Sign in to follow this  
redskins47chaos

Help with upgrading my PC

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys, 

 

I'll try to keep it short. Basically I would like to upgrade my current PC instead of building a new one from scratch to cut down on cost but I need some help with choosing the right components. The main reason for the upgrade is to improve my FSX performance. I don't play anything else, so please keep that in mind. 

 

Here's what I have: 

 

Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

mobo: ASUSTek CM5570

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00Ghz

RAM: 8.00Gb DDR2 @ 400MHz

Graphics: NVIDIA Quatro FX 580 512Mb

SSD 55GB (with FSX on it)

HDD 596Gb

HDD 465GB

 

What new CPU and/or Motherboard or even GPU would you guys suggest to improve my FSX? Is there one specific component I could change that would give me an immediate upgrade? Like I said, keep in mind I don't need the best of the best as FSX is the only game I play. 

 

Thanks a lot for your help :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

You need to replace the guts of your PC..

 

i7 6700K, Asus Z170-A, 2 X 4 GB G-Skill memory, GTX 970 would be a good setup for FSX.

 

See the many other posts in this forum..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man that's an old system.  And I thought my Sandy Bridge 2500K was an old system hehe.

 

I'm with Bert, you need a rebuild.  

 

On a "budget" (because you'll need to spend a decent bit of money to build a decent FSX rig)?

 

i5 6600K

Z170A mobo

8GB DDR3 ram

GTX 960

 

Otherwise go with what Bert said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i might suggest a 4790k and a z97 motherboard, i say this because the 4790k is faster than the 6700k as far as single thread performance,the parts are cheaper and ddr3 is cheaper than ddr4 and the timings on the ram are much lower and feel snappier.now people can call me crazy but i downgraded from a 6700k rig to a 4790k system and bought a gtx 1070 for flight sim and my planet coaster game.i plan on holding onto the 4790k for at least 3 years now unless a 6 core mainsteam comes out.i am not talking enthusiast boards, i mean actual mainsteam.the 4790k systems still support a max of 32 gb of ram, thats plenty for a few years.  so i am suggesting a 4790k,z97 motherboard and 16gb of ddr3.all under 500 bucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for your input guys, it definitely helps! I'll do a bit more research and report back here with any questions :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man that's an old system.  And I thought my Sandy Bridge 2500K was an old system hehe.

 

I'm with Bert, you need a rebuild.  

 

On a "budget" (because you'll need to spend a decent bit of money to build a decent FSX rig)?

 

i5 6600K

Z170A mobo

8GB DDR3 ram

GTX 960

 

Otherwise go with what Bert said

 

 

DDR4 don't forget Ryan, not 3.

i might suggest a 4790k and a z97 motherboard, i say this because the 4790k is faster than the 6700k as far as single thread performance,the parts are cheaper and ddr3 is cheaper than ddr4 and the timings on the ram are much lower and feel snappier.now people can call me crazy but i downgraded from a 6700k rig to a 4790k system and bought a gtx 1070 for flight sim and my planet coaster game.i plan on holding onto the 4790k for at least 3 years now unless a 6 core mainsteam comes out.i am not talking enthusiast boards, i mean actual mainsteam.the 4790k systems still support a max of 32 gb of ram, thats plenty for a few years.  so i am suggesting a 4790k,z97 motherboard and 16gb of ddr3.all under 500 bucks

 

 

 

No!

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/3502vs2384

 

 

The Core i7-6700K is Intel's latest "Skylake" flagship processor. It replaces the hugely successful i7-4790K and takes the crown as the fastest mainstream consumer CPU available. Comparing performance and specs between the 4790K and 6700K shows that the configuration is largely unchanged (same base clocks, cores, threads) but the improved manufacturing process (14nm) brings a small reduction in TDP and a performance improvement of 8%; 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is calling for expansive i5 or i7 CPU's while in fact FSX only uses one single core.... So, get the latest Intel Core DUO G3258. This is an inexpensive chip (less then $75) and with proper after market cooling you might get it up to 4.5Ghz. If you invest more in cooling then 5Ghz is perhaps possible. People have done it with that chip and in the VA I fly for some guys gave it a try and they love this CPU for simming. 

 

For video, get a GTX 970 or 980 as prices will drop significantly over the coming months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cpu boss has the 4790k faster than the 6700k, i realize the z170 chipset will support kabylake , i was giving my opinion.

