Alastair McLeod

i5 4670 @ 3.4 which card and what HD please

Recommended Posts

Hi, just getting back into FSim after a 5 year lay-off. Loaded up FSX and remembered why I hate it (maybe I dont have enuff disc space at 120gb ?). Anyway I stripped it out and reloaded FS9 which the rig runs very competently at ultra settings. I just bought X plane 11 and want to try it.

Obviously I need to add a hard-drive as my present drive is just an SSD 850 Evo 120gb ATA. If I want to try FSX again and XP 11 -

do I need to buy one drive for each ? Or just the one ?

what size and what speed should I get ?

I have two cards which will give me the best performance Geforce GTX 970 or a Radeon Rx470 ?

i5 4670 3.4Ghz, 120gb HD, 4.00 GB ram Windows 7 - 64 bit home, triple benq monitors

Douglas DC-3 Pilot and Co-pilot seats, PFC throttle quad, CH Yoke and pedals

Share this post


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

Posted (edited)

There's no advantage to having a separate drive for each simulator as you'll be running both at once. An Xplane11 install is much bigger than FSX owing to the way the scenery is done; whilst FSX will live fairly happily with some addons on 128 GB, I think XP11 uses near that for just a base install! Therefore I'd say you want at least 400 GB (480GB is a common size) assuming just the flight sims (i.e. no OS) is living on that drive. I've got a Crucial MX300 which struck a good balance of value, reliability and performance, Samsung Evo 860 are also good.

The GTX970 is much faster than the Rx470, nVidia tends to play better with FSX too. But if you game with all 3 monitors at 1080p I don't think you'll see particularly great framerates in either sim.

For Xplane11 you will need more RAM as it's 64 bit. In fact even for 32 bit FSX having RAM in excess of 4 GB would be useful (since FSX can then have a full 4 GB of VAS to itself without needing to share it with other apps and the OS). Upgrade to a total of at least 8GB, ideally 16GB RAM.

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

970 with 4gig ram will do ok on  low setting in XPLane , be fine for FSX, far better off with 8gig 1070 not much diff between that and the 1080 as far as xplane is concerned. Also 16gig ram is best bet 500Gig hard drive is enough for both simms. Havxe xplane with no ortho on a 220gig ssd and still has 160 gig free space.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are using HDD's for X-Plane, then get a new large capacity drive 1TB are about £30, 

- even SSD's are dropping in price, but I recommend to stay with the Samsung Evo drives if using SSD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

970 with 4gig ram will do ok on  low setting in XPLane

Even my 2 GB GTX950M does the job at high object levels, minimal reflections, HDR and FXAA. 30 FPS with a bit of tweaking, so "low settings" is a bit of an understatement.

My 6 GB GTX1060 manges maximum objects, minimal reflections, HDR and 2xSSAA at a constant 60 FPS.

 

Unless we're talking taking more than a single monitor into account, then things might look differently.

 

12 hours ago, Alastair McLeod said:

what size and what speed should I get ?

As big as possible and of course a SSD.

I think usable 500 GB SSDs retail for around $100 to $120 at the moment.

 

Oh, and get more RAM. As much as you can afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies chaps. Ill go for that 1Tb job and more Ram and see what it does with the GeForce card. Looks like Id best get a Triplehead2Go for the multi monitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 6:55 PM, Bjoern said:

Even my 2 GB GTX950M does the job at high object levels, minimal reflections, HDR and FXAA. 30 FPS with a bit of tweaking, so "low settings" is a bit of an understatement.

My 6 GB GTX1060 manges maximum objects, minimal reflections, HDR and 2xSSAA at a constant 60 FPS.

 

Unless we're talking taking more than a single monitor into account, then things might look differently.

 

As big as possible and of course a SSD.

I think usable 500 GB SSDs retail for around $100 to $120 at the moment.

 

Oh, and get more RAM. As much as you can afford.

Im running two sticks of DDR3 1600Mhz 4GB RAM already so that should be enuff methinks. I will probably go along with the 500 GB SSD rather than a 3.5" 1TB as you advise mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2018 at 6:46 PM, Alastair McLeod said:

Thanks for your replies chaps. Ill go for that 1Tb job and more Ram and see what it does with the GeForce card. Looks like Id best get a Triplehead2Go for the multi monitors.

