Hello all, 

I've been away from FSX for almost two years,

I'm planning to buy/assemble a new system, for that system I'm going to use Samsung CF791 monitor, it's 3440x1440

My questions are:

1- CPU: planning to buy i7-7700, I know FSX is a CPU dependent, and therefore higher speed is better than more multi-core, is it going to outperform the 7800x and AMD 1800? what I like about the new AMD is they are much lower in heat generation.
2- GPU: Since the FSX is CPU dependent, do I need to go higher than 1060?

Thnaks
 

FSX is very much single core dependent. Although it will use more cores, it's not very good at doing so and higher clock speed is usually seen as being more important than more cores. The 7700 is a good processor but go for the 7700K as it has a higher base/turbo clock speed and, unlike the 7700, has an unlocked multiplier so can be overclocked.

Whilst you won't see much of an increase in performance with a more capable card than the 1060, it would allow you to use more exotic antialiasing settings like high levels of sparse grid supersampling giving a much better screen image. If your budget runs to it, I would get a 1070 or better. If not, the 1060 should work ok.

Skip FSX go right to P3D v4 and or Xplane 11

Yep absolutely choose 64 bit

7 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Skip FSX go right to P3D v4 and or Xplane 11

 

6 hours ago, zmak said:

Yep absolutely choose 64 bit

That's ok to me but would that change anything in PC specs?  I mean it still will be 7700k+1060?

35 minutes ago, Pro-Flyer said:

 

That's ok to me but would that change anything in PC specs?  I mean it still will be 7700k+1060?

I don't have 64 bit, I'm very happy with my fsx se DX10 setup however if I was starting up again I would go 64 mainly because of no double purchases needed 

 

Your rig sounds fine. There are quite a few threads discussing pc specs for P3Dv4 running. 

I imagine x plane would suit your set up as well 

21 hours ago, Pro-Flyer said:

Hello all, 

I've been away from FSX for almost two years,

I'm planning to buy/assemble a new system, for that system I'm going to use Samsung CF791 monitor, it's 3440x1440

My questions are:

1- CPU: planning to buy i7-7700, I know FSX is a CPU dependent, and therefore higher speed is better than more multi-core, is it going to outperform the 7800x and AMD 1800? what I like about the new AMD is they are much lower in heat generation.
2- GPU: Since the FSX is CPU dependent, do I need to go higher than 1060?

Thnaks
 

 

13 hours ago, vortex681 said:

FSX is very much single core dependent. Although it will use more cores, it's not very good at doing so and higher clock speed is usually seen as being more important than more cores. The 7700 is a good processor but go for the 7700K as it has a higher base/turbo clock speed and, unlike the 7700, has an unlocked multiplier so can be overclocked.

Whilst you won't see much of an increase in performance with a more capable card than the 1060, it would allow you to use more exotic antialiasing settings like high levels of sparse grid supersampling giving a much better screen image. If your budget runs to it, I would get a 1070 or better. If not, the 1060 should work ok.

 

8 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Skip FSX go right to P3D v4 and or Xplane 11

Incorrect.  When SP1 was released for FSX, it gave FSX multi-core capability, so single core performance is not and has not been the determining factor of FSX performance for many, many years.  FSX performs far better on 4 or more cores all operating at or above 4 GHz.  So the 7700K Intel CPU should be fine, but it will be best for FSX when using all 4 cores and perhaps overclocking all 4 cores.

In the Nvidia model numbering system, I would not look at anything with the last two digits of the model being less than 70. 

As for sticking with the old 32-bit FSX or FSX-Steam Edition, I would build a computer with a 64-bit operating system and go for P3D v4, perhaps one day Dovetail Games' Flight Sim World will be a mature product and will be a viable alternative to P3D.

1 hour ago, stans said:

When SP1 was released for FSX, it gave FSX multi-core capability, so single core performance is not and has not been the determining factor of FSX performance for many, many years.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. FSX is not a true multi-core program - it doesn't fully utilise all available cores/threads.  Phil Taylor, who ran the Aces team, said this in his blog after SP1 was released:

We do use multi-core today. We use it primarily during loading when our thread and fiber system used to schedule the various parts of the simulation that are not so highly coupled.

What we don’t do today is make extensive use of threads across cores during rendering.

Yes, more cores are used now than in the pre-SP1 version of FSX but the majority of the work is still being done by a single core - the others tend to be just used for things like loading scenery. Open Task Manager while FSX is running and you'll see that whilst all of the cores are doing something, there is always one core which runs at, or around, 100% and that is generally the limiting factor. Adding true, full multi-core support would have required a major rewrite of the program, not just more service packs.

Im gonna build a 1700x system with a 1080ti. Will report next week. Even if the performance results in slightly less FPS compared to my 6600k but gets me better smoothness then I will be satisfied. Also,  its future proof for the xp11 vulkan upgrade in the next 9-12 months which Im hoping will open  up all 16 threads for an extremely cheap price compared to the new intel 6 and 8 core cpus. I also saw that p3dv4 benefits somewhat from multicore but im more of an XP user nowadays. 

2 hours ago, wiler said:

Im gonna build a 1700x system with a 1080ti. Will report next week. Even if the performance results in slightly less FPS compared to my 6600k but gets me better smoothness then I will be satisfied. Also,  its future proof for the xp11 vulkan upgrade in the next 9-12 months which Im hoping will open  up all 16 threads for an extremely cheap price compared to the new intel 6 and 8 core cpus. I also saw that p3dv4 benefits somewhat from multicore but im more of an XP user nowadays. 

This is something I'm really looking for.

Good luck with your system, I might go this route as well.

13 hours ago, Pro-Flyer said:

This is something I'm really looking for.

Good luck with your system, I might go this route as well.

Thanks, AMD now supports up to 4000 mhz ram speeds, which on ryzen really closes the gap between for example the 7700k. Most benchmarks are within 2-9% difference with a 7700k @ 5ghz vs the ryzen @ 4ghz. Most of the initial reviews when ryzen came out were with ram speeds of 2667 but at 3200+ I see there are big gains in the benchmarks .The gap is closing and when xp11 is able to utilize multicores the ryzen chip will come out on top over the 7700k. Also I run at 4K mainly and the gap is even closer running at 4K vs 1080p.