Intel i5-6300 2.3ghz ehough for FSX?

[hugopiugo 1]

Hi, I'm getting a laptop with the Intel i5-6300HQ Quad Core 2.3ghz (THE GPU IS NVIDIA GTX 965M 2GB), and I'd like to know about the processor, since the GPU is relatively good.

Is it enough for a normal FSX experience? (Add-on airplanes, and sceneries)

 

First I want to know with 2.3ghz... At the specification it says it has a turbo 3.2ghz, but I heard someone saying you can't enable it...

[Jude Bradley 659]

It will run,but the "industry standard" right now for FSX is an i7 4790K (and  this was before the 6000 series of chips were released.

[hugopiugo 1]

It'll run... that means 10 fps, or it's 'playable'?

[Jude Bradley 659]

Don't expect high settings to run and have good framerates. Really, you need about 3.5 to 4Ghz to run any way satisfactory.

Since I don't have your machine, I can't give more than that.

[nealmac 260]

To be honest, unless it's a gaming laptop, you'll find that as your processor starts overheating, it will throttle back on power in order to cool it down. Generally, laptops don't come with a good cooling system (again, unless it's a gaming laptop) and the only way the processor can be kept at a safe temperature is by reducing it's power. This is why a desktop PC is recommended for FSX which will have a much better cooling system, or better yet, will give you the option to upgrade your cooling system.

 

You have a nice GPU but unfortunately FSX is far more reliant on the CPU. This is due to the fact that it's "old school" software that was released before all these top of the range GPUs came on the market.

 

People also go on about processor speed 3.5GHz,  4Ghz, overclocking etc but the fact remains that CPU speed alone won't give you a high frame rate. A stable CPU running at 2.6GHz is far more reliable than a 4GHz CPU that keeps overheating. 

 

I'm by no means an expert (far from it in fact) on computer hardware. As a newbie posting here I'm sure I'll get shot down, but I'm basing all I said all the above on previous experiences with FSX on several PCs and laptops.

 

Having said all that, I have no doubt in my mind that if you just run the base game with no addons and you don't try to overdo the graphical settings, you'll enjoy a very comfortable frame rate. That frame rate will more than likely decrease as the processor comes under more stress, but not noticeably so. You will probably also be able to add a lot of addons without much (if any) impact on frame rate. For example I find that FTX scenery runs really well with no impact on scenery. However addon airports can really bog your fram rate down. As for add on aircraft, I find the Aerosoft Airbus series has a big impact on frame rate. However the PMDG 737 (which would be a similar style) makes no difference to frame rate that I can see.

 

Unfortunately the only way you're going to know for real is by trying it out. And that means spending money.

[hugopiugo 1]

Thank you for all your replies. Yes it's a gaming laptop, has a button that makes the fan's make a lot of noise and running almost like it's a desktop.

Well I've tried it... and without add-ons it's awesome (obviously), but as soons as I do 737PMDG it drops. With a simple 1 runway scenery and 737 the fps are around 15 fps. For me, the airbus it's less heavier then the 737.

I believe the laptop isn't enabling the turbo, it's running at 2.3ghz, and I see the CPU it's running 99%.

So basically, I can't fly with this framerate, it's not stable, it goes to 25 and then drops, etc. If I was able to enable the turbo, it would get MUCH better, but unfortunately I can't.

 

Well, I have a question, FSX is old school and runs more on CPU, what about P3D? Didn't they fix a little bit more that part?

[Luke 782]

 

 

Really, you need about 3.5 to 4Ghz to run any way satisfactory.

 

When you buy a car with a powerful engine, do you base the decision on its redline, its displacement or its horsepower?

 

Cheers!
 

Luke

[Jude Bradley 659]

Experience