Advise on new HDD and the Search for a Bottleneck

[Speedbird 217 161]

Hi everybody.Currently I run FSX and FS9 on the following system. I'm not really planning on upgrading yet, since I achieve great results in all current games and FS9.Mobo: ASUS P6T SECPU: Intel i7 920 OC@3.8Ghz and running stableRAM: Corsair PC-12800 6GBGPU: ATI HD5850PSU: Corsair HX 850WHDD1 (OS,games,FSX): WD5000AAKS 500GB--> this one is pretty outdated. It's 5 years old now and I want to replace it.HDD2 (FS9): WD 3000HLFS 300GB VelociraptorOS: Win7 64bitNow I would be happy about some advice, as I thought about getting a new Harddrive to put my OS on and all the programs, games and FSX. I narrowed it down to 2 options:1. WD 1002 FAEX 1TB Caviar Black 2. WD 6000HLHX Velociraptor 600GBI know FSX mainly depends on a powerful CPU. I also know about AMD GPU's performing worse in FSX than Nvidia. Still I can play every modern game like BF3 on maximum details without problems. In the screenshot forums I see people running FSX on highest settings with nice FPS between 25 and 30 with almost the same setup I have.Sadly FSX runs very bad on my system. Out of the box I get great FPS, but as soon as I install any addons like airport sceneries, UTX/GEX/REX and a complex plane like the NGX, frames drop down into the 10-15 FPS range. I tried the Shader Mod, tweaked my cfg according to all the guides out there and still can't get it to run smoothly. Funny part is that I get low frames, no matter if I set the sliders to max or set them to medium or low settings (actually I found that setting them to maximum runs better by a few frames than having them on low or medium). Immediate overkill is the attempt to add AI traffic.My question now would be what HDD you would recommend. I know this probably won't affect performance a lot, but the 5 year old HDD I currently have is keeping my Performance Index in Windows down and I don't wanna risk it dying of senility. Also I am thankful for any tips on how to get more out of my FSX. I just can't believe that my relatively powerful system can't run it.Thanks in advance,

[Ben Cap 89]

For a new HDD, go for the Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB. These are quick and very reliable.The main bottleneck is your GPU, you must try to stick with NVIDIA when using FSX. AMD cards provide abysmal performance in FSX. A single GTX560ti will remove this bottleneck and provide great FSX FPS performance. THIS one will suffice.

[Guest Kosta]

Why not a WD Raptor 600GB HLHX? I just ordered one after having a 150GB version for past 2-3 years now I think.

[Speedbird 217 161]

Thanks for the replies so far.Are you sure that changing to a GTX560 Ti will solve all my performance problems? When I compare them on hardware sites they seem to be pretty much the same performance wise, with the HD5850 even getting better FPS (up to15%) in some games. Since FSX is always said to be CPU-hungry I just can't imagine to double my FPS by putting in another GPU that basically has the same specs. I am considering to take the leap from FS9 to FSX finally, even though I love my old FS9. But if I can't run it on nice settings and fly with weather, full AI traffic in the NGX into JFK, getting a stable and smooth 25-30 FPS, I'd rather stick with the old platform for now where I don't have to worry about FPS at all.Regarding the HDD. I was in favor of the Velociraptor 600. It's around 55 Euros more compared to the Black Caviar 1TB and offers 400 GB less, obviously. I just want to know if the gain in performance justifies the 400GB less capacity for almost a third more in price?

[Tor 0]

"Regarding the HDD. I was in favor of the Velociraptor 600. It's around 55 Euros more compared to the Black Caviar 1TB and offers 400 GB less, obviously. I just want to know if the gain in performance justifies the 400GB less capacity for almost a third more in price?"NO, def. not!Get the 1 Tb Black, 64 Mb cache, 6 Gbs, it´s very fast.

[VeryBumpy 272]

The main bottleneck is your GPU, you must try to stick with NVIDIA when using FSX. AMD cards provide abysmal performance in FSX.

Not sure I believe this. That ATI card is plenty fast. Anyone have links to FSX performance comparisons of NV vs ATI?

[Guest Kosta]

WD Raptor definitely justifies the price. Since I had to put my photoscenery on the 7200rpm drive, I had my FSX load at double the time. Terrible. I can't wait for my HLHX. Should arrive tomorrow.

