LOL at all the "K" comments. I have 4 Dell's no overlooking with GeForce cards and FSX/Xplane 10 run over 30 FPS all the time.

Well, "K" comments are about FSX runing NGX + tons off addons with most of sliders to the right at 30fps and allmost no stutters... 

 

Don't tell me that with DELL you can get 30fps with NGX at FSDT CYVR+ORBX+REX+AS2012 with graphic sliders all to the right  :shok:

Well, "K" comments are about FSX runing NGX + tons off addons with most of sliders to the right at 30fps and allmost no stutters... 

 

Don't tell me that with DELL you can get 30fps with NGX at FSDT CYVR+ORBX+REX+AS2012 with graphic sliders all to the right  :shok:

that's a recipe for a CTD OOM :lol:

 

Just thought I'd ask about these specs I saw on Dell's website today:

 

 

XPS 8500:

 

3rd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-3770 processor (up to 3.90 GHz)

Windows® 7 Professional, 64Bit

8GB Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz - 2 DIMMs

AMD Radeon™ HD 7570 1GB GDDR5

1TB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive 6.0 Gb/s (I'll actually have FSX on another 1TB hard drive)

 

 

I was waiting for the day one could buy a machine for $800 that doesn't need to be overclocked to hell and with a few modifications in the FSX.cfg file one could be up and running like what's possible with FS9. Will the specs above finally accomplish this?

 

Thanks in advance to all those that offer some insight here.

if you ever buy Xplane 10 64bit, these specs will be awesome! :drinks:   ATI is ok but try and get the GTX 660 which will be better for FSX/P3D.

Well, "K" comments are about FSX runing NGX + tons off addons with most of sliders to the right at 30fps and allmost no stutters... 

 

Don't tell me that with DELL you can get 30fps with NGX at FSDT CYVR+ORBX+REX+AS2012 with graphic sliders all to the right  :shok:

I don't care what anyone says you 'really should' be able to do this with an almost 10 year old piece of software...

I don't care what anyone says you 'really should' be able to do this with an almost 10 year old piece of software...

I love fs9/fsx/p3d/xp10/DCS/ etc.   but if you buy a new PC in 2013, try out the xplane10 demo at almost MAX SETTINGS with your new DELL.  Trust me! :good:   My Computers run all my sims perfectly, try and fly other sims also with your new PC.

This is the best explanation/excuse I've yet heard about FSX in all these years. The sim wouldn't run well years ago when it was released and has never ran right since. If we go by this logic every previous version of FS shouldn't run well at this point FS9 included. Outside of FS2000 all versions of Flight Simulator actually ran better as hardware advanced hence the excuse put forth by many in the past "Flight Simulator is designed for future hardware". FSX in it's truest definition since release is 'bloatware' plain and simple. Aces wanted to do a better job but wasn't able to thanks to Ballmer and his crew... The problem now is it's the only game in town for the latest and greatest in our hobby. So I'm left with further investigation as to what I'm going to get for this sim but please don't sugar coat this mess just be real about it.

 

Keep in mind, the FSX code base goes back to FS98.  Much of the code base was built around Pentium processors being the prevalent processor with the expectation by the mid-2000's you'd have Pentiums running as fast as 10Ghz.  During the Pentium years this was Intel's plan, but they found they just couldn't keep those processors cool enough much over 4Ghz. So they scrapped the Pentium line and introduced the Core line which moved from pure Ghz to multiple cores running at slower clock speeds.  Until SP2 was released, nothing in FSX recognized anything more than one core and FSX ran horribly.  And SP2 was only a small bandaid fix to get FSX to see more than one core, not a re-write of the code base, which is the only thing that could fix FSX today.

 

The sad fact is, FSX was designed to run best on single core Pentiums expected to be running well over 5Ghz by this time.

if you ever buy Xplane 10 64bit, these specs will be awesome! :drinks:   ATI is ok but try and get the GTX 660 which will be better.

That may very well be the best way to go, X-Plane still needs allot of work to even come close to FS9 let alone FSX. We have a world of detailed scenery for FS9 and performance to boot where as FSX looks great. XPlane needs to improve it's city scenery so it looks more like reality, I'd buy it then... The cities just don't look right.

That may very well be the best way to go, X-Plane still needs allot of work to even come close to FS9 let alone FSX. We have a world of detailed scenery for FS9 and performance to boot where as FSX looks great. XPlane needs to improve it's city scenery so it looks more like reality, I'd buy it then... The cities just don't look right.

with a new pc you will be ready for the final version of xp10.  Your FS9 will hit 100fps :lol:  with those specs and FSX/P3d will be fine with most settings at Max.

that's a recipe for a CTD OOM :lol:

 

That's the point - i tuned my Windows 7, folowed these guides and i can do that without OOM and CTD. No OOM's on long haul flights with PMDG MD11 too

Just thought I'd ask about these specs I saw on Dell's website today:

 

 

XPS 8500:

 

3rd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-3770 processor (up to 3.90 GHz)

Windows® 7 Professional, 64Bit

8GB Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz - 2 DIMMs

AMD Radeon™ HD 7570 1GB GDDR5

1TB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive 6.0 Gb/s (I'll actually have FSX on another 1TB hard drive)

 

 

I was waiting for the day one could buy a machine for $800 that doesn't need to be overclocked to hell and with a few modifications in the FSX.cfg file one could be up and running like what's possible with FS9. Will the specs above finally accomplish this?

 

Thanks in advance to all those that offer some insight here.

Spend the extra couple hundred of bucks and get the entry model Aurora R4. I did and I don't regret it at all. Build quality and the performance is very impressive. I'm over clocked at 4.7 and I can't even begin to tell you how silly smooth a properly tweaked sim it's on a decent computer.

 

But honestly though, the 1399$ Aurora is all I have. All I added was the Hybrid Drive and I have not regretted buying the system once.

 

LOL at all the "K" comments. I have 4 Dell's no overlooking with GeForce cards and FSX/Xplane 10 run over 30 FPS all the time.

Ditto. My "not k" overclocks just fine. I bumped it to 4.8 last nightactually.

Just thought I'd ask about these specs I saw on Dell's website today:

 

 

XPS 8500:

 

3rd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-3770 processor (up to 3.90 GHz)

Windows® 7 Professional, 64Bit

8GB Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz - 2 DIMMs

AMD Radeon™ HD 7570 1GB GDDR5

1TB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive 6.0 Gb/s (I'll actually have FSX on another 1TB hard drive)

 

 

I was waiting for the day one could buy a machine for $800 that doesn't need to be overclocked to hell and with a few modifications in the FSX.cfg file one could be up and running like what's possible with FS9. Will the specs above finally accomplish this?

 

Thanks in advance to all those that offer some insight here.

The answer in NO. FSX is and will awlays be CPU speed dependent and as long as you're around 5ghz you will still need to tweak the cfg, play with the AA settings, and adjust FSX to fit your flying.

 

You will also need a powerful Nvidia GPU (i.e gtx 680) with the right video driver if you want the best, most stable, performance.

 

As long as no one updates FSX (P3D) don't expect much improvement in its core. P3D could be a better option, but not all add-ons will work or are dev supported.

 

Jose