FInally about to build a new system and I'm confused as all can get out over what processor, what RAM, what RAM works with what processor, SB vs. IB..... My head is spinning. Here's what I'm debating:

 

1) i7 2700K or i73770K. I plan to overclock but not go crazy. I'm thinking 4.5-4.7 range. I plan to use the Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo, which gets highly rated on Newegg (many even praise it over the water cooling units).

 

2) RAM. I see a lot of people 8GB DDR3 1600, yet others are saying go 8GB DDR3 2400 or even higher speeds with lowest CL. We're getting into some expensive memory at the lower CL. I'm all for spending a little extra money if I'll see the difference.

 

What confuses the matter is I've read where some are of the opinion that RAM speed is only important when using IB CPU's (not so important with SB CPU's). Would DDR3 1600 be adequate?

 

I just downloaded the new FSX guide, which has been helpful, and a great resource. In an unrelated question, though - are the NickN optimizations still necessary with the new technology we now have?

 

Thanks!

 

Todd

Hi Todd,

 

I'm in a similar boat but have other issues driving my decision on this. Because I see hardware moving away from clock speed to support performance and instead towards multicore architecture, multithreading, 64-bit for memory-intensive applications, offloading of graphics work to the GPU, I don't think we will see big improvements in FSX performance in the coming several years. This is because FSX can't utilize these features very well, and instead relies more on CPU & RAM clock speeds to drive improved performance. I am intrigued to see what happens IB-E processors up to 12 cores, w/ perhaps at least some overclockability despite the high numbers of cores. If you can clock these to 4.2 or so, I believe you will get as much as you need for FSX, while building in some future-proofing should a modern sim engine occur. XPlane 64-bit, while lacking in features from what I read, at least is now running as native 64-bit, can utilize as much ram as you can give it, as many cores as you can give it, plus already I believe can utilize DX11 (could be wrong here). IOW, I'm thinking I want a machine that runs FSX good 'nuf (and this machine would be so much more potent than the Core 2 Quad at 3.7Ghz I'm on now) but really is poised to run something else in the future, or even XPlane 64-bit if it keeps moving forward. So next box will hopefully have at least 8 cores, 32G of ram, 4Gb GPU, etc. From another site post:

 

 

Yet another Intel roadmap has leaked onto the web. This one should please the more enthusiast users alright. There are two main upcoming product launches, with the more interesting one being the 4th generation Ivy Bridge-E CPUs for its HEDT platform, slated for Q3 2013 Legit reviews reports: These will bring all the improvements found in the current Ivy Bridge CPUs such as 22nm Tri-Gate transistors and greater overall efficiency and performance to Intel's premium enthusiast platform. IB-E will feature 6-12 cores (IB-E/EP) large amounts of cache, quad channel memory controllers supporting 8 GB of DDR3-1066/1333/1600/1866 per DIMM slot, along with PCI-E 3.0 (40 lanes) and 4 lanes supporting PCI-E 2.0. It's believed that four CPUs will be launched, bearing the following names: Core i7-4930, Core i7-4960, Core i7-4970 and Core i7-4990.

The CPUs will be compatible with the Socket LGA 2011 and X79 chipset platform and while the clock speeds and TDP aren't known, the TDP is expected to be around the current Sandy Bridge-E level. One can only hope that the inferior heatspreader that current Ivy Bridge CPUs are saddled with causing them to run hotter and significantly reducing overclocking ability will be replaced for the extreme enthusiast grade IB-E CPUs by the superior soldered one found on the earlier Sandy Bridge CPUs. It would be a slap in the face to customers paying so much money for a premium product otherwise.

Here are a few things to consider that I discovered firsthand:

1) An IB with a 3770k @4800ghz offers a smoother FSX experience over a SB 2700k @4800ghz but the IB solution will run hotter unless you delid. Go for a closed loop cooling solution like the Corsair H110.

2) 2133ghz memory on IB seems to contribute to better FSX smoothness over the same on a SB platform. In any case do not OC your memory (for stability) and use an XMP profile instead.

3) Get the best manufacturer OC GPU you can afford and if price is no object get 2 for SLI. Here again do not OC your GPU's for stability. Opt for SLI especially if you are using DX10 mode.

 

The rule of thumb is to get the fastest components (that you can afford) and use them out of the box. Except for the CPU - you must OC it for the best FSX experience so a good overclocking MoBo is a must.

 

And lastly use the most current drivers available. One caveat here is that (in my case MSI) bioses can become flaky with the latest release so find one that is stable for you and stick with it.

 

Cheers

jja

XPlane 64-bit, while lacking in features from what I read, at least is now running as native 64-bit, can utilize as much ram as you can give it, as many cores as you can give it, plus already I believe can utilize DX11 (could be wrong here).

 

X-Plane is an OpenGL based program, not DirectX. This allows it to function on Apple and Linux systems.

 

LR will recommend that people look for the latest DX compatibility, because if it's current on DX then the hardware should be current on OpenGL.

Here are a few things to consider that I discovered firsthand:

1) An IB with a 3770k @4800ghz offers a smoother FSX experience over a SB 2700k @4800ghz but the IB solution will run hotter unless you delid. Go for a closed loop cooling solution like the Corsair H110.

2) 2133ghz memory on IB seems to contribute to better FSX smoothness over the same on a SB platform. In any case do not OC your memory (for stability) and use an XMP profile instead.

3) Get the best manufacturer OC GPU you can afford and if price is no object get 2 for SLI. Here again do not OC your GPU's for stability. Opt for SLI especially if you are using DX10 mode.

 

The rule of thumb is to get the fastest components (that you can afford) and use them out of the box. Except for the CPU - you must OC it for the best FSX experience so a good overclocking MoBo is a must.

 

 

Cheers

jja

 

Ditto.

 

Dirk.

X-Plane is an OpenGL based program, not DirectX. This allows it to function on Apple and Linux systems.

 

Thanks for the clarification. How does the feature set and accelerations compare between OGL and DX, do you know?

Make sure your RAM will fit under the cooler. I doub't the evo will beat an H100i in push-pull, and with such a delid shouldn't be necessary (case vent and ambient temps come into play...).

Thanks for the clarification. How does the feature set and accelerations compare between OGL and DX, do you know?

 

Depends on the version of OGL and the version of DX ... OSX supports OGL 3.2 with some extension that are part of OGL 4.x (not exactly sure how that works, but I'll take the word of XP10 developers on that).

 

In a rough feature set comparison:

 

OGL 3.2 = DX9c

OGL 3.3 = DX10

OGL 4.0 = DX11

 

Current version of OGL 4.3 includes compute shaders that work with GPU parallelism.

 

Be aware that because a graphics card may "support" certain features, it doesn't necessarily mean it'll do a great job at acceleration of those features. Also, there really is not a "direct" comparison between DX versions and OGL ... it's one of that "close in functionality" but not "exactly the same in functionality".

 

IMHO (as I've stated before), if a product supports OGL, then it should list OGL not DX. If a product supports DX, then it should list DX not OGL. The type of user who would read those specifications on a web site or the side of a box is probably looking for something specific, not trying to determine if his video card is "good enough" because 9 out of 10 user probably don't even know if their video cards are DX9 or DX10 or DX11 capable and even if they are, it would not mean they have support of any version of OGL (on the PC side OGL support for a video card that is DX9c or DX10 or DX11 doesn't mean it'll have OGL drivers included).

 

Anyway, I've brought this up before and clearly I have a different perspective of DX and OGL listings.