Hi

 

I'm looking into a better computer, most likely a gaming or high performance laptop, to hopefully max out FSX.  I'm looking into one from CyberPower PC.  The specs are below:

 

• Intel® Core™ i7-4900MQ Mobile Processor 2.80 GHz 8M Smart Cache, Max Turbo Freq. 3.80 GHz
• Mobile Intel HM87 Express Chipset Mainboard (Motherboard)
• 16GB DDR3 RAM (2x 8GB)
• GTX 765M 2GB
• 1TB 7200RPM SATA 300 Hard Drive

A link to the configuration:

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/saved/1FW2U6

 

Any thoughts on how this would perform?  What specs might need to be changed?

 

I also plan to run REX, GSX, CS, PMDG, etc.

 

Any help is appreciated

Maxing out FSX?  No - don't feel bad - no one can do it....  it's not a specs thing, it's a virtual address space thing - overloading FSX with max settings and complex addons will give you an out of memory situation. (not related to physical memory btw).

 

That bad news out of the way - I think that rig will do pretty well, being a laptop and all.  I think you'll be happy enough with addons etc...  One thing I'd add: a SSD to decrease load times.

Actually, I would beg to differ.

 

With those specs you will be far from maxing out FSX. 

 

If you want to even try running FSX nicely with a load of heavy add ons, as you wish to do, you need an over clock of at least 4.5 Mhz.

 

Having said that, your proposed specs would run FSX pretty decently, I am just stating the above to make sure you do not get false expectations, especially when running it on any kind of laptop.

Okay, so assuming that I put the settings in FSX near their maximum setting, how many FPS would you guess I could get out of it? As I mainly fly vatsim the AI traffic would be disabled so what do we think then?

Depends on the aircraft and the scenery you are flying.  I have a 4770k, water cooled, 4.5GHZ overclock, GTX 770 4GB, 16GB 2666DDR3CAS11, SSD drives, ASUS Maximus VI Formula.  Everything I want maxed is maxed including additional cloud layers, enhanced overcast, and longer draw distance in ASN.  FPS in my most complex aircraft range between 10 to 30 at different periods of flight (I have an external limiter set at 30, so don't care how high it could go).  I dont know how your laptop CPU, memory, mobile video and motherboard compare, particularly without overclocking.  I have heard (but not tested) that each 0.1 GHZ is only translated into about 1 fps (so from my 4.5 to your 3.8 would be about 7 fps if all other specs were equal).  Just the difference in the mobile vs GTX 770 video has to translate into a few fps too.

 

But even at times of 10 fps in very complex scenery (near large cities/airports) everything seems and runs so much smoother than my old computer.  10 fps is not 10 fps anymore.  I don't watch the fps counter anymore and i don't watch the cpu meter any more either.  Other nagging issues are gone as well... auto pilots behave better (little-to-no porpoising).  It is not just visual fps that is improved by a more powerful system.

 

My system is brand new, hand-built, and I did not spare any expense within reason (even the water-cooling is a bit tricked-out and "on display" [&dead silent]).  But my point is you can get very enjoyable performance out of the newer high range computers and "maxed sliders" in some cases is not out of the question.  There's a fluidity beyond the sliders & fps too (and i'm not talking about the water cooling )..

 

Jason

Im agree with Jason, I also have a 4.5 overclocked system...and I can run it on near max settings with no CTDs

 

for example if you go to the end of this video this was landing in EGLL, uk2000, which is well know for ooms, with my sliders on max, ai traffic on max (ut2) , connected to squawkbox etc etc... system didnt flinch

 

http://www.twitch.tv/tebbsie/b/505751585

 

and then once again using the aerosoft extended landing in CYUL with max settings and ai on max..

 

http://www.twitch.tv/tebbsie/b/505153302

 

cheers

Two Crays linked together in dry ice might do it.

 

 

most likely a gaming or high performance laptop

 

Unless a Laptop is an absolute requirement for you, you really are putting yourself at a disadvantage straight away buy running FSX on a laptop vs a high end overclocked desktop PC.

He/She probably has some specific reason for wanting a notebook, but I must admit, the CPU-hungry monster that FSX can be when wanting to go "all sliders right" or "maxxed out" (I see that we all understand this term differently), the only way to go for that is to i7 NNNNK and overclock as high as your chip will allow without frying ...

 

i7 4770K on a good, stable overclockable board (the ASUS ROG boards are generally a good choice), an SSD if you can afford it, or a good speed mechanical HDD, preferably a separate drive for FSX (my own experience), a GPU that matches your CPU in terms of performance and very importantly, a good quality power supply that can provide the juice such an overclocked system needs with a little overhead to spare. I prefer good quality single-rail devices, as I have found their power delivery to be far more stable than multi-rail devices.