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K

 

 

CPU boss is wrong, it's a bug.

Everyone is calling for expansive i5 or i7 CPU's while in fact FSX only uses one single core.... So, get the latest Intel Core DUO G3258. This is an inexpensive chip (less then $75) and with proper after market cooling you might get it up to 4.5Ghz. If you invest more in cooling then 5Ghz is perhaps possible. People have done it with that chip and in the VA I fly for some guys gave it a try and they love this CPU for simming. 

 

For video, get a GTX 970 or 980 as prices will drop significantly over the coming months.

 

 

 

Not true, FSX does not use only one core. Unless of course you haven't bothered to install the service packs!

 

From Phil Taylors blog...

 

 

We *are* rebuilding the binaries from scratch. Thats not trying to patch the old binaries, its replacing them with new files, many of which have quite a bit of new code. The multi-core work, for instance, went thru the terrain code stack from top to bottom. Thats one reason why SP1 took so long. The multi-core infrastructure is solid, will use up to 256 cores if available, and will continue to be used as we migrate systems to it as it makes sense. Terrain and autogen are it for now, we’ll be evaluating when to do more.

 

 

 

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ptaylor/2007/05/15/fsx-sp1performance-work/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fsx uses 2 by what i understand, i have been using cpu and gpu boss for years.i have the 4790k at 4.8ghz.most 6700k's won't go over 4.5-4.6ghz, everyone is entitled to there opinion,i respect yours as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Taylor was the man that knew. After all, he was the head of the development team, namely Aces. If he told us that FSX can use more than one, or as you say two cores, we should listen. It's his teams software. What may be fooling you is the inconsistent nature in which it does so, it's mostly terrain and autogen. When it does, it's not extensively, not a game changer, but the fact remains that FSX was multi-core capable after SP2 and that theoretically FSX can utilize up to 256 cores. Unless you wish to disagree with the head of the team that wrote the software?
 
 
As before...

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/3502vs2384

 

UserBench have single core performance 5% higher for Skylake and overclocked multi-core performance 7% higher. But of course you are free to favor CPU Boss if you so desire.

 

 

most 6700k's won't go over 4.5-4.6ghz, everyone is entitled to there opinion,i respect yours as well.

 
 
I respect your "right to an opinion" but you should respect my right to tell you when your opinion is contrary to fact.
 
Not true! Skylake has been out for a while now, and what's notable is that overclocking is pretty consistent. Most are achieving between 4.6 and 4.8 GHZ. A much narrower band than we have seen from some previous architectures.

 

Asus for exanmple tested hundreds of 6700K CPU's both before and after release, and confirmed 4.6-4.8 as the achievable for most CPU's. Their own TPU 1 and TPU 2 auto rules are based around that.

 

You should also understand that Skylake has a higher IPC than Haswell. Not to mention the latest chipset and all the features that brings to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skylake is to prefer agree with Martin.

The 6700k have better IPC and a better Overclocker , Its fact.

Cinebench R11.5 and R15 ia a hard bench for the CPU did some tests with H110 cooled ambient 24C.

Easy 5.0ghz not many 4790k do that with that type of cooling

https://i.imgur.com/Ksf2MP1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fsx uses 2 by what i understand, i have been using cpu and gpu boss for years.i have the 4790k at 4.8ghz.most 6700k's won't go over 4.5-4.6ghz, everyone is entitled to there opinion,i respect yours as well.

 

You understand incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Taylor was the man that knew. After all, he was the head of the development team, namely Aces. If he told us that FSX can use more than one, or as you say two cores, we should listen. It's his teams software. What may be fooling you is the inconsistent nature in which it does so, it's mostly terrain and autogen. When it does, it's not extensively, not a game changer, but the fact remains that FSX was multi-core capable after SP2 and that theoretically FSX can utilize up to 256 cores. Unless you wish to disagree with the head of the team that wrote the software?

 

 

As before...

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/3502vs2384

 

UserBench have single core performance 5% higher for Skylake and overclocked multi-core performance 7% higher. But of course you are free to favor CPU Boss if you so desire.

 

 

 

 

I respect your "right to an opinion" but you should respect my right to tell you when your opinion is contrary to fact.

