Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

In 2013, I had a computer built for the purpose of simming with FSX.  I have an I7-3770K CPU @ 3.5GHz, 16GB RAM AND NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680.  I like my FSX as real as possible so I added numerous add-ons ( ORBX, airports, cities etc), so many that my computer doesn’t cut it anymore.  I started to have problems when I installed the PMDG 747 v3.  I cannot fly it over some intense sceneries such as New York or Miami cities, not even Toronto airport scenery from Fly Tampa.  I think I need to get a new computer.

I am retired and live in the country so to have one built would be a hassle.  I have been surfing and found the following Alienware:

·         Intel(R) Core(TM) i7K 8700K (6-Core/12-Thread, 12MB Cache, up to 4.7GHz with Intel(R) Turbo Boost Technology)

·         Windows 10 Pro (64bit) English

·         NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) GTX 1070 with 8GB GDDR5

·         32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz (2X16GB)

·         256GB M.2 PCIe Solid State Drive

·         2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s (Storage)

·         BDRE Drive (Reads and Writes to Blu-Ray disks)

·         Killer 1535 802.11ac 2x2 WiFi and Bluetooth 4.2

·         850W EPA Bronze PSU Liquid Cooled Chassis

Please tell me if the above specs will allow me to fly smoothly with all my add-ons assuming my FSX is properly installed, configured and tweak.

What do you think about the extended warranties they try to push on me, given that I am not too knowledgeable in computers.

Many thanks,

 

Marcel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Marcan said:

Please tell me if the above specs will allow me to fly smoothly with all my add-ons assuming my FSX is properly installed, configured and tweak.

Looks good, overall. However, if you're just using it for FSX then 16GB RAM is more than enough. It's worth finding out the model of motherboard and CPU cooler as some are much better than others.


 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say it looks just fine for FSX as well, but would suggest upping the M2 SSD to 512GB.  Assuming you're loading FSX onto the SSD, you should load your other FSX add-ons on the SSD as well so any file access for FSX can be the fastest available.  That 256GB SSD will get small real fast with all the new add-ons being released these days.  JMHO... enjoy!



Doug Miannay

PC: i9-13900K (OC 6.1) | ASUS Maximus Z790 Hero | ASUS Strix RTX4080 (OC) | ASUS ROG Strix LC II 360 AIO | 32GB G.Skill DDR5 TridentZ RGB 6400Hz | Samsung 990 Pro 1TB M.2 (OS/Apps) | Samsung 990 Pro 2TB M.2 (Sim) | Samsung 990 Pro 2TB M.2 (Games) | Fractal Design Define R7 Blackout Case | Win11 Pro x64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a new computer. You won't fix your performance issues by adding more cores, RAM or GPU power. Your current machine is already almost as good as it gets for FSX.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand pc builders like Alienware and especially Jetline, building rigs that are overpowered for FSX.  The sim will never ever make use of 16gb ram nor any gpu newer than circa 2010.  FSX is cpu bound.  Alienware probably doesn' know better but Jetline sure should have known better back in the day.  I still see in my old PC Pilot mags their adds for stupidly over powered rigs for FSX.

Different now with p3d v4 and XP11, both 64 bit that will eat up all modern hardware.

You old system is fine for 32 bit FSX, nothing except maybe a cpu upgrade will help.

If you'e joining us in the new age though with either of the 2 above 64 bit sims, by all means get that rig...or better yet, build your own, brother.

  • Like 1

spacer.png


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Boomer said:

The sim will never ever make use of 16gb ram nor any gpu newer than circa 2010.

The sim itself can't use all of the 16GB RAM but background apps and external add-ons can certainly start to fill it up. Also, try running at 4k (or QHD with sparse grid supersampling) using a 2010 GPU.

Edited by vortex681

 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

The sim itself can't use all of the 16GB RAM but background apps and external add-ons can certainly start to fill it up. Also, try running at 4k (or QHD with sparse grid supersampling) using a 2010 GPU.

 

True, but have you considered you might be losing track of what the OP's problem is?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you spend a dime I would try to overclock that CPU to 4.5ghz its free and may be all that you need..with a proper cooler of course.

You  have more than enough RAM.

However if you have cash to splash then do the full upgrade and enjoy!


ZORAN

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dazz said:

True, but have you considered you might be losing track of what the OP's problem is?

Not at all. My original comment about 16GB of RAM (second post) was in response to the OP's request for thoughts on his proposed new system. My post that you quoted was in response to Boomers comments which I don't entirely agree with and which could, just as equally, influence the OP's decision. I think it's wrong to say that a modern, powerful system can't be fully utilized by FSX.


 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

Not at all. My original comment about 16GB of RAM (second post) was in response to the OP's request for thoughts on his proposed new system. My post that you quoted was in response to Boomers comments which I don't entirely agree with and which could, just as equally, influence the OP's decision. I think it's wrong to say that a modern, powerful system can't be fully utilized by FSX.

If the OP isn't running stuff that is taking up more than 12GB plus FSX, 4K and/or tons of SGSS, your points are moot, and if he does he simply needs to shut down a few chrome tabs or lower those AA settings. He mentioned he started experiencing issues after installing one plane, so it's most likely not a hardware problem. 

The truth is that more cores, RAM, memory channels, L3 cache and most likely GPU power will not help at all here. 

So Marcel, if you were planning on doing a fresh install in your new machine, try doing that on your current one before you throw a couple grands down the drain 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dazz said:

If the OP isn't running stuff that is taking up more than 12GB plus FSX, 4K and/or tons of SGSS, your points are moot

But we don't know whether he is or not - that's the point, so not worth speculating on. The OP asked for comments on his proposed new system. I did that and then subsequently responded to Boomer's assertion that powerful new systems were effectively wasted on FSX, which is clearly not the case. If it was easy to run FSX well on old hardware then no one would be buying high end systems and still complaining about performance issues. You can easily bring FSX to its knees even on high-end hardware.

