Jump to content

Hardware needed for FSx


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I am thinking of buying a new PC, mostly to run a smooth and detailed FSX.

this is the setup i have in mind:

Core™ 2 Duo E6600

2 GB RAM

250 GB & 200 GB

GeForce 7950 GT

total price (with power supply, case...) i end up around 1200 Euros

Maybe i ll buy the Track IR from natural point and this will consume also some cpu time, i guess.

Second question is the monitor. I am intrested (not only for FSX) in a 20" or larger monitor.

What monitor is good for FSX. At what resulotion is FSX still running smooth? Is a 'wide' screen good for FSX or will it just mess up things?

I am willing to spend 300 to 450 Euros on a good monitor.

LG has some good and 'cheap' monitors... (around 300 for a 20")

please share you knowledge and most important your expirience! :)

Thanks in advance!

Tafelpoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Aerosoft
Hi,

I am thinking of buying a new PC, mostly to run a smooth and detailed FSX.

this is the setup i have in mind:

Core™ 2 Duo E6600

2 GB RAM

250 GB & 200 GB

GeForce 7950 GT

total price (with power supply, case...) i end up around 1200 Euros

Maybe i ll buy the Track IR from natural point and this will consume also some cpu time, i guess.

Second question is the monitor. I am interested (not only for FSX) in a 20" or larger monitor.

What monitor is good for FSX. At what resolution is FSX still running smooth? Is a 'wide' screen good for FSX or will it just mess up things?

I am willing to spend 300 to 450 Euros on a good monitor.

LG has some good and 'cheap' monitors... (around 300 for a 20")

please share you knowledge and most important your experience! :)

Thanks in advance!

Tafelpoot

Lately I seen some very good 20 wide screen LCD's from Dell, do check that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mathijs,

as much as I agree with most of myour posts, I strongly disagree with your statements about harddisks.

You mentioned degradation of HD-Raid performance: Most of this phenomena is based on the simple fact that harddisk tend get cluttered over the time. Due to the nature of raid 0 this is even more felt with this configuration (writing and reading data split onto two drives).

The worst thing one could do is run benchmark tests that do a lot of copying within the raid (copy from folder a to folder B). It is a known fact that Raid0 systems have the tendency to slow down to snails pace (same cause as for clutterning /defragmentation delays).

A well maintained HD will NOT loose performance and by well maintained I mean REGULAR DEFRAGMENTATION. There are programs (like O&O) that do a much better job defragmentin raid arrays than the MS software.

The Raptor surely is a fast drive but it has several disadvantages:

1. It's expensive

2. It's noisy (on spin-up they sound like fighter jets)

3. They produce quite some heat.

A viable alternative IMHO are SATA2 drives especially those with NCQ.

I run a RAID 0 with two Seagate Baracuda SATA2 NCQ drives and data access as well as transfer rates are minimally slower than those of a Raptor - just that I have 500GB cpacity in place of 150GB and they cost me less.

Ideally you would have TWO raid 0 arrays (one for the OS and the other for textures) but that's almost overkill.

Regards Carsten

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear flightsimmers i'm thinking to upgrade my pc, this is my conf:

Asus p5ad2e premium

Pentium IV 3.46 ghz extreme edition

2 gb corsair 711 mhz

Nvidia geforce 6800 ultra 256 mb

Maxtor 300 gb sata

I want to buy a new geforce 8800 gtx but i don't know if i have to change cpu to run fsx smoothly. What do you suggest me?

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Dear Mathijs,

as much as I agree with most of myour posts, I strongly disagree with your statements about harddisks.

You mentioned degradation of HD-Raid performance: Most of this phenomena is based on the simple fact that harddisk tend get cluttered over the time. Due to the nature of raid 0 this is even more felt with this configuration (writing and reading data split onto two drives).

The worst thing one could do is run benchmark tests that do a lot of copying within the raid (copy from folder a to folder B). It is a known fact that Raid0 systems have the tendency to slow down to snails pace (same cause as for clutterning /defragmentation delays).

A well maintained HD will NOT loose performance and by well maintained I mean REGULAR DEFRAGMENTATION. There are programs (like O&O) that do a much better job defragmentin raid arrays than the MS software.

The Raptor surely is a fast drive but it has several disadvantages:

1. It's expensive

2. It's noisy (on spin-up they sound like fighter jets)

3. They produce quite some heat.

A viable alternative IMHO are SATA2 drives especially those with NCQ.

I run a RAID 0 with two Seagate Baracuda SATA2 NCQ drives and data access as well as transfer rates are minimally slower than those of a Raptor - just that I have 500GB cpacity in place of 150GB and they cost me less.

Ideally you would have TWO raid 0 arrays (one for the OS and the other for textures) but that's almost overkill.

