0, I was able to increase my performance to an average of 37fps.Surround TestingMy surround testing was not conducted using the FSMark11 protocol, rather it was tested flying around Flightbeam KSFOX, with TrafficX @ 200%, Aerosoft Megacities San Francisco, and tweaked according to Nick's Setup Guide. In NVidia surround testing both GPU's are in use at the same time, so there is no option to force AFR. With BP=0 I achieved 18-20 FPS very smoothly, however the sim was very unstable. I had one BSOD, one black screen, one Fatal Error, and some light scenery artifacting. By setting BP=1, Poolsize=490000000, I achieved a more stable sim, and a much smoother one. My FPS, however, stayed constantly at about 18 fps. I was very impressed how playable it was. Landing at the airport in heavy traffic, flying between buildings downtown at high speed, through clouds, and cruising around the city panning quickly, nothing interfered with the smoothness. Best FSX experience I've had yet. It is worth noting that during this entire test my GPU usage was pegged @ 99%, and VRAM usage at ~1000-1100MB per GPU.Given these results, I do not think that I can recommend the GTX 590. In single display testing, the card is hamstrung when using dual GPU's. The GTX580 has a faster clock, so you will be running a GF110, but at 800MHz+, rather than 612+ with your 1/2GTX590. For surround performance, I can't help but think that the 3GB GTX580 with TH2Go would be a far superior choice. No multi-GPU penalty, equivalent VRAM (more per GPU actually), and a significantly faster clock should = better performance.Don't take all this to say I hate the card, the GTX590 isn't performing poorly; I've never played FSX this smoothly, or had as enjoyable an experience as this with the sim. However, I think that your hard earned pennies may be better spent with a different choice.

[Fall_guy 1]

I've spent about 12 hours over the last 3 days benching my new GTX 590 using FSMark11, and I've found a few interesting things about it that you may want to know before you purchase. The details of my rig are in my sig. Single Display Testing: The absolute fastest benchmark result I got was when I turned one GPU off. In single GPU mode I got an average of 42fps during the bench. When running in dual GPU mode I only achieved a stuttery 32. By forcing AFR through NVidia Control Panel, and setting BP=0, I was able to increase my performance to an average of 37fps.Surround TestingMy surround testing was not conducted using the FSMark11 protocol, rather it was tested flying around Flightbeam KSFOX, with TrafficX @ 200%, Aerosoft Megacities San Francisco, and tweaked according to Nick's Setup Guide. In NVidia surround testing both GPU's are in use at the same time, so there is no option to force AFR. With BP=0 I achieved 18-20 FPS very smoothly, however the sim was very unstable. I had one BSOD, one black screen, one Fatal Error, and some light scenery artifacting. By setting BP=1, Poolsize=490000000, I achieved a more stable sim, and a much smoother one. My FPS, however, stayed constantly at about 18 fps. I was very impressed how playable it was. Landing at the airport in heavy traffic, flying between buildings downtown at high speed, through clouds, and cruising around the city panning quickly, nothing interfered with the smoothness. Best FSX experience I've had yet. It is worth noting that during this entire test my GPU usage was pegged @ 99%, and VRAM usage at ~1000-1100MB per GPU.Given these results, I do not think that I can recommend the GTX 590. In single display testing, the card is hamstrung when using dual GPU's. The GTX580 has a faster clock, so you will be running a GF110, but at 800MHz+, rather than 612+ with your 1/2GTX590. For surround performance, I can't help but think that the 3GB GTX580 with TH2Go would be a far superior choice. No multi-GPU penalty, equivalent VRAM (more per GPU actually), and a significantly faster clock should = better performance.Don't take all this to say I hate the card, the GTX590 isn't performing poorly; I've never played FSX this smoothly, or had as enjoyable an experience as this with the sim. However, I think that your hard earned pennies may be better spent with a different choice.

Hi Guys,Thanks alot for the info, I was swayed over to the GTX590 having read that it is superb at detailed cloud redering (where as the ATI/AMD 6990 etc was poor) also I was thinking along the lines of being able to run a 3 monitor set up due to the GTX590's 3 out-puts PLUS I was thinking that 4Gb is better than 3Gb.As I said this is ALL abit new to me, just to clarify does FSX perform better running a SLI/Crossfire set-up? (i.e. running with 2 G/cards) because I only intended to use one really. Anyhow thanks again for your guidance...... I'll go and have a look at the GTX580 now and see how much that card cost along with TH2Go.Kind regardsJohn

[ramrunner800 10]

Hi Guys,Thanks alot for the info, I was swayed over to the GTX590 having read that it is superb at detailed cloud redering (where as the ATI/AMD 6990 etc was poor) also I was thinking along the lines of being able to run a 3 monitor set up due to the GTX590's 3 out-puts PLUS I was thinking that 4Gb is better than 3Gb.As I said this is ALL abit new to me, just to clarify does FSX perform better running a SLI/Crossfire set-up? (i.e. running with 2 G/cards) because I only intended to use one really. Anyhow thanks again for your guidance...... I'll go and have a look at the GTX580 now and see how much that card cost along with TH2Go.Kind regardsJohn