 

When overclocking, test the overclock step by step. It is best not to go straight to the "top" GHz values, unless you really know what you are doing...

 

 

A

I have heard (but not tested) that each 0.1 GHZ is only translated into about 1 fps (so from my 4.5 to your 3.8 would be about 7 fps if all other specs were equal). Just the difference in the mobile vs GTX 770 video has to translate into a few fps too.

 

 

It's linear, so think in terms of percentages.

 

So 3.8 to 4.5, approximately 20%. So if you are getting 20 FPS in a given scenario you would get 24 FPS. 30 would give you 36.

 

But don't forget, if you are changing CPU, then you also gain from any advantage that newer CPU architecture provides.

Yeah the initial idea was to get the laptop because I would want to use it for FS and for college work. I still have a 2011 MacBook Pro that runs pretty well that I could use for that so a desktop is not completely out of the question.

With the system specs you've listed you could install FSX right off the disc, max out all the settings and achieve 40-50fps - probably even higher -  easily...

 

...with no addons.

 

It's going to be really hard to say with any degree of accuracy what performance you can expect without knowing what addons you plan on using. The heavier the load of addons you try to run in the sim the more they will drag that framerate down. Some addons are very light or well optimised and have little effect on framerate. Others aren't so light or optimised and will have a noticeable effect on your framerate.

 

Unfortunately FSX is an old programme that doesn't make anything like efficient or maximum use of modern hardware. It's very much CPU bound and likes faster cores instead of more cores because it doesn't multi-thread very well at all. Likewise much of the grunt of a modern graphics card will sit pretty much unused with FSX because so much is run through the CPU instead of the GPU. Then of course there's the dreaded 32bit VAS limit which means FSX is never going to be able to use more then 4GB of RAM, no matter how much RAM you've got in your system.

 

There's simply no computer you can buy that will allow you to run FSX maxed out with the PMDG 777 at a high detail airport scenery, high detail mesh and vector scenery, with a realistic level of AI and real weather. Some compromises have to be made due to the limitations of the software.

 

I work away from home a lot of the time and have FSX installed on a 2011 gaming laptop - i7-2630QM, 8GB RAM, GTX460M - and can get a decent number of addons installed in FSX and have it looking very good and still have what I deem to be a flyable framerate (e.g. the Real Air Duke over Orbx PNW with ASN weather at 20-30 fps, scenery at very complex, autogen at dense, water 2x low, mesh at 100%, 30% AI and 1024 textures, LOD radius 4.5, dips to maybe 15 fps at a high detail Orbx airfield scenery or in heavy cloud). You need to be pretty PC savvy, maintain a clean and efficient OS, be aware of the various FSX tweaks and what they can do for you, and above all you need to have realistic expectations and be ready to accept some addons or combinations of addons just won't be possible.

Laptop I avoid them nowdays, just $50 tablets for web surfing and desktops with performance to stay within budget constraints. $800 desktop is far more useful than laptop.

True, but then again some people like myself spend a lot of time away from home and don't have the option of taking our desktop with us. Hence we have to use a laptop.

Actually, I would beg to differ.

 

With those specs you will be far from maxing out FSX. 

 

If you want to even try running FSX nicely with a load of heavy add ons, as you wish to do, you need an over clock of at least 4.5 Mhz.

 

Having said that, your proposed specs would run FSX pretty decently, I am just stating the above to make sure you do not get false expectations, especially when running it on any kind of laptop.

 

After reading my post I didn't mean to write it that way.  I agree you need proper specs to get a nice PC - but buying the best parts and OCing the highest potential won't let you run settings maxed because of VAS limits.

. Then of course there's the dreaded 32bit VAS limit which means FSX is never going to be able to use more then 4GB of RAM, no matter how much RAM you've got in your system.

 

These are two separate issues....  VAS has nothing to do with physical RAM.  It's the virtual address space allocated by the program (you're right about the 32bit part) - the limit of that is 4GB.

 

Then, in a 64bit operating system, FSX can only use 4GB of RAM being that it's a 32bit programmed piece of software.  In Windows x86 (32bit) initially FSX could only use 2GB and then  (after adding the largeaddressaware flag) it could use about 3GB.

 

Anyway for the OP I stand by my point that you should be ok and generally enjoy that rig.  I presume since you're getting this laptop you need the mobility for other software.  Because I completely agree with others - FSX needs the fastest processor you can get (multiple cores don't really help that much) - and this is found in the desktop environment.  The good thing for you is that the Haswell mobile architecture is far superior to my desktop i52500K.  I'd bet on turbo your mobile CPU would do better than my OCed 2500K @ 4.2GHz.