What Hardware To Buy (aerosoft's Suggestion)

[questy 1]

Mathijs

Why you got 6 gb of memory? your OS will only see 3.2. otherwise a nice setup for FS9, should get real good FPS. For FSX your CPU is the bottleneck.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs

Why you got 6 gb of memory? your OS will only see 3.2. otherwise a nice setup for FS9, should get real good FPS. For FSX your CPU is the bottleneck.

Hi Mathijs

just classfied i need to change to cpu to quad core?????? if this is the case what would be remmended nothing less than 3ghz????

cherrs colin

Yes a duo or quad core will certainly make a difference for FSX (not for FS2004!), what version you choose depends on your budget, the faster versions are far too expensive for my taste.

[signmanbob 18]

I have a question. Does scenery addons that are not in the area you are flying effect the speed of FSX? I'm wondering if it would be better to go into the scenery library and turn off everything that is not in the area you are flying in.

Bob

[NeilC 0]

I am looking at a new PC for FS2004.

a company here in the UK www.wired2fire.co.uk do a special flightsim PC.

A couple of questions.

1. They recommend the E8600 dual core processor. Is this good for FS9

2. Should I get the GeForce 280 OC or the 9800 GX2 (anyone had any experience).

3. Is it worth getting 4 gigs of memory when XP (which I will definitely be getting) only supports 2. I have heard of the 3 gig switch. Has anyone run this successfully?

4. My biggest reason for upgrading is the blurries. I have an AMD FX55 processor with 2gigs of ram and a new gforce 8800 OC card. The system was top of the range a couple of years ago, but seems to struggle (hence I tried to upgrade my video card from an ATIX850) Will the new system get rid of the horrible blurries I get running UT and my beloved Maddog2006. Also will it up my frame rates which are currently between 14-21.

Thanks for any input.

Neil

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

1. They recommend the E8600 dual core processor. Is this good for FS9

2. Should I get the GeForce 280 OC or the 9800 GX2 (anyone had any experience).

3. Is it worth getting 4 gigs of memory when XP (which I will definitely be getting) only supports 2. I have heard of the 3 gig switch. Has anyone run this successfully?

4. My biggest reason for upgrading is the blurries. I have an AMD FX55 processor with 2gigs of ram and a new gforce 8800 OC card. The system was top of the range a couple of years ago, but seems to struggle (hence I tried to upgrade my video card from an ATIX850) Will the new system get rid of the horrible blurries I get running UT and my beloved Maddog2006. Also will it up my frame rates which are currently between 14-21.

Thanks for any input.

Neil

1. You will only use half the CPU and could do with a cheaper CPU. You need the fastest possible single core. The 8600 isn't bad but if it is ONLY for FS9 you might consider an other CPU.

2. Total overkill for FS9, nice cards for sure, but you could spend half that and get the same speed

3. XP will handle something like 3.2 Gb and that's real nice to have. Personally I have never seen FS2004 use more then 1.5 Gb though. But at current prices I would take it and forget about the bit of memory that will not be used.

4. Blurries are really not hardware related as far as we know, in other words, we don't know of any hardware combination that causes it and your current hardware really should be fast enough to prevent the most common cause (textures not being updated fast enough).

[NeilC 0]

I have raided my kids inheritence and bought the computer below.

I do use it for other applications, so it isn't a total waste.

It is sad to hear that it might not get rid of the blurries though. They are my most hated bit in FS9.

Being able to run my Maddog at higher than 15fps (hopefully) should be worth it alone.

I did read a thread about how to dual core with FS9. Is this just a myth????

Case: Cooler Master Cosmos 1000

Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower 850W Modular

Processor: Core 2 Duo E8600 6MB cache

CPU Cooler: Thermaltake Golden Orb Cooler

Optimisation and Tuning: Wired2Fire Cable Management<br>Wired2Fire Overclocking<br>Wired2Fire Tuning

Graphics Card 1: BFG GeForce GTX 280 OC 1GB PCI Express 2.0

Graphics Card 2: None

Memory: 4GB Corsair DDR3 1600MHz C7 Twin3X (Limited Stock)

Motherboard: XFX 790i Ultra Chipset Socket 775

Hard Disk Drive One: 300GB VelociRaptor SATA II 16MB Cache

Thanks for starting this thread, it really is helpful (even if it seems like I ignore your advice )

I will let you know when I have it all up and running.

Thanks

Neil

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I have raided my kids inheritence and bought the computer below.

I do use it for other applications, so it isn't a total waste.

It is sad to hear that it might not get rid of the blurries though. They are my most hated bit in FS9.

Being able to run my Maddog at higher than 15fps (hopefully) should be worth it alone.

I did read a thread about how to dual core with FS9. Is this just a myth????

Case: Cooler Master Cosmos 1000

Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower 850W Modular

Processor: Core 2 Duo E8600 6MB cache

CPU Cooler: Thermaltake Golden Orb Cooler

Optimisation and Tuning: Wired2Fire Cable Management<br>Wired2Fire Overclocking<br>Wired2Fire Tuning

Graphics Card 1: BFG GeForce GTX 280 OC 1GB PCI Express 2.0

Graphics Card 2: None

Memory: 4GB Corsair DDR3 1600MHz C7 Twin3X (Limited Stock)

Motherboard: XFX 790i Ultra Chipset Socket 775

Hard Disk Drive One: 300GB VelociRaptor SATA II 16MB Cache

Thanks for starting this thread, it really is helpful (even if it seems like I ignore your advice )

I will let you know when I have it all up and running.

Thanks

Neil

Well you got yourself a very nice machine that should be able to handle a lot and easy to upgrade for the next few years. But no matter all the nonsense you find on other sites, FS2004 can just access one core. You could force other applications to the other core but most of the time that's a waste of the effort as the OS does it automatically.

You got plans to expand your system? You got a monster PSU there. 850 Watts, that's humongous! I could see your system peak at 250 on start-up but normally it would need around 150 to 175 watt under load. Not sure about the efficiency of that PSU but it if it is not very efficient it will costs a bit in electricity over a year. I normally feel a big boy with a 350 Watt PSU and I got 6 hard disks in the system.

[Robert S 75]

Mathijs,

I see you keep referencing these large power supplies...fact is, the newest series of GPUs require quite a lot of power. Take for instance the minimum recommended PSU for a GTX280 directly from Nvidia's website: 550 watts (this is the MINIMUM recommended!). The peak usage for JUST the GTX 280 card itself is rated at 236 Watts.

Add in overclocking abilities for both the GPU and CPU, and all other peripherals, possibly SLi mode (2 graphics adapters) which will increase the power consumption and you have some steep PSU requirements these days.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs,

I see you keep referencing these large power supplies...fact is, the newest series of GPUs require quite a lot of power. Take for instance the minimum recommended PSU for a GTX280 directly from Nvidia's website: 550 watts (this is the MINIMUM recommended!). The peak usage for JUST the GTX 280 card itself is rated at 236 Watts.

Add in overclocking abilities for both the GPU and CPU, and all other peripherals, possibly SLi mode (2 graphics adapters) which will increase the power consumption and you have some steep PSU requirements these days.

Indeed, I see that the 280 eats 240 watts, did not realize that. I stand corrected.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Closing this now and starting the September hardware topic.