In my tests I found that FSX performs poorly with with two GPU's. By running SLI I suffered a 25% decrease in FPS. The FSMark11 Benchmark Results post was interesting for this. Users w/ similar rigs to mine, but running GTX580's, were getting frame rates of 45fps+. I got about 42 when I ran only one GPU. Running both SLI I only got 32fps, so a 10% loss. I think that it's a bit messed up that I get my best performance by turning off half of my $750 Graphics card.I would definitely get NVidia over an ATI card, the reason I got the 590 was because I was tired of how poorly my ATI card performed in any kind of weather.I wouldn't be too worried about only having 3GB of VRAM. Testing over areas of INSANE (Aerosoft Megacities SFO w/ Flightbeam KSFOX) autogen, w/ traffic maxed out, and w/ REX 2OD, and BP=0 enabled, I was getting about 2GB of VRAM usage on a triple monitor setup. I was also getting 100% GPU usage, so I should probably have gotten better performance if I had a faster clock (like the GTX 580 has). The 3GB GTX 580 runs between $600-$650, and TH2go will run about $300 more. I think it's worth the extra money, because I think you will see a huge increase in performance.I do want to say again, that the 590 IS the best FSX experience I've had so far and even at really demanding conditions, it plays well. I just think that the 580 would be better, and all of the benchmarks I've seen reflect the same.

[Fall_guy 1]

Hi Everyone,Been reading up on computer jargon for weeks now so I can go ahead and build a better performing PC for FSX. (I'm a flyer not a geek :He He: ) So from what I have managed to figure out this is what Ive come-up with. Therefore I could do with your advice/guidance on compatability issues before I go ahead and order the items. The rig is purely to run FSX. Case: Lian Li PC-B25FWDProcessor: i7 2600k (1155) Sandybridge (would like to overclock to something around the 4.2G mark)Power Supply: Corsair AX1200 WattMotherboard: ASUS Sabertooth P67 (1155)Heat Sink: Antec 920 HeatsinkMemory: 2x4Gb: Corsair VengenceSDD Drive: 240Gb (Purely for Windows 7 - 64 Bit)SDD: 240Gb (Purely for FSX) + 3rd party additionsGraphic Card: Nvidia GTX590The one thing I'm not to sure about is the Memory (Ram) if anyone could advice on mhz/speed etc Id very much appreciate it. Also I'd prefer to increase this form 4gb to 8 or possible 16 (if you think it will be to any advantage)Thanks Guys for help and adviceRegardsJohnp.s Id just like to say a big thanks to ALL who have posted here, without these forums I would'nt have been able to learn what I have over the last couple of weeks.

Hi everyone,A couple more things I forgot to ask: Sorry if they sound dumb questions.1) Does FSX run any better with a particular version of Windows 7 (eg Home, Premium etc) I will be installing 64bit?2) Will I also have to purchase a NEW FSX deluxe to run on Windows 7 or will my copy of FSX (Vista) run OK.3) I intend to install Windows 7 64bit on an SSD drive, What size SSD do you think I will need in order to leave some space on the SSD for Window updates, fixes etc. (will 128GB be enough for example).4) Eventually Id also like to install FSX on an SSD drive, once installed do you recommend I install ALL my 3rd party add-ons on the same SSD as FSX (Scenery, Airports, REX, Aircraft etc).?Many thanks again guys for your support.Johnp.s. Went ahead and purchased some of the build yesterday, and I received the components today: Lian Li case, ATX1200 PSU, ASUS Sabertooth P67, and last but not least one i7 2600k processor.

[ramrunner800 10]

Hi everyone,A couple more things I forgot to ask: Sorry if they sound dumb questions.1) Does FSX run any better with a particular version of Windows 7 (eg Home, Premium etc) I will be installing 64bit?2) Will I also have to purchase a NEW FSX deluxe to run on Windows 7 or will my copy of FSX (Vista) run OK.3) I intend to install Windows 7 64bit on an SSD drive, What size SSD do you think I will need in order to leave some space on the SSD for Window updates, fixes etc. (will 128GB be enough for example).4) Eventually Id also like to install FSX on an SSD drive, once installed do you recommend I install ALL my 3rd party add-ons on the same SSD as FSX (Scenery, Airports, REX, Aircraft etc).?Many thanks again guys for your support.Johnp.s. Went ahead and purchased some of the build yesterday, and I received the components today: Lian Li case, ATX1200 PSU, ASUS Sabertooth P67, and last but not least one i7 2600k processor.

John,Definitely not dumb questions.1) I don't believe that different Windows versions make a difference, but I'm not a tech guru.2) Your current FSX is fine.3) I have windows on a 60GB ssd, and that's plenty of space. I have 20ish GB to spare after all of my drivers and such are installed. FSX is on a 120GB ssd, and it's holding FSX, w/ the addons I have listed in my sig. I'm kind of concerned how full it will get with more ORBX sceneries, or good terrain mesh, but the 240GB ssd's are prohibitively expensive. It doesn't really effect FSX performance anyway, just load times. (though the load times are WAY faster!) 4) You definitely need to have sceneries on the SSD, as loading those quickly is the entire point of having the SSD. As far as having them on different drives, I don't know why that would be a problem, but I'm again, I'm not a tech guru.Good luck with your new rig!