Hi,

 

I'm a long time user of FS2004, however I feel now is the time to move on to FSX. Given the vast difference in eye candy and hardware avail at not wallet emptying prices...

 

Here is what I have so far, I would very much appreciate some comments, or feedback

 

Asus H61 MX USB 3 (will come to this later)

8GB Corsair 1600MHz RAM (only running 1333mhz for some reason, even though asus say board supports higher freq)

Intel i5 3570k 3.4GHz stock cooler and stock clockspeed

Intel HD4000 graphics currently in-use

500MB 7200rpm hard drive

24'' HP 1920X1080 display.

 

Great system for FS2004 really works well, only seem to get drop off in FPS when running high density addons and virtual cockpit is in use.

 

I need to move upto FSX however.

I plan upgrading my PSU to around 700w as currently on anchient 450w non SATA, also some great deals on SSD drives right now, i was thinking of going for 120GB to keep windows and FSX on and everything else on the SATA drive. Do you think this would be large enough, or am I best going for 240gb?

 

Graphics most likely will be a 560ti, don't want to break £200 ($300) and I understand this card is good enough? Does anyone here have this GPU and can comment?

 

Finally, much to my horror, I've found out my mobo has severely limited if none overclocking capabilities. My question is... is this a problem or will my CPU be ok as it stands? If not I will change boards and purchase an aftermarket cooler to get up to the iconic 4.0GHz mark

 

The knowledge on this site really is great, I've tried elsewhere but I get so many varying opinions. I've been told FSX is a waste of time unless can break 4.0GHz and have a $400 GPU.

 

For the record ive already tried running FSX on my current setup, and sadly... its poor.

Swap the mobo for the Asus P8Z77-V. Swap the PSU for the HX650W. For your GPU I'd reccomend the GTX660Ti. ($300)

You will also need some faster RAM. I'd reccomend the GSkill Ripjaws DDR3 2133 CL9.

 

It will also be of great benefit if you flip through Word Not Allowed's Software and Hardware Guide.

I agree with Ben. I d also skiP fsx and go straight to p3d.

Get the fastest CPU (with overclocking) you can afford, It is the most important thing. You will need a water cooler for the CPU too. 560Ti works great as long as you don't demand super high res, multi monitor or tons of high AA. Even at all this you may be disappointed.

This is what i was afraid of, i am being told to replace everything....

 

the CPU ive only just purchased and am i seriously going to need 2133MHz memory???

 

The 660ti is an option. just coming under budget...

I can't believe i will still have performance issues on FSX running an i5 at 4GHz ???

 

I might just stick with fs2004 at this rate!

I agree with Ben. I d also skiP fsx and go straight to p3d.

 

That's interesting. Why do you say this? I'm gradually beginning to buy stuff for FSX although FS9 is still my primary simulator. I was wondering about P3D especially as I run a triple monitor set up.

Simply that P3D is better than FSX. It's essentially the latest version of FSX, so you won't be changing everything up like if you decided to go for X Plane. FSX is old, VERY OLD, from 2006 and now totally unsupported. Bluntly put it is outdated. So if you're shelling out for a new rig and all, you may as well get the best software available now that is current. Look, if you spent for a nice loaf of rustic rye bread, imported black forest ham, Dijon mustard, organic lettuce, and vine ripened tomatoes, why top the sandwich off with a Kraft single? Go ahead and put a nice slice of Gruyere on it.

 

Now how much better is P3D right now than FSX? Well that is subjective perhaps, but I'll just throw out the number 15%, although some may disagree but I guess the consensus of those who have actually switched over would be about that. Now when I say "better" I mean smoother, more stable, better graphically, and less prone to errors and problems. In one of their recent statements, they are planning to release v2 next year, which will be DX11 compatible. That in of itself would be a major leap forward.

 

I also talk from experience. I built my first dedicated FSX rig in 2007. The hardware at that time couldn't run FSX very well, and I eventually got frustrated and just left the computer at the repair shop and never went back to pick it up. Fast forward to 2012. After the demise of Flight I decided to build a new rig for FSX with the most current hardware. Now look at my specs. Pretty nice rig huh? Well even though it was much better than 2007, I again was frustrated with FSX... errors, blurries, low FPS, etc..... So I decided to give P3D a try, and I am reasonably satisfied. I still get around 15 FPS coming in for a landing running UTX, GEX/Orbx, REX, Opus (for amazing weather by the way) My Traffic X, at a good 3rd party airport in a 3rd party plane with sliders darn near maxed.... but it is pretty smooth, looks amazing, and I can live with it. Now it does take a bit of time to get everything set up and tweaked, but finally with P3D I spend way more time in the air enjoying rather than in frustration trying to squeeze more out of FSX, tweaking, and fighting errors.

 

Look man, this is an expensive hobby, there's no way around it. If this all adds up and it's too expensive then get everything but the GPU.... seriously! Have the thing built, load up your software and addons.... run it at low to med settings, enjoy, tweak a little, get everything set up all nice and then in a couple months after you saved pop the GPU in as your reward. Just my opinion.

No, your CPU is pretty good! I would upgrade the cooler, OC it and put a 660TI in it, with a 700W PSU. That should give pretty good fps!

Your RAM is fine too, you already have it so there's no need to replace it yet.. 2133 or 2400 may be faster in benchmarks but I doubt it would make any noticeable difference in FSX or other games for that matter.

Your RAM is fine too, you already have it so there's no need to replace it yet.. 2133 or 2400 may be faster in benchmarks but I doubt it would make any noticeable difference in FSX or other games for that matter.

 

RAM in fact DOES make a difference in FSX. DDR3 2400 is going to give him about a 10% jump in performance. Anyways, why do people even have such a big deal over ram? It is so cheap that I can get 2133 for $50!

I upgraded from 1600 to 2400 and cant see any difference. Not a scientific observation whatsoever but all I care about is my own eyeballs. But if you go to bed at night knowing you have the latest a greatest thing and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Thats all that counts.

Simply that P3D is better than FSX. It's essentially the latest version of FSX, so you won't be changing everything up like if you decided to go for X Plane........

 

Thanks for this, I'm tempted.

To get good DDR3-2400 ram with timings that will actually make a reasonable difference, is atm still pretty expensive. 10-12-12 isn't going to be much better than most lower timed 1600 modules and being lucky enough to get a set that can run stable at 10-10-10 is a gamble.

To get good DDR3-2400 ram with timings that will actually make a reasonable difference, is atm still pretty expensive. 10-12-12 isn't going to be much better than most lower timed 1600 modules and being lucky enough to get a set that can run stable at 10-10-10 is a gamble.

 

My own testing using FSXMark 11 showed an ~10% gain going from 1600 CL8 to 2133 CL9. I'm now at ~2600 CL10 but I doubt it's more than 2-3% faster than 2133 CL9 in FSX.

2-3% faster than 2133 CL9 in FSX.

 

More like 20-30%

 

Placebo is what matters Max... placebo... :lol: