Estimate?

[Mazza]

Can someone give me an Estimate on how well FSX could run on my setup, no yelling at me for going AMD/ATi .

Just want to know if i could get decent frame rates at a good slider setting.

[Saitek]

You should be able to overclock that processor to easily 3.0 if you have enough cooling.

As it is though it is better than my rig and mine runs FSX quite well.  8-)

[Slotback]

Should run ok on medium settings, however, I'm not exactly content with my 8800GT and Q6600 at 3ghz, so don't get your hopes up.

[ivan.lybe]

Well, I recently bought a new rig (you can see the specs in my signature). I also got FSX Deluxe.

I have no real intention of being disrespectful to FSX, but the prevailing feeling I get when I take a look at it is that it's a software product that was not structured or built, but was instead done by just piling up everything (software code, models etc) in some non-organized way. Sure, it has some reasons to be heavy on the PC to some extent, but not nearly as much as it is. Big, open spaces are demanding and require a fair amount of computing, but it's just not optimized properly; not even close.

I was ready to give up on FSX, but instead I decided to give it another chance. If I up all the settings and keep the scenery settings at medium-high level with dense traffic and keep the traffic sliders below 30 (airport vehicles = 0 ) I get fair performance (which in my view is no less than 30 fps). Since you answered my topic, you know how the menus would behave. Putting the traffic sliders to 100 drastically slows the sim and doesn't produce nearly as much visible traffic as it

[Mazza]

[quote]Well, I recently bought a new rig (you can see the specs in my signature). I also got FSX Deluxe.

I have no real intention of being disrespectful to FSX, but the prevailing feeling I get when I take a look at it is that it's a software product that was not structured or built, but was instead done by just piling up everything (software code, models etc) in some non-organized way. Sure, it has some reasons to be heavy on the PC to some extent, but not nearly as much as it is. Big, open spaces are demanding and require a fair amount of computing, but it's just not optimized properly; not even close.

I was ready to give up on FSX, but instead I decided to give it another chance. If I up all the settings and keep the scenery settings at medium-high level with dense traffic and keep the traffic sliders below 30 (airport vehicles = 0 ) I get fair performance (which in my view is no less than 30 fps). Since you answered my topic, you know how the menus would behave. Putting the traffic sliders to 100 drastically slows the sim and doesn't produce nearly as much visible traffic as it

[mhoffman50]

[quote]Well, I recently bought a new rig (you can see the specs in my signature). I also got FSX Deluxe.

I have no real intention of being disrespectful to FSX, but the prevailing feeling I get when I take a look at it is that it's a software product that was not structured or built, but was instead done by just piling up everything (software code, models etc) in some non-organized way. Sure, it has some reasons to be heavy on the PC to some extent, but not nearly as much as it is. Big, open spaces are demanding and require a fair amount of computing, but it's just not optimized properly; not even close.

I was ready to give up on FSX, but instead I decided to give it another chance. If I up all the settings and keep the scenery settings at medium-high level with dense traffic and keep the traffic sliders below 30 (airport vehicles = 0 ) I get fair performance (which in my view is no less than 30 fps). Since you answered my topic, you know how the menus would behave. Putting the traffic sliders to 100 drastically slows the sim and doesn't produce nearly as much visible traffic as it

[ivan.lybe]

I actually said that the overall cpu usage is not very high. What I mean by that is that all cores are used somewhat, but not very much (cores 2,3 and 4 are used around 20-30%, which, combined with core 1, which is used effectively, puts the overall usage meter just above 50%, which is not that great).

Recap: it uses all cores (I have acc. pack), but not enough.