Which CPU is the real minimum requirement ?

[UAE77L 153]

I5-2500K.

[UAE77L 153]

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"

[Sawydz 4]

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

 

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

[JB3DG 225]

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).

[Krister 51]

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.

[Paul_Smith 92]

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.

[Fabo 213]

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.

[Rations 102]

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.

[aerhead1 5]

I guess I'll have to get a new pc. I have a Dell 8100 XPS i7, but it can't be overclocked :Doh:

[bukeyolacan 24]

Minimum is i7 3980x so start saving some money

[Ivan Garcia 0]

I got an AMD FX-6300 at 3.5 overclock 4.4 GHz with an artic colling freezer 13 and temp is around 40ºC. Amazing ....... AMD FX-6300 ( 6 real procesor )

 

Reagrdssss

[richardnobes14 13]

I only have an AMD Phenom X4 II CPU running overclocked at 3.6ghz with a simple liquid cooling kit. I manage to achieve (in the NGX) nothing less than 18fps on the ground at large, busy addon airports with AS2012 whilst in High- Res VC mode with all sliders turned up and once up in the air I never get anything lower than 25fps. It just goes to show it's not always your system specs that matter, it's the way that you install, configure and maintain everything.

[Guest]

Minimum is i7 3980x so start saving some money

 

I think you are right.

 

Everybody knows the T7 is going to be like 737 NGX in terms of fps, anyway FSX is the enourmous black hole-bottle neck.

 

Everybody also knows that an average simmer runs also a bunch of addons that must be taken into the proper consideration when speaking about a good CPU for PMDG products.

 

I am willing to wait for the 14nm tech within 2015 before upgrading my " old " i7 860 because I would like to feel the step ahead in terms of FSX speed. I know these sort of CPU will be mainly power consumption oriented but I expect a decent speed as well.

[Paul_Smith 92]

...Everybody knows...

Apparently not.

 

Some people, but not all, know that FSX can't use more then 3 cores.

 

Some people, but not all, know that FSX can't take advantage of modern GPUs.

 

Some people, but not all, know that the speed of the primary core makes the most difference to FSX. FSX performs better on a C2D at 3.5GHz then on an i7 at 2.5Ghz.

[Guest]

I agree on all you wrote.

 

The only remark is I think that, despite the affinity mask added later or not by the user, FSX uses IMO only the very first core only, in addition in an ancient way.

 

This things puzzles me the most, how comes that after so many years no one in the world has ever tried to produce a flight simulation ? Except the pathetic MS Flight of course....

 

The first software house able to do that will be so rich to compete with the ones that produce that arcade stuff like Battlefield 3 and so on.

 

Please do not tell me it is so difficult that the human mind can't cope with it or that FSX is still rocking because I disagree before you say that.