Suggestions for FSX hardware

[lupedelupe]

Hi everyone,

In a perfect world I wouldn;t ask this question, as I'd simply head out there and the best equipment available... scratch that, I'd buy a real aircraft. Several of them  ;)

But this is real life and there taxes and payments and accounts and things. So, it brings me to FSX and the hardware I need to drive the show.

It's been a while since I have flown FS (9), and my PC died a slow death many months ago. But I think it's time to get back into the whole thing again. What I am hoping to do is to buy the MINIMUM I will need to run FSX at around 1284x1024, with some of the Direct X 10 effects active. I don't need overkill, but I would like to run, say 80% of the eye candy.

What would you say is the minimum I can get away with?

[Groundbound1]

Hello lupedelupe, and welcome!

I don't use FSX myself, but this question has come up MANY times before.

The thread below should give you some insight as to what you'll need.


http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1190754444

[ThatOnePerson]

Whatever you do, I would recommend getting a quad core

[Mermaid Man]

Whatever you do, I would recommend getting a quad core

Do you have a source with tests showing fast dual versus fast quad in FS-X?

As for the OP, I think a overclocked E8400, 2GB-4GB of RAM with a overclocked 8800GT should be sufficient.

Autogen/building scenery is the framerate killer, it's nice having that but at altitude it doesn't really serve a purpose.

My 4400x2 @ 2.7ghz, ATI X1900XTX @ 675 copes quite well on high resolution, AA and AF if you cut down autogen/buildings/trees etc..just leave high detail on the actual landscape.

[ThatOnePerson]

My only source is owning a qaud at 3.2 Ghz lol. Just simply the fact that fsx utilizes all four cores fully, and even octos are maxed out in FSX (theres a video on youtube) is good enough for me. I would hold off on the 8400 and wait for the quad wofldales to come out. FSX loves processor power, alot more than video cards thats for sure.