Technical spruce up! FSX only

[Gareth Bayford 0]

I'm looking to upgrade my rig to perform better. Currently running the specs below and achieving around 15-20Fps in high density environments. Already use a scenery config tool in order to make sure the  system only runs what I ask it to. Defrag done recently. Running PMDG products well enough but could be better. Aerosoft/ORBX airports are where we have the issue, especially on takeoff/landing etc.  

What should I look at upgrading as priority?

For the record, I know that FSX is outdated and buggy. Not looking for any "upgrade to P3D" advice. Just want to get FPS looking more like 30-40. 

Processor: i5-2500K 3.3 GHz overclocked to 4.3 GHz

Video card: GeForce GTX 560 Ti (1GB)

Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V LX

Memory: 8GB DDR3

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 

Cooler: Corsair 120mm Hydro Series H80i 

Thanks!

[vortex681 806]

If you're not looking to upgrade the whole system, I'd say get a better graphics card. Normally upgrading the GPU doesn't add significantly to the FPS but, in your case, it's likely that it's causing a potential bottleneck - it's an old card with a very small amount of relatively slow VRAM. What screen resolution do you use?

8GB of RAM should be OK with FSX as long as you don't run too much in the background.

[hs118 707]

Agreed, go with a more powerful GPU, it appears to be the weakest component of your system.

[Gareth Bayford 0]

Thanks. I had a hunch towards upgrading the GPU, but reading everything on every forum that FSX is a CPU-heavy program made me second-guess myself, even though the OC is pretty high on my system. I run a 1900x1080 resolution.

 

Currently looking at the 1050Ti, as that seems the best bang for my budget.

[zmak 331]

I have the same system except I have a GTX 780 and it can handle any scenario .oddly enough I would have thought the higher number 1050 would perform better but not according to stats

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-780-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti/2164vs3649

[vortex681 806]

9 hours ago, Gareth Bayford said:

Currently looking at the 1050Ti, as that seems the best bang for my budget.

The 1050 Ti is not bad but you would probably outgrow it quite quickly if you decided to get a higher resolution monitor or upgrade other components later. Take a look at http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/galax_kfa2_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_exoc_review,35.html for an idea of relative performance. It's maybe not as important with FSX but it potentially would be with other sims or games that you may want to try in the future.  If you can afford it, I'd recommend a 1060 - the version with 6GB of VRAM. If you look at page 1 of the link above you'll see that there's more to the 1060 than just a higher clock speed and more VRAM. That said, if your budget won't stretch the 1050 Ti will probably work OK for you at 1920x1050.

[vortex681 806]

That should, of course, read 1920x1080 at the end of my previous post. Not enough coffee!

Edited April 16, 2018 by vortex681

[G-RFRY 1,708]

If you can sit tight a bit longer until you can get at least a 1060, when you move to P3D if you intend to add to it scenery airports aircraft it will give you better options without bogging it down.

[ryanbatc 12,820]

If he wants more fps he'll need a faster CPU

I had a gtx 570 and went to a 970 and at 1080P fps didn't change much

Id recommend a 7700K and a GTX 1060.  You can find a 7700k at microcenter for relatively cheap

[vortex681 806]

14 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

If he wants more fps he'll need a faster CPU

The chances are that his GPU (with only 1GB of VRAM) will then almost certainly be the bottleneck.

14 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Id recommend a 7700K and a GTX 1060.

But if he does that, he effectively needs a whole new system (new CPU, motherboard, RAM and GPU and probably even a new PSU) and he doesn't seem to want to do that. If his current GPU is the bottleneck in his existing system, buying a new one may help solve his low FPS and, even if it doesn't, he'll have a decent GPU for any subsequent system upgrade.

With regards to the 7700k, why go for an older generation CPU when the latest, the 8700k (with a higher turbo boost speed and more cache), doesn't cost too much more? The extra cores may not make much difference in FSX but most of us use our systems for other things as well.

Edited April 20, 2018 by vortex681

[ryanbatc 12,820]

I'm telling you, I did gtx 570 to 970 and there was not really any observable difference.  Again this is for FSX only at 1080P.  I don't know what res he's at.

Then get a GTX 1060 but I don't think it will help that much.

4K - different story 

[vortex681 806]

16 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm telling you, I did gtx 570 to 970 and there was not really any observable difference.  Again this is for FSX only at 1080P.  I don't know what res he's at.

Then get a GTX 1060 but I don't think it will help that much.

It all depends on whether or not his card is limiting his system performance - it's easy enough to check with something like MSI Afterburner. You can have the fastest CPU available and still be limited by the GPU (probably less likely at 1080p but still possible).

16 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

4K - different story

Probably also the case at 1440p with his existing card. In some ways, that's the point. His current GPU gives him nowhere to go whilst a new card is not wasted money because it will still be good if/when he decides to upgrade his system fully or get a higher resolution monitor.

Edited April 20, 2018 by vortex681

[ryanbatc 12,820]

At 2k yeah I'd agree a gpu will help

(Darn forum can't see hardware specs in mobile)

a 6 GB GTX 1060 should do the trick - let them come down in price still though