Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Waleed Nuseibeh

Pc Advice

Recommended Posts

Hi to all, :rolleyes:

I am looking at building a system that will run me around $1,900.00, and want some advice as to wether my specs are good, or not worth the money.

I will use fs9 with sp2,runing on vista,with numerous free and bought add-ons.

The specs are as follows:

2.4ghz quad core Q6600.

2-4gb corsair ddr2 ram @800mhz.

150gb hdd raptor

xfx 8800 gtx @ 640mb.

800 watt power supply.

This is as good an explanation of the specs as I could do, as I am no technical person.

I was wondering if a quad q6700/8mb cache @ 2.66ghz would make much of a difference, and also if I should opt for the corsair xms2 ddr2 sdram 1066mhz.

Thanks for any insight on this. :rolleyes:

I am having someone build it to order, and cannot stray from the pricing too much.

P.S> anyone hear any new news regarding mega cdg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five initial comments..

- Why would you use a 800 watts PSU? Want to run your washing machine from the same system? Any good 400 watts PSU will handle this and even allow you to add 3 more disks.

- A quad core for FS9? Will sure allow you to run a LOAD of apps while flying, but you will never use more than 1/4 of your CPU. Save a lot of money and get a fast single core CPU. FS9 is just not clever enough to use the 3 cores you also paid for. FSX is. FSX will be plenty fast on this rig and will look great

- Very nice GPU, but as FS2004 is CPU limited (or in your case limited to 1/4 of your CPU), it will be bored to bits as you fly. Not even 10% of the GPU will be used. 256 Mb is all FS2004 will use. In other words... a GPU that costs 1/3 will get you the same.

- You don't specify your OS, but if it is not 64 bit Vista, save the few dollars and get 2 Gb. You will REALLY need to load a lot of stuff even to fill that

- $1900? Where do you live? The Moon? Should costs a whole lot less.

All in all, VERY nice rig for many games, FSX included. I would like to have it on my desk. Just not for FS2004. I could get you a system hat gets 90% of the speed for under $900. Somebody has been advising you really bad. You really willing to pay $1000 for 2 fps extra?

And in detail, memory speed does not really affect FPS in FS a lot, FS2004 is almost totally CPU speed depending. in FSX then CPU determines how fast the sim is and the GPU determines how the frames look, certainly in DX10 mode. So if you really want FS2004, get a machine that is a lot less expensive and spend the money that's left on something nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything what Mathijs said + I would buy 8800gt or something like that and use money to other cpu, cause Q6600 is not very good compared to it's price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, thank you for the advice. :rolleyes:

The reason I am using fs9 is very simple: blame AES as I am totally hooked.

I keep hearing worrysome things regarding fsx, which I also have.

As per the operating system, I am looking at Vista. I do not know if it is 64-bit though.

The power supply is too large, and I will definitely check my brains on that one. :rolleyes:

I recently moved to Dubai,U.A.E. They do not seem to have much choice (people seem to prefer laptops). Everything here is overpriced. :(

However, I forgot to mention the 22inch hp scrren is included in the price.

I will eventually move to fsx, but am, as mentioned earlier a bit hesitant.

Most of my add-ons I purchased from you, and are compatible with both fs9, and fsx. I will loose DXB, SFO, and San Diego from flytampa though. :(

I want a system with these, or similar specs to last me a few years (3-4 if possible) as having a daughter prevents me from shopping for myself much any more. :rolleyes:

P.S. Looking forward to the A380v2, and the E-Jets :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOps... :blink:

I meant LFPG, Madrid, Frankfort, and perhaps Lisbon.

I have for now only EGLL, and am waiting to get the system before I get more airports. :rolleyes:

I am also looking at that tasty F16, and know it is only fsx compatible. ;) , and the 737ng down the road.

I hope AES makes it to fsx somehow, as simming is no longer interesting without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and the 737ng down the road.
Which 737NG? If you mean PMDG's planned new 737NG, I'd say: years to wait...

Best regards,

Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafal, that was exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:

Oh well, it would have taken way too much time to master anyway.

That is why I stayed away from the Level-D, and the newer 757.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a similar system, except I have 4mb RAM overclocked to 1066 (my Vista 32bit OS only recognises 3mb though) and a 500GB hard drive (10,000rpm at 32mb cache).

