If I could upgrade one part, it would be...?

[PhilH 15]

Hi,

 

Although my computer is fairly recent (August 2012 build), it doesn't run FSX very well with addons. I know FSX is very hard on PCs even though it's 7 years old. If I were to upgrade parts, in what order should I do it? Basically, what is my limiting part for me right now? I can run many 2012 video games on almost max, they look very good, but when using FSX and PMDG aircraft.. I barely get an unstable 15-25 FPS. I've spent so many hours tweaking I beginning to wonder if this is normal for my hardware.

 

Here are the specs:

 

CPU: Intel i3 2120 @ 3.3 GHz

Video: GTX 550 Ti 1Gb VRAM

RAM: 4 GB

HD: 500 GB (not solid state)

 

All running at 1680 x 1050 resolution

 

I'm thinking the first part to change would be the CPU. Although it is low end, it has I high clock speed and surprisingly runs games very well (since they are mostly GPU intensive these days, I suppose). However, perhaps FSX would really benifit from an i5.

 

Then, I'm thinking the RAM could be boosted to 8Gb.

 

According the Windows Experience rating, my hard drive is limiting me, then my CPU, then my RAM & Graphics at the same time. I'm not sure this rating is useful for FSX performance though.

 

Thank you very much!

 

Phil

[Paul J 349]

No it's not the drive, Phil - it's the proc and it's speed.Windows Experience tells me the same thing, and I have zero loading issues except on the initial startup.

 

If you can afford - it move to the i5-2500K or something in that range, as it performs quite well for FSX, and will simply drop into that board.

[PhilH 15]

Thank you for that quick reply. One of these i5 2500k on Newegg.ca will most likely run me about 250$ with tax. I wish I had gotten that when I built the PC, the i3 cost me 125$ and I don't know anyway of reselling used PC parts.

 

Would the i5 really make a big difference in my case? FSX runs really great with default airplanes at Friday Harbor, with acceptable settings. I'm looking to simulate long airliner flights (PMDG) like I used to a few years ago on FS2004.

 

If it makes a big difference I might consider it, in the mean time I could reinstall FS2004 I suppose.

[clarkTX 2]

I have almost the same setup (except the equiv AMD card) and going from the i3 to an i5 overclocked to 4.5Ghz doubled my frame rate in most situations. You'll see FSX making use of 3 cores easily. I have a Z68 motherboard that supports the overclocking.

 

I also installed a $35 cooler Master constant speed CPU fan (its the size of a softball ). 4.5 Ghz was easy to achieve without going over 70c. Didn't seem worth it to push it beyond that.

 

I'm really happy I made the switch.

 

Clark

[PhilH 15]

I have almost the same setup (except the equiv ATI card) and going from the i3 to an i5 overclocked to 4.5Ghz doubled my frame rate in most situations. You'll see FSX making use of 3 cores easily. I have a Z68 motherboard that supports the overclocking.

 

I also installed a $35 cooler Master constant speed CPU fan (its the size of a softball 4.5 Ghz was easy to achieve without going over 70c. Didn't seem worth it to push it beyond that.

 

I'm really happy I made the switch.

 

Clark

 

That's interesting. I see you have the PMDG MD-11 logo in your signature, what kind of frame rates do you get when flying PMDG addons?

 

Also, if I upgrade to an i5, can I keep my 4GB of RAM for now or would I really benefit from 8GB?

 

EDIT: How much would you guys pay for a used i3 2120 bought new in August 2012? I paid 125$+ tax for mine, I'm trying to see if it would be possible to sell it online.

[Paul J 349]

Yes - you're running 64-bit, Phil, and this will allow the system and other apps some headroom. Memory in use when FSX is running runs to about 6 gig or so. Also - if you run FSX in DX10 mode you pick up another gig or so from the gpu.

[PhilH 15]

Just realized I don't think my motherboard allows overclocking. I'm still researching online but it looks like it doesn't support that. I can't afford to change the motherboard again, so I guess I'm stuck with the i3 for now. Would a locked i5 be better or just a waste of money?

 

EDIT: In fact, it says 3.8Ghz MAX TURBO on the i5's page. Would it be worth getting an unlocked CPU even though my motherboard's chipset (H61) won't overclock, or should I stay with my i3 (or upgrade to a locked i5, perhaps).

[VeryBumpy 272]

Without a motherboard that can overclock, I don't think any upgrade would be worth it.

 

Shop around for a cpu/motherboard package then add 4 gigs more memory

[Paul J 349]

+1 :good:

[PhilH 15]

Okay well in that case, I'll keep on tweaking for now! ^_^

 

After all, I've only had this PC for a few months and haven't really done much flying.

 

I've been using a Pentium 4 + 7600GS for 6 years, running X-Plane 8 & FS2004 with no autogen, I'm sure I can do a little better with this.

 

Thanks for all your advice!

[clarkTX 2]

That's interesting. I see you have the PMDG MD-11 logo in your signature, what kind of frame rates do you get when flying PMDG addons?

 

Mid-upper 20's. Cloud count and AI count seem to be my biggest factors. When they get really busy (lots of clouds and scores of planes at an airport) FPS can sink to around 20, which is much better than with the i3 (12-15). FPS improves greatly once I get airborne.

 

Don't recall using more than 3GB of memory but I'll have to double check. I use Active Sky 2012, Track IR, Ultimate traffic 2, PMDG, FS2Crew...

 

There's lots of variables here and things to tweak in fsx.cfg so your mileage can vary. Still, i3 to i5 was a very noticeable difference.

[PieEater 10]

You might find you get better frame rates in FSX with hyperthreading disabled in BIOS.

[PhilH 15]

You might find you get better frame rates in FSX with hyperthreading disabled in BIOS.

 

Really? I'll look into that. I've spent all day tweaking and I'm quite happy with the results, but a few extra frames per second can't hurt. I'll try it out then.

 

Thanks!

[PieEater 10]

Really? I'll look into that. I've spent all day tweaking and I'm quite happy with the results, but a few extra frames per second can't hurt. I'll try it out then.

 

Thanks!

 

I found that using hyperthreading noticeably reduces FPS performance in FSX if you think about it it's kind of logical as the physical cores are also having to run the virtual cores so they cannot be giving 100% performance, which is what FSX needs. I also found that in pure FPS terms having 2 cores in FSX gave better results than 3 or 4, surmising - I think this may be because the main FSX engine has to work fairly hard to allocate work to each extra core. The additional cores do make a difference to initial load times so I imagine you may wait slightly longer to get started but once in flight you should have better FPS. It would be interesting to see if you notice a difference.

[PhilH 15]

As a side note, any ideas why my GPU usage varies between 20 and 45% with FSX? I realised this while trying the BufferPools=0 fix. I get artifacts and sound crackling, but my GPU is far from overloaded, it's barely half-used! Trust me I have been doing my research but everyone keeps saying to make sure their GPU isn't overloaded.

 

It's not like I'm not using it, well, I think. I have 4xS anti-aliasing, 4x anistropic filtering, sometimes water reflection and still, usage won't really exceed about 45%, whether at 60 FPS in the default flight or at 20 in the PMDG MD-11 at SFO.

 

It can easily hit 90% in intensive games, so I don't think the problem is with the card.