Why waste the money on this (triplehead2go)?  Current video cards have output and support 4 montiors.

Edited by bgpearce01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 6:30 PM, Alastair McLeod said:

Im running two sticks of DDR3 1600Mhz 4GB RAM already so that should be enuff methinks. I will probably go along with the 500 GB SSD rather than a 3.5" 1TB as you advise mate.

Get as much memory as your Motherboard can take. 16GB is a bare minimum for X-Plane, really (unless you only fly between islands or in the desert). I know coming from FSX, this seems outrageous amount of memory, but X-Plane will take what it can get, and then some.

The SSD will only speed up your loading times, nothing else. Preloading of adjacent tiles is done on another core. Memory is key here.
If you want to go Ortho, 2TB is filled up in a wink. You will find 1TB is barely enough.

Really drop the SSD unless you have the money for both drives.

Get a Geforce 1060 or higher, if your motherboard/power combo can take it. Again, X-Plane will take what there is. A geforce 970 is awfull, because the last .5GB of VRAM is handicapped (out of the 3.5GB). X-Plane will try to use it, and your FPS plumets.

Just my 2 cents.

Check Laminar Research recommended Hardware recommendations:
https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-11-system-requirements/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jh71 said:

Get a Geforce 1060 or higher, if your motherboard/power combo can take it. Again, X-Plane will take what there is. A geforce 970 is awfull, because the last .5GB of VRAM is handicapped (out of the 3.5GB). X-Plane will try to use it, and your FPS plumets.

I don't think that's how the GTX970 works. My understanding is that yes, the last half-gig of VRAM is too slow, but X-Plane just ignores it and treats it like a 3.5 GB VRAM card. It doesn't try to use the full amount and then drop the frame rate.

I'm using a GTX970 with objects set to maximum world objects, reflections at minimal, visual effects at High/HDR, texture quality High, Antialiasing at 2X SSAA+FXAA.

With those settings I'm consistently above 35 fps and often flying at 40-45 fps. Now, that's with a single 1920x1200 monitor. Trying this card with those settings on higher resolution or multiple monitors will obviously drop performance. The GTX970 is basically a single monitor, "reasonable resolution" card for X-Plane. My next upgrade will be a 1080 or 1080ti when prices stabilize, because I'd like to bump the settings and eventually try VR.

I do agree about 8 GB system RAM is the bare minimum, and X-Plane will be happier with 16 GB or more (for the HD and UHD mesh options). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run HD Mesh v4 with 8 GB RAM on two devices and do not experience any adverse effects. It's true that X-Plane grabs what memory it can get, if onyl virtually, but a large page file (10-20 GB) on a fast drive should be buffer enough if physical RAM runs out during loading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bjoern said:

I run HD Mesh v4 with 8 GB RAM on two devices and do not experience any adverse effects. It's true that X-Plane grabs what memory it can get, if onyl virtually, but a large page file (10-20 GB) on a fast drive should be buffer enough if physical RAM runs out during loading.

This is not possible, it will depend on the region you are flying, but when swapping between memory and the hard drive  starts seriously  you will grind to a halt. With SSD it might be a bit better but you risk to use it up early.

Personally I find 24GB the sweet spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jh71 said:

This is not possible, it will depend on the region you are flying, but when swapping between memory and the hard drive  starts seriously  you will grind to a halt. With SSD it might be a bit better but you risk to use it up early.

Took the Zibo from Northern to southern Europe with HD Mesh X-Europe and other add-ons (no otho though) enabled and did not experience any slowdowns at all with my 8 GB RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are using the UHD mesh (which is only available for certain, rather small regions), X-Plane 11 will never exceed 16GB. Anyone who denies this simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok boys, I want a nice clean fight, no spitting, no biting and no punches below the belt ! 😂😂😂

well on Tuesday morning I bought a 1Tb hard drive (£159) and a second hand Triplehead2go digital (£70) for starters. I will run the front three 24" screens on my TH2go and try running flight instruments and engines on two smaller screens directly from the card.

Ill stick with FSX and Fs9 for the time being even though I love the flight dynamics of XP.  

Thanks so much for all your input gentlemen - it's much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I Finally got some free time flying.

