New "pure" FSX Rig

[McLaren 42]

Hi All,

 

First I would like to start off with sorry, I know that these forums get bombarded with "new computer" posts, hopefully with one will prove to be a bit more useful for everyone.

 

As the title states this will be a "Pure" FSX rig, meaning I will have the following installed:

1) Win 7x64

2) Anti-virus (NOD32)

3) Chrome/Firefox/Not IE browser

4) FSX and Add-ons

 

I plan on using this computer for FSX and FSX ONLY! I already have a multiple Apple machines capable of meeting all my other personal and professional computer needs. My current FS9/X rig is so old I won't post the specs for fear of public humiliation.

 

With Ivy Bridge here, I plan on waiting 4-6 weeks before purchasing components until I can get some IB/PCIe3 info specific to FSX. With that said here is my current spec sheet:

 

Ivy Bridge 3770k

 

GTX680*

 

MSI Z77 Mobo

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813130643

 

Corsair 850W Modular Power Supply

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817139015

 

Intel 520 Cherryville SSD**

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820167094

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820167093

 

Corsair H100 Liquid Cooling for CPU

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16835181017

 

16GB Mushkin Redline DDR31600 (7-8-9-24)***

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820226283

 

Corsair Carbide 500R Case

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16811139010

 

* -- As far as the GTX680 goes, I am not married to it. If PCIe3 shows little/no returns in FSX I may opt for the 570/580 to save some money.

 

** -- Going with Intel 520 because (from what I understand) it has proprietary Sandforce 2200 controller/drivers which increase reliability and performance. Going with one 60GB for the OS and two 120's in RAID0 for FSX.

 

*** -- I was recommended this memory by a friend, and it is similar to that suggested by NickN at simforums (he suggests a 7-7-7-24 which is out of stock at Newegg, if it gets back in by the time I order I will go with that). CAS Latency = 7.

 

My main questions with this set up are:

1) Are the Intel 520 SSDs worth the price (are they more reliable)?

2) Will Intel 520 SSDs in RAID0 provide a noticeable improvement in loading times and/or reduction of stutters? Also is 240gb overkill for FSX (I plan on installing some major Aircraft Addons (PMDG, Lenardo, Level-D, etc.) and a sizable amount of airport, and area wide scenery.

3) Down the road (6-12 months) I would like to try a tri-screen setup. I understand that FSX does not utilize SLI, but in the case of multiple monitors would it make a difference? And if I do opt to go with the Tri Monitor setup, is it safe to assume the 680 will provide better performance (in Dual SLI/Tri-monitor configuration) than the 570 or 580?

 

Please feel free to post different suggestions for parts, I would prefer Newegg links as I have a Preferred Account there.

 

Thanks in advance for all your words of wisdom.

[Kosta 122]

16GB Mushkin Redline DDR31600 (7-8-9-24)***

 

WHY 16GB?

 

Intel 520 Cherryville SSD**

 

Are you really sure you want to go that way? Did you read the Hardware Guide on top of the forum, especially the part about HDD?

 

Also is 240gb overkill for FSX

 

If you can afford it, no. But be aware, my FSX is 220GB...

 

and a sizable amount of airport, and area wide scenery.

 

I don't know what's sizable to you, but to me that sounds big.

 

but in the case of multiple monitors would it make a difference?

 

Problem is, FSX is not natively made for 3 screens, making a picture very streched. People often opt for big single screens or beamers.

 

is it safe to assume the 680 will provide better performance (in Dual SLI/Tri-monitor configuration) than the 570 or 580?

 

Very hard to know yet.

 

I hope that helped.

[McLaren 42]

Sorry, I did read the Hardware/Software sticky. Given the price of spinning disks today and my budget I am comfortable buying 2 SSDs in RAID0 or one large SSD and using it for the sim. Given the noise, heat, and power decreases that also come with the switch to SSD it is worth it.

 

Initially spec'ed out 16GB mainly because that is what I have in my work rigs (MacPro and Macbook Pro) and it was not super expensive. I missed the point you made at the bottom of the RAM section about 2 sticks rather than 4. Since that is the case I will go with the same RAM I mentioned above but with 8GB (2x4GB sticks -http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226179). Out of curiosity, why do you suggest 2 sticks rather than 4 (I was/am under the assumption that it was better to go with more sticks at lower capacity)?

[OMGBBQ32 12]

No offense McLaren, but are you Rich? Your rig seems like it will cost like $2500 or more USD.

[Kosta 122]

I am comfortable buying 2 SSDs in RAID0 or one large SSD and using it for the sim.

