Simviation Forums

i want your opinion about this pc for fsx
Abit AN8
120gb sata hdd
1gb ram
7600 gt

you forgot the processer, and it will run it on low to medium settings (The graphics card can at least) Now as for the rest, without a CPU I couldnt tell you, the FSX demo runs fine at roughly medium settings on this computer,

AMD Athlon 3800 64 bit
1 Gig DDR 400 PC3200 Ram
Foxconn 6100K8MA-RS Mobo
250 Gig Sata Hard drive (split in two partitions for vista probably)
Nvidia 7300LE (with decent overclocking ability, I checked myself)

So I'd think you'd be fine... Its not like FSX is going to be jumping from the stone age to the space age in 3-4 years.... so MOST systems that are within the last year or two can run FSX decently but not maxed out... Cheers, Gunny

Sorry you're right
AMD athlon 64 3500+

hmmm it should do it with that setup. Cheers, Gunny

Read around. Your going to find that a single core processer is not at all something you want to buy right now. Between Vista, DX10, and other things, single core systems are getting eaten to bits.

Buy a Conroe, buy a X1950 or 7950GT, get 2GB of RAM, and get a decent Intel or NF5 motherboard. Then your going to have a system that you can Max FSX, and Vista, and not worry about having to upgrade for a good 3~4 years.

Cheers
Cameron

....and not worry about having to upgrade for a good 3~4 years.

Apart from the DX10 aspect..  ;)
Rob.

...............and not worry about having to upgrade for a good 3~4 years.

Cheers
Cameron

Wait !...has this ever happened ?............no upgrades for 3-4 yrs.......I'm not sure technology advances have slowed down that much...........thats really optimistic  ::)

Well when I say that, your core hardware will be good for 3 ~ 4 years.

Cheers
Cameron

Why do you all think the best, the best, and the best ONLY? Hello, not all of us have a million dollars in a coffee can out back.... I dont think duals have caught on quite yet (though this is based on 2-3 months ago, I have been, out of ther nerd world for a while) and the graphics card, not a 7950... waste of money, 7800 will do fine, 2 gigs ram? Maybe but 1 gig would do, but it seems 2 gigs are taking over finally....But Watching you all throw down fancy hardware, only annoying really! Cheers, Gunny

Cameron never gets himself pwn3d

IMO  some people on this forum do think that every has thousdands to blow on top of the range components e.g. conroe cores. 7950 etc.. if you could give us a rough estimate o your budget then suggestions on improvement would be easier

also i think people are over speccing FSX i recon as long as u have a decent CPU (say 2.4ghz + single core) a 7600 atleast, and 1 gig mem you should have no problem running FSX med settings.

It's actually cheaper to get the right hardware the first time, and you spend time flying rather than trying to tweak the sim into something that resembles motion and reality.

If you shop around you should find the hardware at a reasonable price.

In the long run it's cheaper and a lot less headaches to do it right.

The reason it'seems expensive is because all the shops out there are trying to take you for everything they can, buyer beware, and get a bargain.

The average price is also high because so many people just blow big bucks without so much as a flinch, unfortunately for those with lesser budgets.

Why do you all think the best, the best, and the best ONLY? Hello, not all of us have a million dollars in a coffee can out back.... I dont think duals have caught on quite yet (though this is based on 2-3 months ago, I have been, out of ther nerd world for a while) and the graphics card, not a 7950... waste of money, 7800 will do fine, 2 gigs ram? Maybe but 1 gig would do, but it seems 2 gigs are taking over finally....But Watching you all throw down fancy hardware, only annoying really! Cheers, Gunny

IMO  some people on this forum do think that every has thousdands to blow on top of the range components e.g. conroe cores. 7950 etc.. if you could give us a rough estimate o your budget then suggestions on improvement would be easier

also i think people are over speccing FSX i recon as long as u have a decent CPU (say 2.4ghz + single core) a 7600 atleast, and 1 gig mem you should have no problem running FSX med settings.

What you fail to realise due to the fact that your not running the next gen OS is that what goes on in the background is much more taxing than in XP. Also since you haven't gamed in Vista you really don't know how slow your system becomes. In XP I was able to play the FSX demo maxed out at about 25 ~ 30FPS in many areas. In FSX I had to turn the settings just under medium with no eye candy to achieve the same specs. Other games that I usually get 60+ FPS in such as F.E.A.R. and HL in XP only got me 25ish in Vista. So on a single core processer with a high end video card, and 2GB of RAM its "good" but not what I'm getting now. So from what I'm seeing, MS's estamate of needing a dual core processer, 4GB of RAM, and dual GPUs isn't far off from the truth.



Thats what a system that I usually suggest will look like in Vista. Notice as due to the lac of a second core my processer score is a tad under par, however if you build a 4.5+ system then your transition to Vista is going to be much smoother.

I know its expensive, but again save a bit longer, and buy a bit bigger. You will thank yourself if you do.

Cheers
Cameron

We wont know until Vista is released for the public, So I am holding my breath until then..... you save up and wait until the OS and hardware are out to run it is available if you ask me, this is the worst time to build a system in my personal opinion! Cheers, Gunny

With the exception of DX10, we have everything we need to build an excellent vista rig. So building an amazing rig now, sitting on it for 6~8 months until the 8 series and R600 cores come out, buying one or two of those, and your golden. And if you built a Conroe system, then when Kentsfield comes out your golden.

Cheers
Cameron