A new gpu and psu won't break the bank, especially since your not going for cutting edge technology.

 

Saying that, if you go to overclockers.com you can build a top spec I5 system

Overclocked for under £500, best move I ever made, silky smooth with FSX, fs9 and whatever else I try to throw at it. I still have my old 560ti in that build.

Factor in buying a version of WIn 7 64-bit, plus I'm sure someone will tell me that my CPU is not up to spec etc, I'm fast heading towards ending up replacing the entire thing. (Especially seeing as someone told me that I ought to get a new hard drive that could be read more quickly!?!)

 

If I set myself a budget of around £800 would that get me a computer thats powerful enough to run FS2004 to the absolute Max with a 27inch screen, with a view to maybe look into FSX one day?

 

I used a company called arbico for this PC build, and it still runs beautifully, I just like the idea of getting a bigger screen and getting my textures to load quicker (plus a few FPS in really demanding scenarios!)

£800 hundred is more then enough to build a high spec FS9/FSX machine (if you build it yourself) Base it around the I52600K

 

http://www.overclock...rodid=BU-080-OE

 

btw, the size of your screen makes no difference, I use a 42" LED and the frames are the same as my 15" LCD. It is the resolution that reduces FPS.

 

Below are the specs - apart from the CPU it's nothing that great, but with a optimized cfg for both sims I can run everything maxed out (CPU came pre overclocked to 4.8ghz) not 3.3ghz

 

For me the main thing was the CPU, the I5 2500/2600K is lightning fast and cheap

 

 

System Information

------------------

Time of this report: 7/31/2012, 17:31:11

Machine name: SIM-PC

Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600)

Language: English (Regional Setting: English)

System Manufacturer: System manufacturer

System Model: System Product Name

BIOS: BIOS Date: 04/17/12 20:36:50 Ver: 33.04

Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500K CPU @ 3.30GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.3GHz

Memory: 8192MB RAM

Available OS Memory: 8090MB RAM

DirectX Version: DirectX 11

 

 

Display Devices

---------------

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: GeForce GTX 560 Ti

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

 

Display Memory: 4050 MB

Dedicated Memory: 978 MB

Shared Memory: 3072 MB

Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Anthony,

 

From wanting a better graphics card you're now contemplating spending £800+ on a new system. That's quite a jump.

 

Have you considered how long you intend to use FS9? All of us in this discussion use it of course but in the next year or so I will consider making the leap to FSX (which I already own). This will require a new PC and OS. By then my FS9 machine will be 5 years old and will replace an 8 year-old PC to become a WideFS PC.

 

But if you're happy with FS9 and intend to stay with it for a few years more then I would just stick to a new graphics card and power supply. They are both modular and can be easily replaced. Total cost? Around £300 or so. A computer shop will replace the power supply if you're not comfortable doing it.

 

You don't need a i5 W7 computer to run FS9 well. Look at my specs. Similar to yours and FS9 is great even at 1920*1200.

 

Just my six penneth.

I really cannot thank you all for your input, its such a great tool to have forums where people can offer you advice.

 

I'm unsure as to what move to take next. I am very happy with FS9, and would ideally love to operate it on a larger screen at higher resolution, but really dont want to sacrifice FPS in doing so. I'm prepared to spend a little to buy a new monitor, GPU and if necessary PSU, but if I then find that its actually the CPU that's stopping me from getting more than 25 FPS in really demanding circumstances then I'm stumped. It would be ideal if I could have the foresight to see what would be the ideal solution.

 

If a new screen, GPU and PSU would be sufficient to secure my 25+ FPS under harsh situations then it would be ideal, but if the CPU and OS is then insufficient....

 

The dilemmas of computing

There's an old saying. When in doubt, do nothing. Consider your options. Is FS9 so bad on a 22" at 1680*1050?

 

Your current processor is fine for FS9 but not for FSX. When you do finally switch you will need a new system and your existing PC could be utilised as a WideFS machine running Wx programs etc.

 

Have you considered borrowing a 24" display from a friendly computer shop and checking performance before changing the graphics card? If 1920*1200 gives you 25fps then you could upgrade the display now and save up for a new system.

I use a 24" monitor on a Wndows 7 32 bit system with an Intel i5 processor running @ 3.20 Ghz, a 1 gig nVidia 560 GTX Ti card and 4 gig of RAM (I know, not all useable by Windows 7 32 bit) and I get silky smooth performance at 60 fps all of the time including a number of extreme airports and all sliders maxed. I fly the Flight1 Cessna 172.

 

Hope this helps.

 

David

I've just had an idea. The maximum resolution of a 24" display is 1900*1080 or 1900*1200 but that doesn't mean you have to run it as that res. It can be run at a lower one if you're concerned about performance.

 

It won't give as crisp an image at a non-native res but you'll still get the bigger view.

 

You can try this on your existing display by changing to a lower resolution and see if you can live with the reduced clarity. Remember to choose a 16:9 resolution.

Many thanks, will give this a go!