 

If you are rish and have really no problems shelling so much money out, go for it, by all means. It's the fastest storage you can get raiding it is gonna make it even faster.

FSX loading is going to be a breeze.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you suggest 2 sticks rather than 4

 

Because less sticks put less strain on the memory controller, potentially allowing for higher overclocks / less heat.

 

Initially spec'ed out 16GB mainly because that is what I have in my work rigs

 

FSX is never going to use what your work rig uses. If this machine is about FSX and FSX only, 8GB is more than enough. FSX uses 4GB tops, and windows is not going to eat 4GB away.

[McLaren 42]

No offense McLaren, but are you Rich? Your rig seems like it will cost like $2500 or more USD.

 

I like to think I am rich with friends, family, and (mostly useless) knowledge....

 

I have not bought an FS Rig since 2007 (and last time I updated it was 2009) so this is long over due. I have a $2500 (USD) budget (not including shipping and tax which will come out to another $250 or so). And I feel like if I spend the money now on high quality components, and take the time to configure them correctly, the $2500 price tag will provide me with a simming experice I can enjoy for 3 years or more.

 

Because less sticks put less strain on the memory controller, potentially allowing for higher overclocks / less heat.

 

FSX is never going to use what your work rig uses. If this machine is about FSX and FSX only, 8GB is more than enough. FSX uses 4GB tops, and windows is not going to eat 4GB away.

 

Didn't realize that was the case with the memory controller, but it makes sense, you really do learn something new everyday.

 

And I keep forgetting that FSX is locked to 4GB, so I'll opt for the 8GB set instead of the 16GB.

[Manny 1,293]

Is the memory you have right for the mother board?

 

Don't you need a dual channel memory instead of a Quad channel?

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820226283

 

If I were you I would go for the 6xx series video card because its as though its packaged with a Matrox card in that video card

 

Manny

 

I have been look at these memory

 

http://www.newegg.co...0^20-226-200-TS

[dazz 69]

Don't RAID SSD's, just get a 240GB one

[juvat 0]

A very nice choice on psu. jonnyguru review reports it is based on the Seasonic X series.

 

http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story&reid=197

 

jimb

[ryanbatc 13,022]

No offense McLaren, but are you Rich? Your rig seems like it will cost like $2500 or more USD.

 

I'm not rich and my brand new build (previous was 4 years old) was exactly $2000... It takes money to build from scratch :)

 

Anyway to OP...

 

I love my SSD and it's a gen2... I'd seriously consider a 240GB for FSX... I know they get pricey as gen3 but I'm starting to run out on my 120GB.

(oh and p.s. - skip the raid)

 

Your rig looks solid... nobody really knows about the GTX680 yet - so you could be our guinea pig :)

[Kosta 122]

Don't RAID SSD's, just get a 240GB one

 

What's the deal with that? I remember those tests running 64 SSDs, was it? Windows booting in seconds and batch file starting many apps simultaneously, much faster than a single SSD?

 

Your rig looks solid... nobody really knows about the GTX680 yet - so you could be our guinea pig :)

 

Yaaaayyy!!!

[dazz 69]

What's the deal with that?

 

You loose TRIM, and RAIDs only help when you have multiple operations running on the drive. Since SSD's already support concurrency, and usually larger SSD's can serve more concurrent operations (if they have more NAND Flash modules) it's sort of pointless to RAID-0 them

[Kosta 122]

OK, makes sense.

So what's about that test with bunch of RAIDed SSD being way faster than a single SSD? Or was it just one of the older SSDs, and newer ones with more NAND modules are actually as fast?

 

EDIT: Found it,

And it was 24 :)

[dazz 69]

So what's about that test with bunch of RAIDed SSD being way faster than a single SSD?

 

Where's the comparison against a single SSD there? I only saw them running synthetic benchmarks with obviously a huge queue depth to achieve the maximum transfer rate, and opening all the programs in the Start menu at once, something that of course is going to involve some concurrency too, but who would want to do that anyway? A single SSD nowadays works with queue depths you'll be hard pressed at maxing out in a typical desktop environment

Not to mention they defragged the SSD's! LOL

 

Most of the times, with low queue depths and not too big file accesses, RAID-0 doesn't perform any better than a single SSD, and overtime you can get degradation due to the lack of TRIM and end up with a slower and more likely to crap out volume

[Kosta 122]

I know there is none! That's why I'm asking.

This test makes me grin also, but watching it still, you begin to wonder, you know?

 

As you can read in my guide, I wrote against RAID as this is a general consensus, but was only wondering against the youtube test...

 

All is well. No RAID :)