Regards Carsten

I believe C'T, the big German magazine, had test on hard disks new and after year of use. The results were so impressive I now exchange my disks every year. The old disks are moved to the file servers in my house or to less important machines.

Modern disks are so 'fragile' they test themselves all of the time and the actual speed they work at depends on a lot of factors. After a year of hard use (my house) they often have to read the same sector again to get it right. They are noticeably slower. Defragmentation is not a major issue as my disk are defragged with O&O every night and normally stay under 1% defragmentation.

I do not use Raid0 even though it can bring me some additional speed for the first 3 months of the year I use the disks (after that the additional use of the disk would just make it useless. Raid0 disks work a LOT harder then single disks.) The small advantage is just not worth the additional risk of running several disks in Raid0. Of course my server runs Raid5 (at a cool 2 tb of space).

You see, I look at hardware performance in actual use, not like it is tested in magazines. I do not exchange my disks every three hours. It got to last a solid year, 24 hours a day with a solid 50% hard work out during those hours. I often manage a AVERAGE of 30% CPU use over a full week. That is not normal use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Dear flightsimmers i'm thinking to upgrade my pc, this is my conf:

Asus p5ad2e premium

Pentium IV 3.46 ghz extreme edition

2 gb corsair 711 mhz

Nvidia geforce 6800 ultra 256 mb

Maxtor 300 gb sata

I want to buy a new geforce 8800 gtx but i don't know if i have to change cpu to run fsx smoothly. What do you suggest me?

thanks

I would advise a new mobo and a Duo2Core cpu. That would get you a lot more fps then a new GPU. FSX is like all FS versions before basically CPU bound. CPU determined fps, GPU determines how nice it looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:!:

I really suggest holding off on any big graphics card purchase until after Vista and DX10 are available to all of us. Maybe even wait a little after that to see what happens to the first users. It seems like MS delayed Vista to give hardware companies(mainly graphics cards) time to shovel the rest of their inventory on us. I'm thinking that your 7950's and x1950's

are going to be crap when more DX10 cards are out, and a lot of money will have been spent on DX9 cards this holiday season, only to turn around and have to upgrade again. What better way to clear inventory of DX9 cards than to buy 2 7950's for your SLI board? I'm quite certain that it would be a disaster for graphics card companies to release any more DX10 cards than what is out there now(8800), because of all the money lost on these high-end DX9 cards stagnating on the shelf. I think the 8800 is the guinea-pig card, and so far it is getting great reviews, but what about in DX10? And FSX with DX10? This is a huge corporate game that's being played right now with the DX9 cards now. They are betting on your impatience to get a better GFX card, and then your disappointment with it when the DX10 stuff comes out and your impatience to yet again get a better card. It was no mistake that MS changed the release dates of FSX and Vista. They KNOW FSX is a system hog. They KNOW you're gonna upgrade your system to make their product work better. They also found that the GFX card companies were not ready for DX10 and vista, not because they can't make DX10 cards...but because there are too many DX9 cards left to sell(I know, I'm starting to repeat...damn you Maxwell House!). So before you go buy those 2 7950GTX's...consider that you are paying a high price for something that is about to hit the clearance bin soon. There's going to be more value-oriented and mid-range DX10 cards coming out that will give you that delicious eye candy, all likely for less than what you paid for that SLI setup. In short...Save your cash for now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:!:

I really suggest holding off on any big graphics card purchase until after Vista and DX10 are available to all of us. Maybe even wait a little after that to see what happens to the first users. It seems like MS delayed Vista to give hardware companies(mainly graphics cards) time to shovel the rest of their inventory on us. I'm thinking that your 7950's and x1950's

are going to be crap when more DX10 cards are out, and a lot of money will have been spent on DX9 cards this holiday season, only to turn around and have to upgrade again. What better way to clear inventory of DX9 cards than to buy 2 7950's for your SLI board? I'm quite certain that it would be a disaster for graphics card companies to release any more DX10 cards than what is out there now(8800), because of all the money lost on these high-end DX9 cards stagnating on the shelf. I think the 8800 is the guinea-pig card, and so far it is getting great reviews, but what about in DX10? And FSX with DX10? This is a huge corporate game that's being played right now with the DX9 cards now. They are betting on your impatience to get a better GFX card, and then your disappointment with it when the DX10 stuff comes out and your impatience to yet again get a better card. It was no mistake that MS changed the release dates of FSX and Vista. They KNOW FSX is a system hog. They KNOW you're gonna upgrade your system to make their product work better. They also found that the GFX card companies were not ready for DX10 and vista, not because they can't make DX10 cards...but because there are too many DX9 cards left to sell(I know, I'm starting to repeat...damn you Maxwell House!). So before you go buy those 2 7950GTX's...consider that you are paying a high price for something that is about to hit the clearance bin soon. There's going to be more value-oriented and mid-range DX10 cards coming out that will give you that delicious eye candy, all likely for less than what you paid for that SLI setup. In short...Save your cash for now!

