Building New PC - Research Phase

[Brenchen]

Hi all,I've been keeping a close watch on some threads on people buying and building new systems to run FSX. As I am soon to be one of those, I'm doing some research on this topic.Two of the things which bugs me the most, yet I haven't decided on a solution thus far is because of ever-advancing new technologies, and there are always some gaps missing.I will propose those questions that bugs me and hope to get some feedback from it.I am looking to run FSX on a stable 28-30FPS (no less) with maxed graphics (though not too concerned with autogen), max clouds texture setting + coverage (AS2012), and of course, highest quality of PMDG products.From research, I have realised most people tend to go with i5 2500K with GTX580. First question, CPU related:I think 2500K would be a good choice as I don't really need hyperthreading for other stuff. But now that I realise the AMD FX-8130 has a decent stock clock speed, and can be OC'd quite significantly. Though there aren't too much talk on AMD going on FS machines, that puzzles me as to why?Second question is relation to graphics cards:If from my information gathering is somewhat correct, FSX do not rely too much on graphics cards, yet everybody is going for something pretty top, such as a GTX480; somehow not many people I saw goes for the GTX490?I was almost about the set my mind to get a 2500K, but now suddenly, at lunch, a colleague told me an AMD is good for OC and has a decent stock clock speed, that got me confused.Hope to seek some advises and comments here.Cheers!

[Rickie Welsh]

Hello Brendan, Sorry to say I am not very qualified on these matters, however, for what its worth I use the Nvidia GTX570 which I find is very efficient particularly with the 280 driver. The concensus of opinion is that Nvidia graphic cards appear to be the choice of most satisfied simmers including the PMDG support staff. Hope this helps. richard welsh.

[MrKen]

On number 1: The i5 2500k can handle more instructions per clock than that AMD cpu, so even at the same clock speed it would still outperform it. Also remember the 2500k is good for 4.3 GHz, sometimes as much as 5 GHz, depending on the chip. (my current CPU can do 4.8 GHz)For graphics card I would recommend the GTX560ti. The 560, 570 & 580 will all perform at about the same level on FSX.As for settings, don't just throw all your sliders to the right. Water in particular shouldn't go past low2x.

[Brenchen]

Thanks for the replies. So what about 580 vs 590? Would there be much of a benefit in having the 590 if I have the budget for it? Or it makes absolutely zero difference?

[MrKen]

590 may actually hurt performance. It has 2 GPU's & onboard SLI, which will add a small additional load on the CPU.Basically 570/580 will probably let you use slightly higher AA settings, but the 560ti is the best bang for your buck.I have 580's for other games, & I have 2 of them in SLI for a VC that spans across 3 monitors (the extra peripheral vision works very well with other games). If it were strictly for FSX I could get about the same from 2 560ti's. I could also get better performance on just one card (lower resolution & no additional load on CPU cause by the SLI)So basically if you want the absolute best card for fsx then drop $500US on a 580. If you want a card that costs half that & runs fsx 95% as well go the for 560ti. Either way, the 6xx cards are due out soon. I'd wait till they're available & prices drop, especially if you'e going for the 580.

[Brenchen]

Yea so I have two options essentially here. I currently have a GTX480, and initially looking to upgrade just the CPU and MB. But now thinking that my RAM don't run 1688 (or whatever it is), it runs at 1200 or something. So thought I need to upgrade the RAM, get an SSD while I'm at it, then hey! Why not just get a new PC!If GTX480 isn't going to cause too much differences from the upper ends of the 5xxs in terms of FSX, then I'll build a new PC using my GTX480. What I'm concerned about is the 480 being the bottleneck of my new system...

[MrKen]

Well now knowing your plans I'd hold off on the video card. Wait & see if you're happy with the new system first.Regarding memory, on sandy bridge CPU's you're adjusting the multiplier not the base clock, so memory speed isn't all that important. All you need is 8GB, 1333MHz, 1.5 volts or less. Preferably a matched 2x4GB set.You can also save a bundle by putting FSX on a 10k rpm hard drive instead of an SSD. Well maybe, I haven't priced a velociraptor since the Taiwan floods but my wife does IT & told me most HD's have almost doubled in price.As for motherboard, you've probably already read that you'll need a P67 or Z68 chipset for a good overclock. Personally I recommend ASUS Deluxe boards, but they're not the only good ones around.Also make sure you get a 64-bit OS & install FSX somewhere besides the default location, whether it's a separate drive, partition or simply C:FSX.