My setup: Linux Ubuntu 18.04, DDR4 24GB RAM, Geforce 1070, Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz.
Nothing overclocked, no special tricks (except running Linux)

Test done with UHD meshV4 in Grenoble, default cessna. everything else is stock.
RAM usage is currently exactly 17.2 GB at load time. With 16GB, some swapping would already take place. 

Number of World Objects is set at Maximum, I can not stand the empty spaces. Ben also said he believes it is a must, unless your system is below recommended spcs. I use 3jFPS-wizard11 to keep the frame rate above 24 fps.

This is the reason why I also gave the link to the minimum and recommended system specs.

I have seen my 24GB explode with not optimized Ortho's in the mountains (LOD too high).

I don't want to initiate a discussion, but I also don't want to see people turned off because of wrong expectations.

Edit: Flying over Grenoble direction Annecy, I am over 19GB.
Edit2: I agree with the ColonelX,  with HD mesh (not UHD) I would still be below 16GB. But 8GB will not pull it.

Edited by jh71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jh71 said:

I have seen my 24GB explode with not optimized Ortho's in the mountains (LOD too high).

I don't want to initiate a discussion, but I also don't want to see people turned off because of wrong expectations.

Edit: Flying over Grenoble direction Annecy, I am over 19GB.
Edit2: I agree with the ColonelX,  with HD mesh (not UHD) I would still be below 16GB. But 8GB will not pull it.

Yeah, there is a reason why the official recommended spec on Laminar's home page is 16-24 GB or more. You'll cross the 16 GB threshold with UHD mesh and maybe intense enough ortho scenery, but there are other reasons for having that much RAM installed.

For one thing, we're not all flying on dedicated, stripped-down flight sim computers. I fly X-Plane on a general-purpose home office and gaming computer, and there are always a bunch of things running in the background like the Steam client, various services, and the Plan-G flight planner/moving map.

During the cruise phase of a long flight in the FSEconomy game, I'm usually tabbing through a bunch of web sites on the Chrome browser, maybe watching a YouTube video. Chrome can be a real memory hog at times. Even if X-Plane is "only" using 16 GB of RAM, my 32 GB RAM system has plenty of overhead for all these other programs I'm using at the same time. 

Another reason for that recommended spec might be that X-Plane is under constant development, always adding new features. The things we're asking for like better ATC, better (and more) AI traffic, and better weather will require CPU and RAM resources. Having a generous RAM overhead means we're ready for whatever is coming in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My currently tested XP11 process (HD Mesh, X-Europe2, World Traffic, some Sketchup VFR objects in the vicinity, Zibo's 738 in 2k config and a custom airport scenery) has a committed virtual size of almost 11 GB, yet the working set (physical memory used) is less than 4 GB, according to Windows' performance monitor.
Combined with this Firefox session and other background stuff, I'm using 6.5 GB of my physical memory (8 GB) and therfor still have 1.5 GB available.
With a high resolution orthophoto tile and more memory consuming things loaded, I'd likely notice some memory paging since the currently used and all adjacent tiles would have to be (pre)loaded, but in this configuration, everything fits very comfortably.
Now when crossing into a new scenery tile, XP will have to load everything that's not already present in memory, like terrain data points, road, rail and landclass data, airports, etc. This also increases the risk of having to offload some items into the page file, but the stutter should be short if the drive, on which the page file resides, is fast enough. If XP's garbage collection algorithm does its job properly, the old tile should vanish into the reserved (virtual) memory, freeing the physical memory for the freshly loaded one, thus keeping used physical memory more or less around the same size.

So while more RAM certainly minimizes the risk of having to use the page file, I refuse to accept that 8 GB is a no-go when not running tons of high detail objects, textures and othophotos.

Edited by Bjoern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess even with mesh it would depend on where you are flying. Flying across a flat featureless plain would probably use a lot less ram that flying through teh ALPS which would have a lot more points to render. I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using all setings at max, flying a quiet complicated airliner and a complucated big airport, real weather etc etc.
I experienced my ram to be loaded over 30GB getting a message for to low mem available.
I have 64 GB mem now and no warning anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2018 at 12:58 PM, Leen3131cs said:

Using all setings at max, flying a quiet complicated airliner and a complucated big airport, real weather etc etc.
I experienced my ram to be loaded over 30GB getting a message for to low mem available.
I have 64 GB mem now and no warning anymore.

