Am I trying too hard to light my money on fire

[av8or]

I am building a new gaming pc (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/JGYYQZ), and I am choosing many of the parts based on optimizing performance in FSX with the assumption of simultaneous addon aircraft, scenery, and weather being used. Based on NickN's FSX bible, CPU choice should be the latests and fastest i7 processor if possible. Currently that is the Intel Core i7 8700K or Intel Core i7 8086K. The 8086K is $70 US more, but guarantees an extra 0.3 GHz. I have the budget for either. If I want to maximize the chance that I will have at least 30 fps during final approach and flare in an addon airliner landing at addon scenery in bad weather generated by REX, do you think I will see a noticeable difference between the two processors (more than 5 fps)? Do you think either processor will achieve this goal? Will neither reliably achieve this goal? Any other thoughts?

[zmak]

the GPU is over kill for FSX.  Even a 1070 would be way to much unless of course you plan on switching to P3D or Xplane in the future

[speedyTC]

There is an interesting disussion here.

If you are planning on spending that much money on your proposed build for FSX I'd seriously consider moving to P3Dv4.x. I am aware that FSX is still goiing strong (I myself still use it) but in all honesty a 32bit platform for today's available add-ons (both scenery and aircraft) doesn't really compute. Your planned machine can easily handle P3D and you'd be assured that development for that platform is ongoing unlike FSX. I plan on moving to P3D as soon as finances allow it. There is also the very real possibility that, even running your proposed hardware with FSX and depending on your settings and complexity of add-ons for it, that your fps may very well tank. The subject of fps and smoothness has been ongoing for years and a powerful system will not guarantee a smooth stutter-free FSX experience.

Best of luck!

[av8or]

@zmak, @speedyTC, after coming back into the flight sim world after 3 years of being away, I am considering switching to X-Plane or P3D. Could you explain or point me to another resource that explains the relative dependence of these sims on single thread core clock speed vs multiple cores and how well these sims take advantage of graphics cards?

 

[Bert Pieke]

4 hours ago, av8or said:

@zmak, @speedyTC, after coming back into the flight sim world after 3 years of being away, I am considering switching to X-Plane or P3D. Could you explain or point me to another resource that explains the relative dependence of these sims on single thread core clock speed vs multiple cores and how well these sims take advantage of graphics cards?

 

This is an evolving situation... every new release moves the code towards multi core and GPU offload.  True for both P3D and XP.

[ryanbatc]

I'd recommend both P3D v4 AND XP11.  XP has a demo and P3D has a 30 day trial.

XP11 will use your gpu more than P3D but it's still quite CPU based.  (Meaning just like FSX / P3D you'll want the fastest core clock speed possible).

Neither sim uses SLI very well however.

Also Id get a better PSU something like this 

https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16817438018?0p19G=c

thanks for pricing out that pc - that's pretty much what I'd get for my next upgrade - only 3000 lol

[Ray Proudfoot]

I swapped a 3Gb Nvidia GTX780 for an 8Gb 1080 and running my test scenario at Aerosoft’s Heathrow Xtreme it did not increase fps at all proving all that all the extra muscle is wasted on FSX. It was the moment I realised P3D was the only solution although I switched to v3 as I fly FSL Concorde which is 32-bit only.

I’d also recommend the op switching to P3D if he wants to maximise performance. A lot of the scenery will still work too.