[Brenchen]

Exactly right, I do have a set of 1333s, but from memory 4x2GB. Z68s are what's in my scope, looking to go for gigabyte GA Z68XP-UD4-B3 as my current board is GGB. And I had a play around with the bios settings so I should have some idea of how to OC when I'm in the bios. But the suggestion on the graphics cards sounds promising.

[MrKen]

Definitely check out some sandy bridge OC guides before you do it. They're not like the previous i5/7's.There's an article by an ASUS guy on the web somewhere I'll try to link. Once you get a good, stable OC it'll shed some light on the more advanced settings & possibly allow another .1-.2 GHz.The main thing to remember is only half of them can go past 4.3GHz & only 10% of those can reach 4.9 or more. It's just luck of the draw so don't be disappointed if you're only able to hit 4.3 or 4.5 GHz. That's still plenty to run FSX like a dream.EDIT:Basic Sandy Bridge overclocking on an ASUS board...http://www.clunk.org.uk/forums/overclocking/39184-p67-sandy-bridge-overclocking-guide-beginners.html

Edited February 8, 2012 by MrKen

[ZachLW]

Yea so I have two options essentially here. I currently have a GTX480, and initially looking to upgrade just the CPU and MB. But now thinking that my RAM don't run 1688 (or whatever it is), it runs at 1200 or something. So thought I need to upgrade the RAM, get an SSD while I'm at it, then hey! Why not just get a new PC!If GTX480 isn't going to cause too much differences from the upper ends of the 5xxs in terms of FSX, then I'll build a new PC using my GTX480. What I'm concerned about is the 480 being the bottleneck of my new system...

Keep the 480. That's a strong card and more than adequate for FSX.

[Paul_Smith]

...I am looking to run FSX on a stable 28-30FPS (no less) with maxed graphics (though not too concerned with autogen), max clouds texture setting

Others have already given you good advice on the hardware, but I take it that you are, or were until recently, an FS9 user.FPS with sliders to the right is simply not how FSX should be measured, and if you focus on it, you can not but be disappointed no matter what hardware you have! It just does not work that way. FSX makes it very easy to have different configurations for different types of flying and to even change between them during a flight, so why (for example) would you want water effects at 2.x max while flying the NGX over Alice Springs? Or cloud draw at 200Nm flying a Cessna into Queenstown, NZ? Aim instead for smoothness in flight and graphics and you will have a much more enjoyable immersive experience.

[Brenchen]

Thanks everyone! This has turned out more fruitful than I initially anticipated!I started using FSX upon the release of NGX (I was one of those F5'ers) and it performed poorly. Then I took the plunge and OC'd my old i7. How it was running rough... So learning exactly what Paul was mentioning I think is quite important, rather than reading numeric indications. I'm an engineering scientist, reading numbers are second nature to me but being able to not bog down in that is a very important quality I believe.Hope this discussion don't stop here, as I'm learning a lot!Thank you all!

Edited February 8, 2012 by Brenchen

[bkisc]

don't go with AMD for processor, my own experience with them hasn't been good and you'll find stories all over the net, suggest you go with Intel, the best you can afford, use a liquid cooling solution from Corsair, a good graphics card, and yes butter it out with load of high power RAM and a SSD. my early 2010 config of i7 920 with turbo boost enabled, ATI 5850, 6Gig RAM, 80GB intel SSD, runs NGX at maxed out sliders except the autogen at a smooth frame rates, occasionally dropping to 24 fps over dense areas,I use Real Environment Xtreme and FSX Global, for running Free Track and instructor panel, I use a netbook Acer AOD 250 and pipe the data through FSUIPC. Only wish this was also possible with NGX FMC as its computation seems to consume a bit more of what FSX can use itself but heck it's still okay :)on top of that, use wifi screen extender software for ipad like splashtop etc. to extend the screen of netbook and use touch based instructor panel, say the possibilities of fun are endless....

Edited February 8, 2012 by bkisc

[Brenchen]

SSD wise, there isn't really much difference between them right? Apart from the speed, one of the main reason is because I don't need to defrag it (recommended by some of the literature I looked at).

[Datalink]

Also make sure you get a 64-bit OS & install FSX somewhere besides the default location, whether it's a separate drive, partition or simply C:FSX.

Just curious as to what the difference/improvement you'll get from not installing to the default location?