54 minutes ago, dazz said:

The truth is that more cores, RAM, memory channels, L3 cache and most likely GPU power will not help at all here.

I'd say it depends. Whilst more cores may not make a significant difference (but could under certain circumstances), the improved single core performance of his proposed new CPU certainly could - see: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_2200g_review,8.html. If you look at the IPC / Single thread chart, the 4790k (more capable than his current processor) lags way behind the 8700k. The GPU also becomes a factor if he wants to run at higher resolutions or even with high levels of anti-aliasing at lower resolutions.

Yes, with his current system you could probably improve things by turning down/off all of the settings in FSX but if the OP wants to run the PMDG 747 v3 and uses Fly Tampa scenery, I very much doubt that he'd want to do that. I suspect that's why he's looking for a new system. His current processor has a max turbo frequency of 3.90 GHz, so even if he overclocks it to 4.5 GHz that's only a 15% increase. As CPU-related performance improvements in FSX tend to be fairly proportional to clock speed increases, if he's getting poor performance now that would only improve things by 2 or 3 FPS at best. I don't think he'd even notice that improvement. He's only likely to see a significant improvement (with decent slider positions) if he upgrades his system.

 


 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

. If it was easy to run FSX well on old hardware then no one would be buying high end systems and still complaining about performance issues. You can easily bring FSX to its knees even on high-end hardware

No offense, but your logic is backwards. Newer systems struggle almost  as much as older ones precisely because FSX can't take advantage of most of the novelties in those new systems. 

26 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

But we don't know whether he is or not - that's the point, so not worth speculating on. The OP asked for comments on his proposed new system. I did that and then subsequently responded to Boomer's assertion that powerful new systems were effectively wasted on FSX, which is clearly not the case. If it was easy to run FSX well on old hardware then no one would be buying high end systems and still complaining about performance issues. You can easily bring FSX to its knees even on high-end hardware.

I'd say it depends. Whilst more cores may not make a significant difference (but could under certain circumstances), the improved single core performance of his proposed new CPU certainly could - see: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_2200g_review,8.html. If you look at the IPC / Single thread chart, the 4790k (more capable than his current processor) lags way behind the 8700k. The GPU also becomes a factor if he wants to run at higher resolutions or even with high levels of anti-aliasing at lower resolutions.

Yes, with his current system you could probably improve things by turning down/off all of the settings in FSX but if the OP wants to run the PMDG 747 v3 and uses Fly Tampa scenery, I very much doubt that he'd want to do that. I suspect that's why he's looking for a new system. His current processor has a max turbo frequency of 3.90 GHz, so even if he overclocks it to 4.5 GHz that's only a 15% increase. As CPU-related performance improvements in FSX tend to be fairly proportional to clock speed increases, if he's getting poor performance now that would only improve things by 2 or 3 FPS at best. I don't think he'd even notice that improvement. He's only likely to see a significant improvement (with decent slider positions) if he upgrades his system.

The single core performance  between Marcel's CPU and that 8700k is also about a 15% and that won't get you from needing to turn down all your settings to being able to max them out. Not even close. 

Anyway, I think it makes sense to try the reinstall before getting a new rig. He can always transfer the new install to the new machine if he decides to go for it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, dazz said:

The single core performance  between Marcel's CPU and that 8700k is also about a 15%

Correction: that would be the IPC increase alone. Considering the higher stock clock & turbo of the 8700K and the (I assume) faster RAM of the Coffee Lake system, the performance increase will probably be more like a 25 - 30%. Whether that's worth it only Marcel can say. But again, I'm pretty sure his performance issues are not hardware related

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dazz said:

No offense, but your logic is backwards. Newer systems struggle almost  as much as older ones precisely because FSX can't take advantage of most of the novelties in those new systems. 

But I wasn't talking about any "novelties" of the newer systems. I was only talking about clock speed and that's the main feature of newer systems which FSX can use effectively. The higher clock speed of the 8700k combined with the higher IPC should give a significant improvement in performance. The better motherboard chipset and faster RAM will also add to the performance.

3 hours ago, dazz said:

The single core performance  between Marcel's CPU and that 8700k is also about a 15% and that won't get you from needing to turn down all your settings to being able to max them out. Not even close.

From the IPC chart in the link, it's the 4790k, not the 3770k, which is 15% down on the 8700k. Marcel's 3770k isn't on that particular chart but would certainly be further down than the 4790k - I'd expect it to be at least 20-25% down on the 8700k. Remember also that they are all tested at 3.5 GHz so that's a big increase in raw IPC even before factoring in the much higher stock speed of the 8700k.  The turbo speed of the 8700k, at 4.7 GHz, is considerably higher than that of the 3770k and that would just be the starting point for any potential overclock. Look at the Cinebench R15 - Single Thread chart at the top of the linked page and the 8700k has a 40% improvement over the 3770 at stock speeds.


 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

The better motherboard chipset

I don't know how a chipset would make any difference performance wise.

But anyway. I'm not mentioning overclocking because the OP doesn't seem interested. Apparently that 8700K has a great Turbo boost and according to this it's able to hold 4.3GHz at full load. I would expect it to hover around 4.5GHz in FSX which is significantly more than the 3.8-3.9GHz of the 3770K. All in all, adding up clocks, IPC & RAM speed that Alienware rig could easily be a 40% faster than the 3770K. 

I dunno, maybe if Marcel tells us exactly what he means when he says he can't fly over dense sceneries, what FPS he's getting there and some more detailed info like the settings he's using, we can determine whether his performance issues can only be solved adding raw power or there's something else going on

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...