by Ashton Lawson » Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:29 pm
Okay,
With RAM, it depends on your operating system. If it's XP, then 2Gb should be enough. If it's Vista, then go with 3, just in case, because Vista is a real memory hog. DO NOT get the 320mb 8800 GTS, get the 640Mb one. If you can, get an Intel Q6600, because FSX can use multiple cores now, for loading and stuff.
Anyway, from what you're looking at now (not price range, because I'm too lazy to check myself):
Intel Q6600 or E6600 - Whatever - The quad-core will be used more in the future
2Gb Kingston RAM for XP or 3Gb for Vista - Vista is a memory hog
GeForce 8800 GTS 640 - Do not get the 320Mb version
I've only modified what you've said, so I'm not recommending any PSU, or motherboard. That's for the other guys to do.
Anyway, FSX SP1 takes advantage of multiple cores when it comes to loading, so it'll load faster, the more cores you have (hence the Q6600 suggestion). FSX likes a lot of RAM, since it is very CPU intensive, so in XP you can use 2Gb of RAM, because XP isn't really a memory hog. In Vista, you can use 3Gb (and not waste any) because Vista uses a lot of memory itself. As for the 8800 GTS, I know that it is a great card, and is one of the best for rendering FSX. Now, there has been some dispute over the 320Mb and the 640Mb versions. From other sites (FS related) those who bought the 320Mb versions often had poorer performance in FSX than the 640Mb ones, because of FSX's massive, huge terrain textures. So, just to be safe, get the 640Mb one.
So that's basically it. I don't think I'm 100% accurate in some of my statements, but I'm pretty sure my changes to the already (roughly) selected system are pretty good.
Last edited by
Ashton Lawson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FS Water Configurator+ has new modifications in the works, plus DirectX 10, Service Pack
1, and Radeon HD 3+ Series support.