Is this setup worth $650

 

Case: NZXT Phantom 410 Mid Tower
CPU: Intel Core i5-3570 Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz
PSU: Corsair HX750W
Graphics Cards: 2x Evga SuperClocked GeForce GTX 560 1GB DDR5 in SLI
Motherboard: MSI Z77 MPOWER
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 16GB DDR3 1600
Cooler: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme

 

 

Is this setup worth $650

 

Yes.  Total cost if new of all the components you listed would be about $1674 not including taxes and shipping:

 

Case - $100

CPU  - $230

PSU  - $130

GPU  - $300 each x 2 = $600

MB    - $239

RAM - $195

Cooler $180

 

Of course you might find some on sale but generally they will be in the price range above.  Is it powerful enough to run FSX/P3D?  Yes.  But, unlike FS9, where FS9 was more GPU dependent, FSX/P3D are more CPU dependent.  I don't think much of SLI either for FSX/P3D.  Single GPU's are powerful enough today to run an old program like FSX and can definitely run P3D.

 

I like the following guide that provides excellent guidance for buying computers - http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/.

 

Best regards,

Yes but the only problem is no unlocked multiplier. Note the lack of the K on the CPU model.

 

You can still overclock but it will be a little more difficult.

Thanks for the response guys.

Decided instead and spring for a new custom build (especially since wife said, "I dont care what you do with your money." She makes retirement so fun) because finally, at age 62 I can. All my life Ive gone with secondhand stuff or subpar stuff that quickly became outdated.

I bought at a place in Evansville, IN called ComputersPlus, and the owner himself said, "Heres what I'd do," and walked around with a scanner that did an electronic tally of the stuff. Then we sat down and went over it, added, subtracted, changed this, modified that. The best customer service Ive ever gotten for any kind of consumer product.

 

Anyway, heres what we put together:

Intel i7-4771 LGA-1150

Asus MOBO Z87-K

EVGA GeForce GTX 760 2GB DDR5

16 GB Kingston 1600 DDR3 Non-ECC

1 TB secondary hard drive

240 GB SSD for Windows 7 Pro

 

and some other odds and ends to go with it, DVD burner, nice case.

 

It should do me for awhile.

Oh oh, "I don't care" usually means "don't do something stupid" LOL!

 

Have fun !

But, unlike FS9, where FS9 was more GPU dependent

 

 

 

Hate to be pedantic, but FS9 wasn't more GPU dependant. It was CPU dependant. In fact if anything, the emphasis has switched a tad toward the GPU for FSX, on account of the add-on's we know favour, and higher resolutions we run..

Hate to be pedantic, but FS9 wasn't more GPU dependant. It was CPU dependant. In fact if anything, the emphasis has switched a tad toward the GPU for FSX, on account of the add-on's we know favour, and higher resolutions we run..

 

I'm sorry but I disagree.  I base my comments on the following:

 

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?226315-FSX-CPU-or-GPU-Dependent

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/7#.U0mD98zD_uo

This quote from the Microsoft Lead Developer - "Given that FSX is CPU-bound, and given that FSX touches a lot of memory on the CPU, enhancing memory bandwidth on the CPU is good." (see more at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2006/11/30/fsx-today-and-tomorrow.aspx).

Another quote from the Microsoft Lead Developer - "The main issue is FSX is CPU bound so the extra GPU doesn’t provide any benefit until fill rate, as determined by resolution and AA settings, drive past the CPU-boundness. So SLI doesn’t benefit FSX much except at extreme resolutions with high AA."  More at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/03/03/fsx-more-on-sli-and-multi-core.aspx.

 

I know that times have changed but fsx is still a very old game that wasn't programmed to take full advantage of the latest hardware.  You must also be aware that back in the FS9 days, the GPU was king as there wasn't anything called "multicore", "Sandy Bridge", etc. back then.  I do think the current hardware can help FS9 users immensely as the technology is like 1000% better.  However, FS9 was programmed to take more advantage of the GPU and FSX was programmed to take advantage of the CPU and that's something that cannot be changed.

 

I have spent several hours looking up this stuff to correct your pedantic statements (I could find more) but I hate it when people take bits and pieces of my comments and turn them around to make it look like I made a totally incorrect statement.  In your response, you just quoted what I said.  You did not do a selective quote so that I could get your reply in my e-mail.  I just happened to run across this inaccurate statement. 

 

Best regards,

I actually think it has more to do with the technology that was available at the time...

 

For FS9, in it's day, finding a GPU that could display the 1024x768x16 graphics at an acceptable framerate was a challenge..  Today's GPUs have no trouble with that.  They will happily do 1920x1080x32 all day..

 

For FSX, finding a CPU that could calculate the vastly expanded levels of data, compounded by the CPU hungry FSX add-ons was (and still is) the challenge..

 

 

For FS9, in it's day, finding a GPU that could display the 1024x768x16 graphics at an acceptable framerate was a challenge.. Today's GPUs have no trouble with that. They will happily do 1920x1080x32 all day..

 

Thanks Bert but not true according to the links I provided.  The sims were programmed to use different hardware so technically I'm correct.  Now, does the sims care what they were programmed for with the latest technology installed?  Me thinks not.

 

Best regards,

Jim, I think we are down to arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin here.. B)

However, FS9 was programmed to take more advantage of the GPU and FSX was programmed to take advantage of the CPU and that's something that cannot be changed.

 

 

 

I have spent several hours looking up this stuff to correct your pedantic statements (I could find more) but I hate it when people take bits and pieces of my comments and turn them around to make it look like I made a totally incorrect statement. In your response, you just quoted what I said. You did not do a selective quote so that I could get your reply in my e-mail. I just happened to run across this inaccurate statement.

 

Well, we know FSX is CPU dominant, but I still maintain that to claim FS9 was less so, and go on to claim that "FS9 was programmed to take more advantage of the GPU" is incorrect.

 

I don't see anything in your quotes that tells me that FS9 was deliberately "programed to take more advantage of the GPU". Just that FSX is CPU bound, which we already knew.

 

I recall that FS9 was just as CPU dependant as FSX.

 

If you could direct me to any evidence that suggests FS9 was deliberately coded to take advantage of the GPU I would appreciate it.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, It's just that after flight simming for many years, this is the first time I've come across the notion that FS9 was deliberately coded to take more advantage of the GPU. It's contrary to my understanding, and I'm always ready to tweak my understanding.