Switch to DX10, that will make more use of your video card and usually nets better frame rates.

Okay - I have a friend that might eventually want to build a PC just for web/email. When/if the time comes, I will sell him my used motherboard + i3 2120 + 4Gb RAM, and buy myself a MB/CPU combo + 8GB of RAM.

 

I will probably end up with an i5 2500k, 8GB of RAM + my current GTX 550 Ti. Would that be a pretty decent FSX system for the price?

I think so, especially if the new MB allows you to overclock the CPU to 4.5 Ghz (very typical). To me at least, price per performance goes up quickly past these hardware specs.

Great! I'll wait for now then and probably do that. Thanks again for your help!

You may already know this but, if you want to overclock you need a good aftermarket cooler, I have the h70 and have had 0 temp related issues even when I pushed my 2600k to 5.2 ghz

 

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Yes, I know I need a better cooler than stock. I'll look into that when I upgrade, thanks!

Hi Phil H,

 

I'm using FSX with TrackIR, REX, UTX, GEX UK2000 and PMDG, A2A addons and I only have an i3 processor and it works for me fine, I get about 20-25 fps sometimes as low as 10-15 at times where there is tons of detail, but it works smoothly. At altitude I get anywhere from 25-35 fps. Mine isn't overclocked or anything fancy like your asking about. My spec in in my profile if you want to see. I think it depends how your setting up fsx, lower the number of AI aircraft, boats, cars etc all helps too. I try and stay away from huge airports too, there too demanding, but it's about settling on a compromise that suits your set up and PC.

 

Hope you manage to find a happy medium and enjoy fsx.

Have to say I bought an i5 2550k around may last year and it has certainly retained its price. If anything it's more expensive to buy now than then so for your budget 2500/2550 would be best. I was running on gtx 470 with frames locked at 24 and very rarely dipped with ngx etc.

Memory in use when FSX is running runs to about 6 gig or so.

 

Just ran a test on a long flight with an Eaglesoft add-on aircraft. Used physical memory (commit memory) is under 3.5 GB with FSX, TrackIR,, 100 planes from Ultimate Traffic 2 Active Sky 2012 (with its high-res textures), Chrome with Airnav website up, etc... FSX itself stays under 2.5GB. This is in detailed places like SFO, with autogen and terrain settings near max.

 

Is there anything extra you are running on your system, Paul? 6GB seems pretty high.

 

Edit: I run in DX9 mode, so maybe that is making some difference...

Just my experience..I have an older computer (about 3 years to be exact). I will be building a new one in 2013 for the PMDG777 (among other things). Right now, I'm running an Intel Q9550 quad core 2.8ghz, air cooled, Radeon HD5800 graphics (1GB) and 8GB of RAM. I have two 1TB hard drives; one exclusively set up for FSX. I have discovered that running two 1TB drives gives me a bit faster read because there is so little on each of the drives (only about 20% used on c: and about 5% on the FSX drive). Box cost me about $1000 new to build. I can't run graphics with scenery and weather and PMDG and get outstanding performance, but I'm getting 15-30fps depending on the add on and that is ok...for now. However, as the box gets older...it's getting a bit worse. Good news is that it will make a great second PC to network!

 

There are two principal things you MUST have in order to run FSX with any degree of satisfaction (about frame rates):

a) CPU - has to be fast and has to be hearty. Liquid cooling helps if you plan to overclock the thing.

B) GPU - the newer payware scenery and aircraft require a higher graphics load than before...this one was a bit of a surprise to me, but the bigger and faster the GPU, the better FSX runs.

 

RAM makes little difference. A HDD makes little difference. I would only spend the money for an SSD (which will make a big difference in load times) if I were going to build an expensive machine. Don't do it if you are going to spend less than $1000 on the rig. Better to spend the money on a good motherboard to support the CPU.

 

There is a LOT of great advice on how to mix and match to fit your budget. You don't have to spend a ton of money to achieve a level of performance from the program. I'll let those people speak to the specifics...

 

All the best,

Dave Lamb

My 2 cents, don't waste the extra money on a water cooler unless you are trying to get above 4.5Ghz; then I imagine you'll need to get a very good cooler indeed. (like $200 or better).

 

For o-clocks in the range of 4.5 Ghz, you don't need extreme cooling; just better than stock. Side-by-side comparisons say the better air coolers (large units with push/pull fans) are just as good if not better than water coolers in the $100 range. A fixed fan speed push/pull unit is around $40.

 

Here's just one comparison:

http://techreport.com/review/16744/battle-of-the-elements-air-vs-water-cpu-cooler-showdown/8

 

There's nothing magical about water cooling: it just uses a liquid pipe to transfer the heat out to a radiator outside the case. If your case is roomy and has good flow through, its more simple tech to put the radiator inside the case. Water coolers under $100 don't have radiators that compare to the in-case air coolers but they are convenient if you have a cramped case.

 

For extreme clockers, a water cooler is necessary because they use huge 4-8 fan radiator arrays that cannot fit in the case.

 

Clark

Is there anything extra you are running on your system, Paul? 6GB seems pretty high.

 

Edit: I run in DX9 mode, so maybe that is making some difference...

Clarke - honestly - I can't remember where or when I got that figure. I don't get the chance to test out something that isn't important to me at any particular time, and I've been b.u.s.y over the last two weeks or so. :( sorry.

After much tweaking, I am quite satisfied with the results. I mostly care about the aircraft model. Yes, scenery would be great but all I really do care about is a nice looking anti-aliased aircraft model. I can now achieve pretty good results. On the ground in the VC of the NGX (the most graphically intensive addon I get 20-25 FPS, which is okay for setting up the FMS. Yes, it's using the default scenery but at least I have buildings and jetways. I set the "Scenery" slider to the max (or second highest) setting, with autogen on off or on sparse. I'm used to flying X-Plane 9, which had no airport buildings at all in default scenery, so I'm quite happy.

 

In the air, about 30-35 FPS (locked at 35) in the VC of the NGX. That's perfect for my needs.

 

One of the only sceneries I have is the UK2000 one, and I do get crappy frame rates in VCs at Heathrow, but still, it's so pretty I don't care.

 

For now, this keeps me happy so I'll wait and might upgrade eventually! Thanks for all your help.

Someone is offering me 75$ CAD for my i3. I find that a good deal and I'm wandering if the following is a good idea:

 

-Sell my i3 for 75$-80$

-Buy an i5 2500k for around 260$ CAD (that's how much they cost here, including tax)

-Install my i5 2500k in my current LOCKED motherboard

-Eventually (not now, but very soon) buy a new UNlocked motherboard and external cooler, and overclock the i5.

 

What do you think? I might not gain much with a i5 2500k locked for now, but will I gain much when I unlock it?

 

Thanks!

I'm seriously considering buying an i5 soon. I've been reading a lot online and even though there are the new Ivy Bridge models, I will get the good old 2500k. It looks like my best bet for overclocking.

 

For now, it will be stuck on a locked motherboard, limiting my overclock to the "Max Turbo" of 3.7Ghz (I think). I will soon get a better motherboard and overclock to 4.5GHz, when I have the resources.

 

Upgrading from my current i3 2120 (3.3Ghz), I don't expect to see much difference in games, but will I see a major difference in FSX? I really hope so. I don't really have the money to spend on an i7 so I think the i5 2500k is my best bet.