Choosing new hardware

[Hans_Petter 1]

Since it's time to look for a faster PC I'd be interested in your views on what to look for. FU3 may not be the most resource-hungry sim but I want to choose components that a) Make FU3 perform better with everything maxed out / in bad weather and :( under no circumstances choose components that conflict with our beloved sim.For instance, I can live with a video card that supports features FU3 can't use but I can't live with a card that makes FU3 look bad. How about multi-core processors?Hans Petter

[Lars Peter 0]

Hello Hans Petter.A new computer seems difficult to choose this days.Me too also want to change to a new mashine.Writing, and running old software like FU2. FU3 is ok, but with new mashines, there are so mutch new to come.It seems all software are made for the internet, and it's cool.Flightsims, racing software., whatever you want a computer to do is your choise,New software 2008 is a huge marked, and me also want to upgrade my mashine.Writing on this computer IBM aptiva with VOODOO 5 2001, and running Win.xp is ok.My newer mashine is from IBM 2003, today,--very old with "ATI" AGP videocard.So,- get a new mashine.- It never stops hehe.I've chosen to upgrade, but a year after there are always some new software coming up, new hardware again hmmmmLars Peter.

[Hans_Petter 1]

Hi Lars Peter :-) You say that new software requires new hardware. That is evident, but my concern is to make a choice of components that work well with old software as FU3. Actually, even an old sim as FU3 can be quite heavy when there are lots of scenery objects combined with rough weather. While all games benefit from more processor speed and more video card ram the dual core approach may not do much for older games. I assume that all modern cards support open glide? While most people worry about DirectX 10 these days I want to make sure that I don't lose open glide support :-)Hans Petter

[Christopher Low 5,352]

I am intending to get a new PC in the near future. In my experience, Nvidia graphics cards have been better with FU3 than the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. Whilst the latter was ok, it did suffer from a strange kind of strobing effect on the building models in low light conditions.....If it's of any interest, the specification that I am interested in is an Intel Q9450 processor (4x2.66Ghz cores), 4GB RAM, and a 512MB GeForce 8800GT graphics card.

[Hans_Petter 1]

Sounds like something I'd like to own :-) Do you know to what extent the quad core processor will help speed up FU3? If I got this correctly multicore processors require games written for multicore to reach their full combined potential. It's got to do with the delegation of tasks. Pre-multicore games don't come with codes that delegate the task load. In this case you the full use of one core and (usually) a less substantial push from the others. So, you while you may get 80 - 100 percent of 4 x 2.66 Ghz for a 2008 game you should expect one full 2.66 Ghz for older games plus a little more. The deal with multicore is that the processor clock speed has levelled off. While we used to get twice as powerful processors every second year we seem to have reached a limit of about 3 Ghz. To get more power the manufacturers bundle several cores. This is really a sub-optimal solution since we never get a perfect sharing of tasks between the cores.However, modern video cards come packed with ram that really helps take the load off the processor(s). Hence, it's a good idea to get a capable card for all gaming and simming.To take this discussion any further we ought to identify the bottlenecks of FU3.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

Well, FU3 isn't my primary concern with respect to a new PC, but even a single 2.66Ghz core with a 1333Mhz FSB and 800Mhz DDR2 RAM should be good enough !Since multicore processors are now the industry standard, software developers will increasingly make use of them. That's why tech savvy gamers recommend quadcore over the Core 2 Duo, even if the clock speed of the Duo's two processors is higher than that of the quadcore at the same price point. The simple fact of the matter is that ANY quadcore processor will EASILY run any of today's games if it is coupled with decent RAM and a fast graphics card. As those multiple processors start to be used more efficiently, the quadcore will power ahead of the Core 2 Duo, irrespective of the clock speed.As for the 8800GT, that is the best value for money graphics card currently available, as far as "bang per buck" is concerned. I wouldn't waste your money on a 9800GTX, since the suggestion that it is a next generation card is nothing more than a con by Nvidia. It is (at best) a tweaked 8800GTS. There is a reason why it costs LESS than a 768MB 8800GTX....EDIT: I'm considering overclocking those cores to 3Ghz.

[Guest fu3]

Chris,I was looking at a similar system but I had selected a Core Duo setup - the quad core setup nearly doubles the price of the system (

[Christopher Low 5,352]

Jon,That sounds like a system based around the QX9650 (4x3Ghz cores), which is hideously expensive at the moment. The following prices EXCLUDE VAT, and are based on the system that I would like to purchase....E8400 Core 2 Duo (2x3Ghz)

[Guest fu3]

Chris,You are correct. It seems that most resellers here are stuck with duos and only want to move quads if they're top-end. I asked about the '9450 and was told they were to come by. Mind you, the same guy told me that the GT was junk and to get a 9900GTS. Obviously he has large stocks of those too!Either way, your prices are right in the ballpark - it's just a pity that I'm not getting far in trying to get an in-between system :-rollRegards,Jon Point

[Christopher Low 5,352]

"Mind you, the same guy told me that the GT was junk and to get a 9900GTS. Obviously he has large stocks of those too!"He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about if he considers the 8800GT to be "junk". As for the QX9650, well....I'm not really sure what Intel are doing with their ridiculous "Extreme" processors. The price is extortionate, and the architecture isn't exactly head and shoulders above the Core 2 Quads. In fact, it's almost exactly the same !

[Hans_Petter 1]

>Well, FU3 isn't my primary concern with respect to a new PC,>but even a single 2.66Ghz core with a 1333Mhz FSB and 800Mhz>DDR2 RAM should be good enough !Point taken but FU3 still remains to be one of my primary concerns. It's easy to underestimate the requirements for FU3, especially with elaborate addons and the more challenging kinds of weather. I believe you referred to a PC some time ago that you would expect to "eat FU3 for breakfast". Well, it didn't. The extra power required to get good framerates is particularly needed around airports. That's where all the addons tend to accumulate and that's where we want total control in lining up for a landing.I'm at a point where I won't consider new sims until my hardware is performing well, with no hiccups at the most challenging moments. That is, excellent performance with all sliders to the right, all of the enhancements I care to install and any kind of weather. FU3 "out-of-the-box" is a distant memory -- what we have today is far beyond the reqirements of yesteryear. The same goes for my FS9 installation. Hence, I really want to ensure an ample investment in the hardware department before I consider more recent sims :-)Hans Petter