[Tor 0]

Sure it was terrible, you have only Seagate HDD´s ! :Nerd:

[Guest Kosta]

Quite correct. Those Seagates don't have 32MB cache, so I can't really compare. But I can say my older Raptor blows them out of the water. New one is even better.The old Raptor is going to be used for a windows partition instead of Seagates.

[Tor 0]

Apples to Oranges, surely!Have a look at these two discussions, I´m not into running tests myself, let others to that.http://forums.whirlp...archive/1412021http://www.eggxpert....ead/655134.aspx

So how much more speed and random access read performance to you get in FSX from the Vrap, compared to a 1 TB WD1002FAEX, short stroked or max. 1/3 full?

[Speedbird 217 161]

I ordered a WD1002 Black Caviar today. I'm happy with my VelociRaptor that houses my FS9 installation, but I read that the WD1002 with 64MB cache is pretty much the same in performance as my last generation Raptor. This saves me 50 bucks and gives me 400 GB more in capacity plus double the cache of the Raptor. I guess I won't notice much of a difference and it's a lot faster than my 5 year old WD anyway.Two more questions though:1. Does anybody know a way how I can backup the FS9-relevant registry files in my Windows installation? I will have to reinstall Windows on the new drive and my FS9 is on the Raptor. I don't really wanna reinstall everything, this would take me ages. But Addons like the PMDG, Ifly, Level-D and so on depend on registry keys in windows...2. Any other opinions on the "Bottleneck" that gives me such bad performance in FSX? Can anybody confirm that switching from my HD5850 to a GTX560 Ti would work miracles?

[VeryBumpy 272]

2. Any other opinions on the "Bottleneck" that gives me such bad performance in FSX? Can anybody confirm that switching from my HD5850 to a GTX560 Ti would work miracles?

There is a post in the FSXbench11 thread that suggest a NV card would indeed greatly raise frame rates over ATI but everyone says this game is so CPU limited so find it hard to believe that a 5850 is not plenty powerful to run any gpu type setting at max.I'd gladly test this out if I knew where I could borrow a decent NV card for a few days.

[Speedbird 217 161]

In my previous rig I had an NV8800 Ultra. This thing was High-End back in the day and I had a ton of problems with it. In the end it blew up and I received 2 malfunctioning replacement cards over the course of half a year, before the warranty period expired. This thing got hot as hell. That's when I decided to go for ATI in my new rig. I am very pleased with the results I get with anything I throw at it, except FSX...Like you said, I find it hard to believe that an almost identical card (specs-wise) would help me to get from 10-15 to 25-30 FPS. But on the other hand my CPU is pretty good, even though it's not the latest generation i7. But running an i7 920@3.8 GHz should be enough power to run FSX nicely, in my opinion?!

[Ben Cap 89]

2. Any other opinions on the "Bottleneck" that gives me such bad performance in FSX? Can anybody confirm that switching from my HD5850 to a GTX560 Ti would work miracles?

If you navigate to the FSmark11 benchmark thread, you can clearly see that almost everyone with an Nvidia card(paired with a fast CPU), gets fantastic performance.I went from an AMD5870 to a single GTS450 and the performance jump was massive. I saw about a 20FPS gain around the clouds and the water. [Note: I was using all tweaks and bojote's SM3]A GTX560ti is much much more powerful than my GTS450 so the FPS jump should be worth it. I can garuntee you that the FPS raise will be well worth it.

[Speedbird 217 161]

If you navigate to the FSmark11 benchmark thread, you can clearly see that almost everyone with an Nvidia card(paired with a fast CPU), gets fantastic performance.

Thanks for the info! I'll wait until I get my new HDD and then I'm gonna run the Benchmark on a fresh FSX installation. Similar systems like mine with a NV GPU received around 36 FPS on average, so it will be interesting to see what results I will get. Since this benchmark is only vanilla FSX - how much drop in FPS can I expect when running addons like NGX, REX, GEX, UTX and complex sceneries with AI traffic? Like I said earlier, when running FSX out of the box I get high frames in the 50-60 FPS range...it's just all the addons that bring it down.