Great advice. Now is definitely not the time to be dumping cash into your PC. Prices will definitely be falling soon. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Yes, and that's why I'll just stick to FS9 'cos my PC setup wouldn't even run the .exe file of FSX. :lol:

I'll review my situation in a year or so time but in the mean time I'm quite happy to fly FS9.

Imagine having to upgrade all the purchased addons I have in FS9 and the way I figure, until Vista, DX10, FSX play nicely together, it's just not worth having it.

There are too many uncertainties to justify buying a new rig now before anything else is physically on the market such as DX10 for example.

Well this is my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

A Bump to remind ourselves...

Now we have SP1 and even an AMD X3200 / Radeon 800 / 2GB RAM will run workably well at mid-low. FSX capable systems are already off the shelf at well under 1000USD and DX10 read graphics cards are here, now, not too expensive. A reasonably 18 month old PCIe machine only needs a minimal investment now to go DX10

As Mathijs said... a load of Bull was said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
A Bump to remind ourselves...

Now we have SP1 and even an AMD X3200 / Radeon 800 / 2GB RAM will run workably well at mid-low. FSX capable systems are already off the shelf at well under 1000USD and DX10 read graphics cards are here, now, not too expensive. A reasonably 18 month old PCIe machine only needs a minimal investment now to go DX10

As Mathijs said... a load of Bull was said.

I did not say bull, lol.

But there IS a lot of b*s*t going round these days written by people who do not have the the required hardware for FSX and were using addons that were not okay for FSX.

I am currently writing a blog about that. Using Helgoland (the only addon I know that is both high quality in FSX and FS2004) I compare framerates and what you get per frame per second. Not willing to share the conclusion, it's easy to proof that I get 24 fps on both and that the FSX version looks (and sounds) a heck of a lot better. A first conclusion, only taking Helgoland as a add-on, I would never run Helgoland on FS2004 if I got a choice. If you run it in FS2004 directly after FSX it looks totally outdated in FS2004. Let me add two screenshots, both taken at 24 fps (in fact a lot more stable 24 fps in FSX). Keep in mind that in the FSX screenshot the birds do fly around, you hear them, the sea reflects the scenery and that the water effects are pretty good. There is just no comparison if you see the two side by side. Not a living soul would prefer the FS2004 version.

1a.jpg

1b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I'm interested, How will FS-X run on this (this is what I have on the moment):

Motherboard: Asus P5VD2-VM

Processor:

Intel® Core2 CPU 4300 @ 1.80GHz (2 CPUs)

Memory:

1022MB RAM

Hard Drive:

250 GB Total

Video Card:

NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS

Gino

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say bull, lol.

No? :wink:

Lately I read so much bull about hardware needed for FSx, we decided to post a small guide here that is based on a budget that is not astronomical and that is PROVEN for FSx beta 3. We tried to keep the language simple and will explain where needed. Your comments are welcome, but please don't tell us MS is crazy to demand this hardware. That's becoming old very fast. If you can not afford this hardware, I am sorry, MS is probably sorry. But wait 6 months and you get it for half the price and there is still a lot of life in Fs2004!

...and I wholeheartedly agree both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

No? :wink:

...and I wholeheartedly agree both ways.

Life was so much easier when copy and paste did not exist. I stand corrected. But then again, seeing my OWN hardware and SP1 my estimate of getting the FPS for half the money has come true. Feel free to replace Moore's law by Kock's law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

i was reading your suggestion about the PC configuration to use, and i have these two machines to run FSX:

AMD Athlon X2 5600+ 2GB RAM

ATI 1600 XT PRO PCI-ex 256 MB

SOUNDBLASTER X-FI EXTREME

3 HD Western dgt 10k rpm 75 GB

MATROX RTX-100 EXTREME real time video editing

SAITEK X-52 PRO FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM

_______________________________________

INTEL 3,4 GHz dual core 2GB RAM

NVIDIA GT 6600 PCIex 512 MB

SOUNDBLASTER X-FI

2 HD SATA2 160 GB

PINNACLE DV 500 video editing

With the first machine (AMD) i can obtain a frame rate near 100 fps, when the sky is almost clear, with almost all the FSX sliders set to maximum. The other machine instead is slower and i can't use the filters into FSX (anisotrope and antialiasing).

According to my experience, Intel dual core are sensibly slowers than AMD processors, and i see this not only with FSX but using them editing videos, that is a good benchmark, when you use complex effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Intel dual core are sensibly slowers than AMD processors....

