If you can only do one, go with the best CPU you can afford. At 2560 x 1600 I'm still not going beyond 2GB VRAM even at HD 4096 textures and LOD at 9.5. (I have the GTX 680 4GB).

 

 

Hmmm. Being new to the FSX arena, but being familiar with Intel computer systems since 94...

 

Intel is to be commended for keeping all of the advances in its architecture (Pentium, Core, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge) to a defined TDP (Thermal Design Point). Upper range is always 130W, which if you think about it is damn hot. That being said, the clock speed has not changed that much. Density has, yes, but not clock speed. I recall a conversation I had with one of the architects of NetBurst architectures (pre-dated Core) that they could have revved that system to 5GHz, but only with water cooling. That was a single core!

 

Now you have 4 + hyperthreading cores in an i7, 10 cores + hyperthreading in a commercial chip like the new Xeon systems, but still within the "hot light bulb" limit of 130W.

 

What we are missing, according to FSX, is sheer cycle speed.

 

Ain't going to happen. Intel will retain the TDP of 130W (or less for lesser core machines).

 

That being said, I just built a hot-rod PC with i7 3770K (unlocked) processors - may the struggle continue!!!

I've gone from an i7-960GTX480 to an i7-3960xGTX680 and without OC'd it runs at around 2.5-3GHz all the time and doesn't even break into a sweat when running FSX maxed out, fans don't even fuss. I'd say it's a good 1.5 x the performance of the older system. The IntelRaid10 4x2Tb disks loads FSX fresh from boot-up in around 30 seconds.

 

Before I get flamed for wasting money it's a dev system supplied for other reasons. ^_^

 

How does that chip get such better performance? I can oc my older i7 to 4ghz, yet your stock new i7 that's mid 3 would be better? I really don't understand.

i7 3960X (or 3970X) is 6 core with quad channel RAM support and a larger cache -- both are expensive, but it's a very good base to start with for FSX.

 

You'll see endless debates about dual vs quad channel, but in real world applications (like FSX) you'll see about a 10-15% performance improvement. BUT, the 6 cores give you more headroom ... in my FSX.CFG

 

 

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=4102

[bufferPools]

Poolsize=100000000

[TERRAIN]

MESH_COMPLEXITY=100

MESH_RESOLUTION=25

TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=29

AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5

DETAIL_TEXTURE=1

WATER_EFFECTS=4

LOD_RADIUS=9.500000

 

In DX10 mode, no snaps, no flashes, no crackles, no pops ... I can also set Fraps to run on a different CPU affinity as to minimize FPS hit while recording FSX flights. The only item I've turned off is Building shadows because I don't like how they look. 2560 x 1600, LOD_RADIUS 9.5, Textures 4096, PMDG 737NGX, FSDT KLAX, Traffic 360, GEX, REX, MSE, UTX, GSX, WideFSClient running, and I still don't drop below 30 fps. Fraps will consume about 3-4 fps while recording.

 

I can bring my system to it's knees with 12-13 fps with the right combination of products ... for example MegaCity San Francisco and some extreme layered weather from REX.

 

But as you can see from my GPU usage, it's not being utilized very much. I would stay with a single GPU solution for FSX and try to expand you budget for the best CPU/Motherboard you can afford ... having a great base, gives you flexibility along with 6GB/s SSD support, PCI 3.0, USB 3.0, etc. etc.