 

Not true! Skylake has been out for a while now, and what's notable is that overclocking is pretty consistent. Most are achieving between 4.6 and 4.8 GHZ. A much narrower band than we have seen from some previous architectures.

 

Asus for exanmple tested hundreds of 6700K CPU's both before and after release, and confirmed 4.6-4.8 as the achievable for most CPU's. Their own TPU 1 and TPU 2 auto rules are based around that.

 

You should also understand that Skylake has a higher IPC than Haswell. Not to mention the latest chipset and all the features that brings to the table.

i think skylake is garbage along with broadwell-e, maybe you need to get on newegg and amazon and read all the dead x-99 boards after a few months,a few people put a stock 6700k in in a z170 gigabyte gaming 7 and pushed the voltage to 1.5v out of the box and ruined it.i don't care what your sources say, i go by cpu boss and the 4790k is faster than the 6700k in single core apps,it's a fact.you can get high and mighty but you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Think what you want, garbage or not the 6700k is faster in single or multitread in all thats fact.

Do your homework man , you only spread garbage anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think skylake is garbage along with broadwell-e, maybe you need to get on newegg and amazon and read all the dead x-99 boards after a few months,a few people put a stock 6700k in in a z170 gigabyte gaming 7 and pushed the voltage to 1.5v out of the box and ruined it.i don't care what your sources say, i go by cpu boss and the 4790k is faster than the 6700k in single core apps,it's a fact.you can get high and mighty but you are wrong.

 

 

Hi Brett.

 

The nice thing about facts, is that they remain facts whether you believe them or not.  :smile:

 

If you're adamant that "Skylake is garbage", despite the forums being replete with users thoroughly impressed with the 6700K, then you need to define precisely why! Random comments like "garbage" and "someone once used too much voltage and ruined it" tell us nothing.

 

Some very experienced individuals have replied here, but of course you are free to hold whatever opinion you so desire. 

 

I'm not sure what a scenario where individuals have used excessive voltage on a Z170 board and ruined it has to do with our debate to be honest. 

 

 

i go by cpu boss and the 4790k is faster than the 6700k in single core apps,it's a fact.you can get high and mighty but you are wrong.

 

 

 

Well no, it would be the UserBench website that was wrong. I'm not "high and mighty at all, I have been respectful and polite. 

 

We aren't trying to fix global warming or end world hunger here, it's just a CPU, so every reason for us to debate this in a friendly fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of us are entitled to be wrong in our opinions but no one has a right to be wrong in their "facts".

 

:Tounge:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't read every single comment here cause it started to seem like personal comments. However, even if we are considering 4790k vs 6700k, there's more to it than IPC. The DDR4 speeds have translated into improvement in many games, FSX/P3D/X-Plane included.

 

I know this is coded differently, but Jayztwocentz on youtube tested BF4 with no dedicated GPU, and only swapped ram sticks between 2133 and up to 3400mhz. 2133 offered around 30fps on medium settings, whereas 3400 was pushing 70 to even 90fps. I know there's more to it like CPU/MOBO/ so on, and I know it didn't test DDR3, but there is definitely some weight to the ram speeds.

 

I had a 2500k OC'd to 4.5ghz and now have a 6600k at 4.6ghz. I use pretty much all the hardcore addons that many of us use (REX, ASN, PMDG, Flightbeam, FSDT). I used to see dips down to 22fps worst case, and best case a flat 30. Now, I'm at a rock solid 30 locked, even after turning up autogen, and between 40-60 constant when unlocked. The 6600k was the best upgrade I've ever made, and have never loved simming more. How about we just focus on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with everything you said Jim...

 

Yet another forum member who has rejected the dark side and discovered the true nature of the force.

 

I'm not sure why I've developed a fetish for Star Wars when I'm a Star Trek fan but there you go.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


swapped ram sticks between 2133 and up to 3400mhz. 2133 offered around 30fps on medium settings, whereas 3400 was pushing 70 to even 90fps

 

I know this is a dead topic now, but I realized I made a mistake in my last post and I want to get it right for anyone's future reference. Jay tested speeds 1600, 1866, and 2400mhz, which should be DDR3. I can't guarantee it but from his results it would seem as though the speeds in the 3000+ mhz range DDR4 would only increase the performance further, up until possibly some diminishing returns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this