Simviation Forums

Well, this weekend my dad is buying a new computer. One of the reasons is because this one is going to my sisters and the other I want to a good computer to be able to run FSX and/or FS9.

Well, I'm going with my dad to chose one, since I specailise in computer specs.  ;D
I've got my eye on one. The only thing I need to know, would these specs be good enough to get really good FPS & allow FSX or FS9 to run smoothly with AI traffic on like 100% with Active Sky, FE, GE and so on.

AMD Phenom X3 8550 Triple-Core
(2.20GHz, 2MB Cache)
Genuine Windows

The things you want for your FS will not go on this machine.
Honestly, fs9 would run reasonable.
Processor nothing less than 3.0 GHz (you might now that FS9 doesnt use more than one core, and FSX uses top 3 cores)
More RAM (fs9 would run ok with 3gb, now fsx thats a diferent ball game)never less than 4 gb ( im just following what you expect from FS).
Geforce 8200, thats a BIG NO, for both FS9 and FSX.Try 8800 gtx or the 260 gtx or something better.And be sure your PSU nothing less than 650w
I would look for something better.
Maybe you werent expecting this but, try to look some posts and you will see what the Experts say.
My comment is based, once again i need to say, in what you want from FS.

first of all, the 8200 is a toy... at least a 9800 for good/regular performance on FSX (great on FS9)

AMD won't do scrap in FSX (especially at 2.2ghz) but will do great in FS9

and 3gb memory is ok but I'd go for 4gb

Can you build your own system? it'd be much cheapter, and better!

I have 9800 and it could be better.

Ok scrap that. How bout this one. My dad has been looking seriously at it.


Intel Quad Core Q8300(2.50Ghz)
4GB DDR2 RAM
640GB Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9600GT(512MB).

For what SIM?
FS 9? its ok!!!
FSX ? forget it!!!

FSX ? forget it!!!

... :-?

That would be just fine for FSX, just don't expect too much out of it. Medium settings it will do just fine. If you could find one with an Intel Quad Core cpu and a 9800 for a video card, you'd be set

You might also want to overclock the cpu, so get a good cooler and some good thermal paste (OCZ Freeze is perfect). Believe me, that will make a world of difference

The problem with pc's is....we spend money and then we dont have the result we want.Building a machine and stay on MEDIUM i guess takes the moral of everyone.

For the comum mortal we need to make a choice.Or we have $ power and we can buy top hardware and it will work.Or we need to see our budget and choose, or we build a nice machine to run a "MAX" FS9 and a Medium FSX. Or we gather more money and we build a Max (if there is one) for FSX.

If someone cames here with a budget of $5000 i can give everything, even if you want a pink PC. But most of mortals have what..$600 or even $1000.Garantee a MAX FSX?Well it doesnt.

Take a look:
Quad core for FSX....for what?FSX it will not use more than 3.So you might put maybe $100 on your pocket.$100 you can use for memory, PSU, even a better graphic card.

I think like this (this is me thinking) i can't reach for now, to a machine that runs FSX the way i can run FS9.NO MONEY.
I look to my machine and i see, i need a PSU and a video card.
With a PSU of 650w, and a 8800 gt or gts or gtx, i spend $300.For now i get 25 fps with mine in FS9 with 80% traffic and with Aerosoft pro airports and pmdg, level D and so on.My FSX runs MEDIUM.If i upgrade this things i can get a few more details on FSX.Will it be 100%?
Never, but 70 or 75%.Maybe.

Can you buy a a good machine with $300? If you do, tell me, i want 10 of those.

But at least you spend some money and you improve a bit.
I see guys sepending $2000 and $3000 on a pc and you see them on the forums asking for help.Many things, we know have to do with tweaking? Yes, but not everything.

A choice as to be made. I WANT FSX AT MEDIUM, well at least you know you dont need a Quad for that so you can balance the budget.
Read whats going on. There are very good posts to help you decide and see what your budget can do.
And another thing, dont try overclocked before you know your Hardware.You can get good results but also burn your effort in seconds.

Cheers

Take a look:
Quad core for FSX....for what?FSX it will not use more than 3.

Where did you get that info from?... :-?

Ever since SP1, FSX has made FULL use of EVERY core available to it.

Take a look:
Quad core for FSX....for what?FSX it will not use more than 3.

Where did you get that info from?... :-?

Ever since SP1, FSX has made FULL use of EVERY core available to it.

Not entirely so. From what I have read, it is my understanding that FSX uses core zero approximately 90% of the time and the remaining 10% is spread among the remaining 3 cores.

Which make it, if you use one core it will use it 100%.

But maybe i went to far saying that will not use it. The fact is SP1 made FSX to DETECT the quad core.Now use it?diferent thing.
I will not put my hand on the fire, but i think Nick said that.
Ofcourse we can have the poor man way of thinking.

Quad core costs what $300? (i really dont know), so FSX will use a small percentage of each.Lets follow it leterary (once again i say i dont have experience with quads) so a dual it will use 50% in each core?Or it will use 90% on zero and the other 10%spread over the second? Is this a patern? 0 uses always 90% independently of the core number?
IF we think on keeping some processor workload, we say a good dual will do the job, or even a 3 core, all goes around money you have.Now that all cores will be used to improve FSX hmmmmm.

According to forums, well processor is important, but is more flexible than RAM and GPU.WE know FSX LOVES RAM and GPU SPEED.You might find more aplications for your money if you could keep $100 from the cost of your processor, and apply it in RAM or GPU.

Its like they say, FS9 with a video card with 256 its not good, but over 512 its a waste.

Any way, i think its funny what you read in the magazines, they try all new MB and processors and GPU in games like Crisis and things like that, then get all those readings on benchmarks.For a change, it would be fun they tested those $5000 pc on FSX.Then i would love to see the results.

Another thing that i dont understand, is why ATI\AMD are not good for FS.I remember when 9700 Pro came out everybody was saying the best GPU for FS9.I know times change but i still dont understand that "cut" on ATI\Amd.
:-/

Taken just now on my i7 system:




As you can see, all 4 cores were being used...

They all averaged out at about 80%, Core 0 (1st core) being the most stable


That was with autogen set to VERY DENSE, over London, with FPS locked at 30, no stutters WHATSOEVER...

I dare you to try to get that performance with the same settings as mine (not just autogen, but everything else) on a dual core

757200ba...

You are confused...

Ok, After long discussions with my brain I finally decided I'm going to just get the computer to run FS9. I've now got my eye's on these: What one would you buy?

Baring in mind I have addon's like:
Active Sky
Ground Evironment
Flight Environment
Custom Made AI Traffic loads and loads of airliners
Level-D 767
Aerosoft airports
PMDG
and many more.

Option 1:

AMD Phenom X4 9750
(2.4GHz, 2MB Cache)
4GB memory
500GB hard drive
Blu-Ray player and DVD Rewriter
512MB ATI Radeon HD4350 graphics

Get the bottom one, the one with the Intel Quad core

But