Yeah, I don't think so my friend. there must be something wrong with your Intel system. Is it a Core2duo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Yeah, I don't think so my friend. there must be something wrong with your Intel system. Is it a Core2duo?

Indeed, the Intel machine should be a LOT faster (as long as you got FSX SP1 installed). Something is not right on that machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the Intel machine should be a LOT faster (as long as you got FSX SP1 installed). Something is not right on that machine.

Yes Math, it's an Intel dual core, with FSX SP1 installed, that uses the two cores togheter. Before i had an AMD 4200+ X2 on the machine i have now the 5600+, but it was always faster than the Intel :D Anyway everyone has his own experience. The AMD i have now works at the operative frequency of 2,8 GHz and it's a real bomb, believe me, nothing to compare with the Intel. Other technicians i know say the same thing.

I am comparing processors with two cores, obviously. I don't know how the Intel Quad works. I have never worked with it and i don't say things that i don't know. My two machines are correctly setted to obtain the best performances in professional applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When comparing X2 CPUs with Core2Duos the Intel CPUs are faster (but Intel still costs more). The Quadcore CPUs of Intel are technically two Dualcore CPUs "stuck" together. AMD announced with the Phenom family the so called native Quadcores and even TriCores (3 Core CPU) are announced. I think the upcoming AMD CPUs could be somewaht faster (~10-15%) then the current Intel CPUs but in any case even the current CPUs as X2 5000+ til 6000+ and the Core2Duo family like 6850 are fast enough for us.. for now :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When comparing X2 CPUs with Core2Duos the Intel CPUs are faster (but Intel still costs more). The Quadcore CPUs of Intel are technically two Dualcore CPUs "stuck" together. AMD announced with the Phenom family the so called native Quadcores and even TriCores (3 Core CPU) are announced. I think the upcoming AMD CPUs could be somewaht faster (~10-15%) then the current Intel CPUs but in any case even the current CPUs as X2 5000+ til 6000+ and the Core2Duo family like 6850 are fast enough for us.. for now :P

Ah ok :lol: my Intel Dual core it's a D series, if i remember well, it has one year. The AMD 4200+ X2 that i had before on the other machine is of that period too. It's between these two that AMD gained. Anyway i am happy to pass to AMD on my main machine. With the Intel i have had more problems with the programs i use often. It crashed more frequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read a news that AMD announced the 3-Core-CPUs based on the Phenom for march 2008. I hoped that they would release them earlier but I think these CPUs could have a very good relation between price and performance. But as always we have to wait til we can buy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
I just read a news that AMD announced the 3-Core-CPUs based on the Phenom for march 2008. I hoped that they would release them earlier but I think these CPUs could have a very good relation between price and performance. But as always we have to wait til we can buy them.

I sure hope AMD would get competitive again as it would lower prices and would probably speed up Intel. On the other hand, Intel has been very aggressive on prices because the knew they can take market share right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes it's difficult to follow the market, it costs money and also you are forced often to change something in the configuration.... Anyway, i changed only the processor, in these previous images i had the AMD 4200+ X2 mounted on an ASUS SLI-32 with socket AM2. Obviously, now that i have the 5600+, my PC gained a lot in speed even if it warms a little more :lol: As you can see i obtained a frame rate of 84,9 fps with a sky quite clean and taking the shot from the cockpit. Using and outside view instead i can reach stabily 35 fps or more, depending on the terrain i am flying

Innsbruck_23copia.jpg

and these were the settings

computer.jpg

computer2.jpg

computer3.jpg

impATI03.jpg

impATI02.jpg

impATI01.jpg

And i am satisfied how FSX works. It's an incredible program, with no doubts. Sorry for the windows in italian language but i can't change them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking about upgrading my system and (as I am no hardware expert at all) find this all very confusing. Currently I have the following setup:

AMD X2 Dual Core 3800+ 2.01GHZ

2GB DDR2 RAM

NVIDIA GForce 7800 GT

Windows XP

My system gets me frame rates of 20 – 25 at medium settings (or low settings when using a fast plane).

If I am getting this thread and the ACES blog right (hit me, I am not an expert):

- With DX 10 more cores will bring only slight improvement in frame rate, but improve the textures of the landscape surrounding you (something about each tile rendered by a different core).

- Faster cores will bring more improvement in frame rate than more cores.

- DX 10 may bring about a 20% improvement in frame rates at medium settings compared to DX 9 but mainly is improving graphics at high settings.

So if this is right, I could maybe consider getting a new core/mobo now. Next may be some more RAM. Then wait, what other people’s experiences are and finally perhaps upgrade to a new graphics card and Vista/DX10.

Is this about right? Would you rather get a 3 GHZ dual core or a 2 GHZ Quad core (prices are about the same)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use