Which CPU is the real minimum requirement ?

[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

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

i8 4600k 9.4ghz :LMAO:

[Kailiang Seah 44]

me too :( i dun have a nasa com :(

 

Really want this badly

[Guest]

i8 4600k 9.4ghz :LMAO:

 

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

 

BTW, quality stuff over there, quality stuff indeed.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

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.

[Paul_Smith 92]

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.

[lodestar 186]

Yep. The best minimum will be i5 2500K overclocked to at least 4.5GHz, some Nvidia graphic card and this tweaks: http://#####.wordpress.com/fsx-software-and-hardware-guide/

[Kailiang Seah 44]

mine at 4.3ghz :( doubt there will be any different?

 

I using a xfx 7850

[Rations 102]

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?

[jetsflier 87]

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.

[Paul_Smith 92]

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.

[Wizard-Bob 9]

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.

[Rations 102]

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.

[Paul_Smith 92]

...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.

[Rations 102]

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.