Simviation Forums

Hello,

Before I spend $2500 and risk my wife leaving me, I'd appreciate any input on the following computer I'd like to purchase from Dell.  I'm wondering if I can run FSX w/ Acceleration, at max settings.  Any info or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

COMPUTER  Dell XPS 720 Black

PROCESSOR Intel

I'm sorry to tell you that that computer won't be able to max FSX. In fact, we still have a few months before we have hardware that's capable of maxing FSX.
But the fact that you won't be able to max it out, doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. With those specs FSX will look amazing and will definitely look much better than FS9 so buying a computer with those specs isn't that bad at all.

That's almost as good as it gets, for FSX, and a reasonably priced desktop computer... Only thing I'd change; is that buying a new computer today, that's not quad-core (like a Q6700), would be a mistake.


And... you'll get a lot more computer for the money, if you're up to the task of assembling it yourself...

And you pretty much need a 64 bit operating system to take advantage of 4GB of RAM..

Other than that, you'll really enjoy FSX on that machine..  :)

IF you get acceleration then i would get Vista so you can run DX10 which would be able to run it better and smoother 8-) also wont cost you that much more.

and risk my wife leaving me

Ouch thats a heavy bargain.. :-/

Stay away from Vista and nVidia video cards mixed together. There are MANY bugs with that combo and Acceleration...  see this..


http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1194752389

and the thread referenced from within that thread (and Google about it)..  

Only thing I'd change; is that buying a new computer today, that's not quad-core (like a Q6700), would be a mistake.

I heard that the duo core (E6850) would be faster than the quad core (Q6700).  If this is true, wouldn't the E6850 be better?  Correct me if my thinking is wrong...

Personally I`d dump the Windows

Only thing I'd change; is that buying a new computer today, that's not quad-core (like a Q6700), would be a mistake.

I heard that the duo core (E6850) would be faster than the quad core (Q6700).

Thanks for the clarification Brett.

Nice computer, but don't get a Dell. I've had one for two years, and although it's fairly fast, the case, price, motherboard and powersupply just plain SUCK. Homebuild it.

Thank you.  I appreciate all your advice.

Psovod, recently I had your same concerns about upgrading my old PC and/or buying or building a new system that could run FSX at maximum settings. I embarked on some research reading all the forums and reviewing latest PC hardware specs. From this information, I decided on a new system. The spec I settled on is summarized below and is similar to the Dell you referenced in your post.

Motherboard                      EVGA nForce 680i SLI that supports a dual graphics card configuration and both dual and quad CPUs.
CPU                  Dual Core E6850 (3GHz)
RAM                  4 Gigs.
Graphics Card            Nvidia 8800 GTX
Power Supply            700Watt
Monitor                            22 inch SAMSUNG LCD

I chose the dual core CPU over the quad since my research into the differences favored the dual core 6850 for FSX. I am running XP Home and DX9. The cost of this new system was slightly under 2K counting rebates. Everything was ordered over the Internet.

My settings for running SFX are set as follows.

Target Frame Rate                        Unlimited
Full Screen Resolution                                  1680X1050X32
Filtering                              Trilinear
Global Texture Resolution                  Max
Level of Detail Radius                                  Max
Mesh Complexity                        Max
Mesh Resolution                        Max
Texture Resolution                        Max
Water Effects                        High 1.x
Scenery Complexity                        Max
Autogen Density                        Max
Special Effects Detail                        Max
Cloud Coverage Density                  Max
Cloud Draw Distance                        70Mi
Thermal Visualization                        Natural
Airline and Gen Avn Traffic Density            54%
Airport Vehicle Density                  Low
Road Vehicles                        60%
Ships and Ferries                        60%
Leisure Boats                        60%.
Light Bloom and anti-aliasing                            Unchecked

My frame rate averages between 20 and 30 FPS in high density areas and airports and higher outside these areas. In Rio and a few other metropolitan areas I can get this performance with the Light Bloom on. There are some moments when the FPS drops in the teens but nor for long. A good example of that is when flying over Manhattan in NYC. It will average between 15 and 30 FPS. Also, I never change my settings and I do enjoy the full experience that FSX has to offer. And as a note, I do not employ any tweaks. I am happy with the results of my new system and I do fly at almost max all the time.

Now to discuss XP DX9, Vista DX10 and FSX Acceleration. I listed (quoted) the benefits of both XP DX9 and Vista DX10 in my last post. In summary, there were only a few SW applications included in FSX Acceleration for allowing FSX to take advantage of DX10. The main thrust was to add and fix things in DX9 applications. The full DX10 support will be implemented in FS11. As I understand it there will be no more efforts by Microsoft to add any additional DX10 support beyond this Acceleration package to FSX. Now would I buy FSX Acceleration? The answer is no. I already have the aircraft they include in the package and I am not one to get excited about new missions. I will add the DX9 update when it comes out as a free package. I do think it will improve performance a little.

Now when FS11 comes out in a couple of years, I will add a second Nvidia 8800 GTX, a Quad Core CPU, and install VISTA with DX??. Costs should be down, better updated drivers available, and FS11 tuned to this new hardware software configurations.

I still fly FS9 a lot. For example I have upgraded Manhattan as it looks when you fly over it with a real plane (Is full of Sky Scrapers) FSX is a little hoaky. Also upgraded the airports (LaGuardia, Newark, and Kennedy).  In my opinion it provides a far superior graphics presentation than what FSX offers. And by the way with my new package all sliders and settings are maxed out in FS9 and I fly at 30 FPS plus everywhere. Because there are so many free and payware packages for FS9, it is a challenge to find ways to make it superior to FSX.

Hope this information is helpfull

Flight Ace,

Thank you very much for all your insight, I appreciate the time you took to post that reply.

Regarding system specs, I did something tonight just to see what kind of load FSX put on my system to find possible ways to improve performance.  What I came away with was that either my CPU or my video card is bottleknecking me in a way and i'm leaning towards the video card.  I also came away with the feeling that 2gb of memory is plenty in Vista.  I'll explain....

First my system specs:

C2D E6600 2.4ghz
2gb Corsair XMS memory
Nvidia 8800 GTS 640mb
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit
160gb hard drive w/16mb cache

Now I don't know if any of this is very valid because i'm no computer expert.  I know enough to build my own systems so this test may not be an accurate indication of anything, but I found it interesting none the less.  What I did was run the Task Manager as I ran a quick 30 minute flight and watched the memory and CPU usage during the flight.  The CPU usage was high during the whole flight sometimes maxing out at 100% when I was executing a turn or landing, but typically hovering in the 80-90% range when flying straight away.  What did surprise me though was that the memory usage never got above 1.20gb which meant I still had 800mb of memory left.  And to be honest, my memory usage on Windows Startup (before I even launch FSX) is 500mb so in reality FSX was only using 700mb of RAM.

What I deduced from this (and again, it's not an expert opinion) is if you are building a system for FSX, you probalby need to go highend on the CPU, but the video card seems to be where it really matters.  Go SLI if you can.   What doesn't seem to matter much in regards to performance is the amount of RAM.  I never even came close to maxing out the memory on a 30 minute flight.  Of course, I don't know what would happen on an hour or more long flight so that may be where extra memory would help.

I realize this post may be worthless, but I just thought I'd throw my findings out there.  Maybe someone will find it interesting or useful.

FSX doesn`t utilise SLI.......

Reider