I wish you would stop spreading this false information. X-Plane doesn't use that much ram, even in the situation you describe (hardly 8GB). You seem to have issues with other stuff running in the background or a messed up Windows install, but X-Plane will never, ever use 30GB ram, not even using the UHD mesh, the only add-on that pushes X-Plane above 10GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok boys, I want a nice clean fight, no spitting, no biting and no punches below the belt ! 😂😂😂

well on Tuesday morning I bought a 1Tb hard drive (£159) and a second hand Triplehead2go digital (£70) I will run the front three 24" screens on my TH2go and try running flight instruments and engines on two smaller screens directly from the card.

Ill stick with FSX and Fs9 for the time being even though I love the flight dynamics of XP.  

Thanks so much for all your input gentlemen - it's much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alastair McLeod said:

ok boys, I want a nice clean fight, no spitting, no biting and no punches below the belt ! 😂😂😂

well on Tuesday morning I bought a 1Tb hard drive (£159) and a second hand Triplehead2go digital (£70) I will run the front three 24" screens on my TH2go and try running flight instruments and engines on two smaller screens directly from the card.

Ill stick with FSX and Fs9 for the time being even though I love the flight dynamics of XP.  

Thanks so much for all your input gentlemen - it's much appreciated.

Further to the above. I fitted the hard drive on Friday and flew all three Fs2004, FSX and X Plane.

Fs2004 blazes even with VFR England, max settings and the MAAM DC-3 -  the difference is unbelievable with the new drive - thanks so much chaps.

Only on two screens at the moment because some twit dropped one  😳 and the other two are in storage. 

Didnt get a chance to grab the frame rates but it's much smoother on FSX and  X Plane. No texture mods on either and running high detail but there was occasionally a tile phasing which may be the result of the older processor. 

Cant wait to play with XPlane now and get some old machinery to do some test flying 😀

Also downloaded DCS which looks great also on high settings. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29 June 2018 at 8:39 AM, jh71 said:

I Finally got some free time flying.

My setup: Linux Ubuntu 18.04, DDR4 24GB RAM, Geforce 1070, Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz.
Nothing overclocked, no special tricks (except running Linux)

Test done with UHD meshV4 in Grenoble, default cessna. everything else is stock.
RAM usage is currently exactly 17.2 GB at load time. With 16GB, some swapping would already take place. 

Number of World Objects is set at Maximum, I can not stand the empty spaces. Ben also said he believes it is a must, unless your system is below recommended spcs. I use 3jFPS-wizard11 to keep the frame rate above 24 fps.

This is the reason why I also gave the link to the minimum and recommended system specs.

I have seen my 24GB explode with not optimized Ortho's in the mountains (LOD too high).

I don't want to initiate a discussion, but I also don't want to see people turned off because of wrong expectations.

Edit: Flying over Grenoble direction Annecy, I am over 19GB.
Edit2: I agree with the ColonelX,  with HD mesh (not UHD) I would still be below 16GB. But 8GB will not pull it.

Oh Annecy!!!! One of the most beautiful places we ever visited in Europe. Just didn't have enough time there to enjoy. Thanks for the uhd mesh v4 tip . I'll try that when I get back home.

Share this post


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

I wish you would stop spreading this false information. X-Plane doesn't use that much ram, even in the situation you describe (hardly 8GB). You seem to have issues with other stuff running in the background or a messed up Windows install, but X-Plane will never, ever use 30GB ram, not even using the UHD mesh, the only add-on that pushes X-Plane above 10GB.

Aside from the fact this kind of reaction is quiet unfriendly ( not done on a forum of friends ) its also mis-information.
Stating X-Plane will hardly ever use 8 or 10 GB-RAM is real misinformation.

Did just a small  test myself.
Fired up my sim PC with Win10     RAM in use then approx 3,5 GB   ( about the same on my other two cmputers )

Then fired up X-Plane11  and started form Charles de Gaulle with the LES Saab   RAM in use 14,5GB , no extras running , no AI traffic, clear skies

So in this case XP uses 11 GB, just every-days routine nothing special.
And yes I experienced xp plane almost loading 30GB , not saying thats something wich happens every day, nevertheless it happens.

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