Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest

Which CPU is the real minimum requirement ?

Recommended Posts

Guest

Please bear in mind having :

 

1) a PMDG plane

 

2) a bounch or third party airports

 

3) REXE

 

4) few small add ons running like airport taxi GPS, AES, etc..

 

I assume nothing below 5 Ghz would render around 25-30 fps.

 

Have you perhaps tried the AMD FX 8350 ?

 

Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

i8 4600k 9.4ghzJust%20Kidding.gif :LMAO:

 

Which scenery are you using in the CRJ200 of your signature ???

 

BTW, quality stuff over there, quality stuff indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which scenery are you using in the CRJ200 of your signature ???

 

BTW, quality stuff over there, quality stuff indeed.

that's a dev video made in xplane9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are still running FSX which can only really use two or three cores and hyperthreading gives it no significant benefit, so while the AMD FX8350 might be mind blowing for call of duty type games, an i5-2500k is going to give you the same or better performance on a much better known and understood platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't the minimum specifications for the PMDG B777 be approximately the same, if not the same, as those of the PMDG B737, due to the similar design architecture and technological optimizations involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, the requirements may be more lenient due to the lesser amount of cockpit toggles etc. that have been covered by Fly-By-Wire in the T7. So, I think it will be approximately the same or slightly less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh... No.

 

An i5-2500k overclocked to 4.5GHz is about the Maximum. To get any improvement on that will start to require serious money for tiny improvements.

 

The minimum is still a P4. You can laugh but it does work. If you want better then that (higher resolution, more detailed add-ons or smoother graphics), it is up to you to decide how much better you want and how much you are willing to invest to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still a fan of Sandy Bridge. I've been running an i7-3960X for about a year now, with most of Word Not Allowed's tweaking, and remain very happy with overall Sim performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, the requirements may be more lenient due to the lesser amount of cockpit toggles etc. that have been covered by Fly-By-Wire in the T7. So, I think it will be approximately the same or slightly less.

But fly-by-wire and fly-by-wire relationships must still be coded and simulated, thus using what I would imagine to be an equally large amount of processing power, only "behind-the-scenes". Plus, I believe several features of the PMDG B777, such as its interactive checklists, surveillance cameras, and taxi cameras, will be quite performance-intensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I believe several features of the PMDG B777, such as its interactive checklists, surveillance cameras, and taxi cameras, will be quite performance-intensive...

The T7 may be computing intensive, but the bits you mention probably wont be. Cameras are just spot views in a constrained display area, and the whole point about interactive checklist's, or interactive anything for that matter, is that they spend their all their time waiting for the user to interact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T7 may be computing intensive, but the bits you mention probably wont be. Cameras are just spot views in a constrained display area, and the whole point about interactive checklist's, or interactive anything for that matter, is that they spend their all their time waiting for the user to interact.

I would imagine that using the taxi and surveillance cameras would be equivalent to opening more view windows in FSX (using [ and ]), which definitely affects performance.

 

Wouldn't the interactive checklists be more or less equivalent code-wise to a whole bunch of additional buttons/switches that must be mapped to functions? If so, I would imagine that they would require at least as much processing power as all of the B737's additional physical buttons/switches do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I would also agree that this is the minimum for FSX. Overclocked of course.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

But I would also agree that this is the minimum for FSX. Overclocked of course.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sort of....Yes, however if you have a look at PMDG's system requirements for their NGX, their minimum would be an Intel core 2 Duo and their recommended would be an I5/I7 or "better".

I'm not too sure what they mean by "better"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure what they mean by "better"

 

Xenon is better, but harder to overclock and more expensive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But fly-by-wire and fly-by-wire relationships must still be coded and simulated, thus using what I would imagine to be an equally large amount of processing power, only "behind-the-scenes".

 

Nope. FBW and the math involved only requires a couple hundred calcs a second.

 

Plus, I believe several features of the PMDG B777, such as its interactive checklists, surveillance cameras, and taxi cameras, will be quite performance-intensive.

 

This is where things start getting heavier as you have thousands to millions of pixels being calculated. It does help if the display only gets redrawn when something changes (like the checklists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it's very difficult to say what is the minimium requirement since it depends on what YOU are satisfied with. It all depends on exactly what add-ons you use, the traffic AI and what you consider a satisfactory experience with regard to visual quality and fluency. I have an i7 2500K that I run at 4,3 GHz and if I fly in a ORBX scenery with say the PMDG Lancair and ASE weather with REX textures, my fps stays at the 30 cap with no stutters and it looks gorgeous. If I switch to the PMDG737NGX and load up FSDT KORD it drops to 13-14 fps and that is with no AI at all. Some may consider 13-14 to be acceptable, but I am used to the 60-70 fps I see in FS9 and for me it really feels awkward. Anyway, it's a moot point since FSX will anyway most likely stop working within 30 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, you can run the NGX on FSX with a P4 processor. Whether or not you personally are happy with the results is a matter only you can decide.

Once you have reached the level of a reasonably overclocked i5, you are going to have to start spending very large amounts of money for very small inprovements. For example, you can get an i5 at 4.6GHz for < $500. To reach 5GHz, which is only a 10% improvement, is going to cost you well over $1000. And it is not going to translate into a full 10% improvement in FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is their minimum acceptable framerate? Running NGX on C2D could probably provide 15fps stable in light scenarios. But, on C2D, you are left with one texture loader core. Not even mentioning that it would crumble down to 5fps when you hit the NGX VC with a heavy weather...

Anyway, try staying way away from minimums.

 

I ran the NGX on C2D for a moment. It was surprisingly flyable in 2D and default and/or light sceneries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran the NGX on C2D for a moment. It was surprisingly flyable in 2D and default and/or light sceneries.

Fortunately, the PMDG B747 VC ran acceptably (15–20 frames/s) on my Core 2 Duo E8235 Apple iMac with EZCA, FlyTampa Hong Kong, and REX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...