FSX-MS I don't understand this simulator...

[Bjoern 1,157]

FSX (still) loves MHz. It doesn't matter if you have two, four, six or eight cores. If they run at less than 2 GHz, you will get a slideshow. The threshhold from "Meh." to "Not bad!" in FSX is about 3 GHz.

 

The efficiency of new CPUs, however, is astounding. I almost needed to fry my old E6600 and Q9450s to get them to 3.2 and 3.5 GHz respectively and watch my CPU and north bridge temps 24/7. Also, I've spent hours of tweaking to try to wring every last nanosecond of timing and every last byte of bandwidth from my memory modules.

Now? Pop in an i5, pop in some DDR2400 modules. Set defaults everywhere. Idle at 0.8-1.8 GHz in Windows, then go flying for 500 hours at 3.9 GHz (Turbo). Never hit 50°C CPU temp, even on a hot summer's day. Thanks, Intel, thanks RAM makers!

[netshadoe 144]

If only Intel wasn't soo expensive, the cheapest one is like 800 $

 

You get what you pay for.  If you settle for a cheaper alternative, you'll be back in the same boat ,and you'll be back here posting with questions on why FSX isn't performing to your expectations.  It's well documented here at AVSIM and many other flightsim websites that FSX and AMD do not play well together.

 

Listen to the group who you asked questions from...a lot of us have been around a long time and have seen much!!  :smile:

[Pete5 0]

When I ran FSX on 2007 with my quad core Intel Q6600, overclocked to 3GHz, still much faster than your 'modern' 1.8GHz dual core laptop cpu.

 

Sorry, but that's not a modern laptop at all. My 2008 laptop has better specs than this.

 

If you want FSX/P3D to run smoothly with add-ons, you have to invest in a high-end desktop.

http://store.acer.com/store/acerna/en_CA/pd/ThemeID.30483300/productID.278277000 here's my pc OMG ITS 700 $$$$