I haven't really played around or optimised my settings yet, just whacked everything up to max (apart from AI traffic, which I have at about 30%) and locked my frames at 20fps and it stays glued to 20 even in downtown Seattle/LAX etc... Yes, I know I can get more than 20fps, but I've been too busy flying around to worry about that - and 20 is good enough for me. When my system starts to struggle with an addon I'll look into tweaking/settings etc...

So, yes, the system will run FSX nicely, but is a bit of an overkill - as Mathijs suggests, something far cheaper would do the job just as well (I only went for this spec because I know diddly-squat about computers and played it safe).

Hope this helps.

Colin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Mathijs, the power supply is a core ingredient not only of todays products, but also tomorrow...

While he is correct that a much smaller power supply WILL run your new system - just - the fact is that a larger power supply, running at lower than peak power is both more reliable and far, far cooler in operation than a lower supply run flat-out.

Heat is obviously an issue you need to especially consider more than most, and I would recommend you do go for the 800w supply as this will improve reliability of the whole system - particularly the graphics side as this requires a clean, solid, non-fluctuating delivery in order to avoid glitches and onscreen manifestations. Allowing the interior of the case to be cooler will improve reliability and performance of the whole system.

In the event you elected to add a second grpahics card in SLi configuration later on, you would also already possess a suitable power suply, as these Big Boys nearly all carry extra cabling specifically for that purpose... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with Mathijs, the power supply is a core ingredient not only of todays products, but also tomorrow...

While he is correct that a much smaller power supply WILL run your new system - just - the fact is that a larger power supply, running at lower than peak power is both more reliable and far, far cooler in operation than a lower supply run flat-out.

Heat is obviously an issue you need to especially consider more than most, and I would recommend you do go for the 800w supply as this will improve reliability of the whole system - particularly the graphics side as this requires a clean, solid, non-fluctuating delivery in order to avoid glitches and onscreen manifestations. Allowing the interior of the case to be cooler will improve reliability and performance of the whole system.

In the event you elected to add a second grpahics card in SLi configuration later on, you would also already possess a suitable power suply, as these Big Boys nearly all carry extra cabling specifically for that purpose... ;)

Okay, I read you there. But...

I have one time bought a high end PSU only to find out that when I got a new motherboard it needed a new kind of plug and that it did not have SATA connectors. So it might have lasted a long time but I could not longer use it. It's been the same with me for most computer stuff so I started to buy cheap stuff that I don't care if it breaks down. I am also attacking your idea 'clean' power makes things more stable. If it works, it works. Adding another 50 euro's to a PSU that works does not make it work any better. It's a bit like the people who feel cooling is the most important thing and spend a bucket of money to keep the CPU cool so it will last longer. But I have never seen a CPU fail here in the office (where we got a lot of machines) fail before we exchange them anyway.

Common sense..... spend as much as you need to spend, if it fails dump it and buy a new cheap replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here is what I got:

2.4 quad core.

4gb ocz ram @800mhz,

9800gtx (bfg)

320gb hd

22" hpat 5ms.(widescreen)

350w power.

Windows vista 32bit.

p.s. price was around $1650.00.

My question here is, is the 350w supply good, or do I need to get something in the area of 500w? :unsure:

I installed the gtx card last night, but when I put in a test movie, it seemed to jump shots. I mean it would run fine, then somewhat fast forward through a few frames. :(

I noticed it had two power connections side by side, but I only used one, is that right?

I also checked the "index" number in the performance page, and it gave me a score of 3.7, that is compared to 4.5 from the 8500gt card it replaced. :o

I installed the latest drivers, and am lost as to what is going on.

Any advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed it had two power connections side by side, but I only used one, is that right?

Here is a link to the install manual: http://www.bfgtech.com/CMDocs/BFGTech/Full...tall_Manual.pdf

You should have been supplied with a dual 4pin Molex to single PCI Express connector - use that.

And Hodge is correct; a 350 watt power supply is not sufficient for that graphics card, nor for the entire PC. I found this from the actual BFG 9800 GTX detailed specs page: "450W PCI Express®-compliant system power supply with a combined 12V current rating of 24A or more (Minimum system power requirement based on a PC configured with an Intel Core®2 Duo E4500 processor)"

So, minimum 450 watt - a 350 will not suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...