PC to run FS9?

[microlight]

Hi all.

My poor old PC is beginner to stagger with age so I need to replace it soon, with an eye on improving the FS9 performance I get with my current one, which is 2.0GHz PIV processor, 1Gb RAM, Radeon 9200SE card.

I've heard that FS9 only uses one core of a multi-core processor (is this true?) so what would be an improved, (single-core?) modern machine that will do FS9 proud? Also, should I steer clear of Vista and go for XP, like I have currently?

Thanks all!

Martyn

[Groundbound1]

My machine (see specs below) that I built specifically for FS9, runs it quite well. While I have no first hand experience with multi-core processors, I too have heard that FS9 is happier on one core rather than many. That being said, I can say that my hyper-threading P4 is listed as two processors in the task manager, and my sim doesn't seem to care either way. (one thread or both) Then again, a hyper-threading processor isn't a true dual-core either.

A faster processor and more memory is always a good idea, but a better video card would be where I would start. Something with a higher core clock, and more memory. (Oh yeah, don't forget about full DX9 compliance!)



I did set my machine up with only 1 gig of ram at first.

[Wii]

[quote]My machine (see specs below) that I built specifically for FS9, runs it quite well. While I have no first hand experience with multi-core processors, I too have heard that FS9 is happier on one core rather than many. That being said, I can say that my hyper-threading P4 is listed as two processors in the task manager, and my sim doesn't seem to care either way. (one thread or both) Then again, a hyper-threading processor isn't a true dual-core either.

A faster processor and more memory is always a good idea, but a better video card would be where I would start. Something with a higher core clock, and more memory. (Oh yeah, don't forget about full DX9 compliance!)



I did set my machine up with only 1 gig of ram at first.

[Celtman]

but yes, it seems that FS9 uses the 2 processors (using tsk mngr to record it)

FS9 does not use dual cores. The only thing it will do, if set in task manager, is spread the load over the 2 cores, meaning they are running at 50% each instead of one core running at 100%. This makes no difference to performance at all.

If you are building solely for FS9, a single core would do, but then again in todays world you would be foolish to build a PC without a dual core, due the increasing amount of applications utilizing them. And the number of apps will only increase

[spitfire boy]

Vista can indeed be a pianful experience, but I believe it is alright with gaming - I think its problems are in the data-handling area.... but don't quote me. Either way.... my new computer which arrived yesterday has vista home premium installed.

[microlight]

Thanks for the replies so far. Interesting point about the software being run, because apart from FS9, I don't do any gaming on the PC (don't do any other gaming at all in fact!) - it's used mainly for audio/video/photograph editing, plus typical office-type applications and website maintenance. The vast bulk of the software I'd use on the new PC would be the same stuff I'm using now. So the only reason I've got a graphics card is for FS9!

Maybe I'll ask my local shop to build me something based around single-core 3.0GHz (or better if available), 2Gb memory, a 512Mb card - and XP. Might even get reasonable performance if I ever find a cheap copy of FSX - that's how I graduated from FS2002 to FS9 in the first place.

Reasons for still preferring XP (apart from the horror stories you read here and elsewhere about Vista) is that each new iteration of Windows seems to be increasingly power-hungry, and it seems to me that XP does everything I need without losing more processing power and memory just running the OS.

[Wii]

but yes, it seems that FS9 uses the 2 processors (using tsk mngr to record it)

FS9 does not use dual cores. The only thing it will do, if set in task manager, is spread the load over the 2 cores, meaning they are running at 50% each instead of one core running at 100%.

What I ment.

[markag]

If you do a lot of video editing, and image editing with photoshop or similar programs; you could really benefit from a multi-core processor.  With the prices today, you could easily pick up a lower lever core 2 duo or  pentium D for ~$100 or less.  AMD also has inexpensive dual core processors, but I've heard that their performance doesn't match with a similar clock speed Core 2 Duo.

As for graphics, you could go with an nVidia 7600GT (~$70) and probably be pretty happy.  It should run fs9 with all the bells and wistles turned up at decent resolutions.  Another option might be an ATI X1600XT, but I'm not as familiar with ATI cards.

All together, you could spend roughly $200 and get a system that can run FS9 really well or even FSX.  Also, your video and picture editing will go much quicker.

[Mermaid Man]

Photoshop uses dual cores, as does Windows. So  if whilst playing FS9 Windows does something in the background your FS9 won't slow down. Many people have reported smoother windows and gaming changing from single to dual core, even though the games don't support dual, and they don't do any heavy Windows processes.

I noticed a huge speed increase going from a AMD 3700+ to a 4200x2 in the HTPC.