WILL THIS (or MY) SYSTEM RUN FSX??

[NickN]

I decided since this comes up time and time again to post a generic thread which targets this subject.

One thing I wish to make very clear is that myself, or anyone else, can not make hardware decisions for you. All I can do is make suggestions. That does not mean you are going to get what you want and that statement leads to the next subject

[NickN]

BIG BUCKS RESULTS
==================================

No light bloom in urban areas AT ALL, but, can use it bush flying, with massive reduction in performance but acceptable.

Autogen running with no limits lines in the config file and at

[NickN]

Its important to add to this thread that what I posted in the way of hardware will be significanlty cheaper as of the first of next year.

At that point and with a few changes you will probably be able to get the same hardware and performance for about 1800-2000, possibly less.

That does not mean the new stuff due out in October-November will be cheaper.. that's the parts I listed above. The QX6700 will be GONE as of November and if you watch the market close enough you will see sales on that processor and others in its class pop up and increase as November approaches. They are discontinuing all of the 1066FSB Core2's at the end of this year.

Given DX10 will be moving to DX10.1 you can expect the DX10 cards to drop quickly in price. FSX will NOT be using the DX10.1 rendering properties, only DX10, and DX10 cards will run just fine in a DX10.1 title when they are released.

Just like there is a difference between DX9 and DX9c, DX10 cards will run just fine in DX10.1. you just wont have all the shader and optimizer support and as of right now, none of that is completely defined as to what it will be or how well it works.

[hosseing]

Thanks Nick for the great information. I was looking for some accurate info regarding running FSX for sometime now.

How much knowledge do I need to put these thing together and make a PC out of it?

I have once ( 7 years ago ) put a PC together with little trouble; However it seems to me the technology has become much more complicated. Do I need considerable knowledge to put this thing together? Since I am going to be paying a lot of money buying these parts I want to make sure I can assemble it without any hit on performance ( becuase of doing something wrong).

I am trained as an Electrical Engineer ( Although not in the field of ciruits, but E&M and lasers) so I have the capacity to read and learn quickly the technical skills I shall need.

could you please refer me to a book/articla/post or something regarding assembeling these state of the art ( if I can call them that ) parts? I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

With Regards

[NickN]

It sounds like you are an EE, like myself, but, unlike myself, with limited lab experience past your forte.

Overclocking requires experience and a learning curve. In that, I would suggest you forgo the O/c and stick to the default hardware.

Given there will be better choices in hardware available over the next several months I suggest you wait before purchasing.

I do recommend a DDR3

[NickN]

Just so you understand

Even with every single slider MAXED and the config file edited to allow 6000 buildings and 6000 trees per cell, and, edited to allow the scenery radius to increase to 10+ miles, you ARE NOT getting 100% FSX ability... not even close

The software will not allow you to see everything because the hardware to do that as of now does not exist.

The X38 chipsets are out now and the new AMD/Nvidia motherboards and cards will be out early next year.. even with those you can expect another year or two befor FSX can be run as I listed above and the hardware allow you to see everything in a playable environment

[Mermaid Man]

A general question- is FS-X more dependant on CPU speed/cores, or graphics card? ie if you have a fixed amount to spend would it be better to go for


Faster CPU
Lower end GPU

or

Slower CPU
Higher end GPU

[MOUSY]

Long answer short: the former... but I wouldn't skimp on the GPU either.

[NickN]

A general question- is FS-X more dependant on CPU speed/cores, or graphics card? ie if you have a fixed amount to spend would it be better to go for


Faster CPU
Lower end GPU

or

Slower CPU
Higher end GPU

Its not just about the CPU or GPU but the memory buss as well

you must find the balance between all or the purchase is not worth the expense when it comes to FSX

A CPU upgrade is probably the better choice however if that upgrade is not significant and/or the memory speed/buss is not really going to allow a new CPU to sing, then the result will be limited.

Going from a 2.2 to a 2.6 processor is not significant. Going from an AMD 6000+ to a modern 1333/1600 FSB dual or Q series intel process most certainly is

Primary with FSX is the consideration/purchase of CPU/memory and the right GPU to match them after.

Just from being involved with the state of the art market I can tell you that a CPU speed of 3.6+gig with a TRUE memory speed of 800-1000MHz (DDR3 1600-2000) places FSX in a position of running high settings with a very satifying expereince, at least by my standards. Although not required specs, those are what I would place in a system with a top of the line or next gen GPU.

[coulterww]

I am running an Intel E6750 Processor @1333 mHz on anNvidia 680i SLi motherboard, four gb of Corsair PC6400 RAM, a 7200 rpm Raptor harddrive, and a 768mb EVGA 8800GTX video card with an ANTEC 600W power supply in the ANTEC 900 case.  This case has two intake fans in the front of the case that blow in directly over the hard drive, an exhaust fan in the rear of the case, and a huge 120mm exhaust fan in the top of the case.  Add to this the processor cooler fan, a cooler fan and heatsink over the northbridge chips,and you get an amazingly cool running machine.  This thing has yet to blow hot air from the vents.  Make sure you have good airflow though.

Now as for performance...  I am running FSX with all the sliders maxed out (with the exception of the water slider, it auto adjusts as the land sliders reach max).  I am achieving approx 20 - 25 fps constant, slightly higher in less populated areas such as deserts or over water where the program doesnt have to render much else.
Occasionally, I will hit a snag, but for the most part, it is smooth seamless flying.

The bottom line is, you get what you pay for, but if you are savvy enough, you can find a lot of the really good stuff on sale, or with some really good rebates.  I am happy with my system, and it performs well for me.  Hope this helps.

Wayne

[homebrewer]

Why did M'soft develop such a thing if nobody has the money (outside of Uncle Sam) to build a system or buy the components to run it? And just for the asking, why did they ever bring Vista to the market? Nobody really likes it; there's even a move on about  Saving Private XP...

[markag]

Why did M'soft develop such a thing if nobody has the money (outside of Uncle Sam) to build a system or buy the components to run it? And just for the asking, why did they ever bring Vista to the market? Nobody really likes it; there's even a move on about  Saving Private XP...

I think that might be a little harsh.  Sure FSX is really hardware demanding, but you don't need to spend a fortune to fly it.  Most current hardware will be able to fly it, maybe not maxed out at 1920x1280, but they will be able to run the sim smoothly at lower settings.  There are a lot of simmers out there on nVidia 7X00s & 8600s, or ATI 3850s, 2X00, & X1X00 series cards that can run this game and be satisfied with their performance. These are by no means top of the line cards, but they can still run the sim. Also not everyone has a Quad core CPU, but they can be happy with the look and performance in a midrange dual core. Heck, I was running it just a few months ago on a 3.0GHz p4 laptop with an ATI Mobile X300 GPU and getting very playable framerates. By setting lofty standards for FSX, microsoft can wait longer before they release the next version. Having said that though, there is nothing wrong with that strategy. You are still getting the best looking Flight Sim out right now, even on mid level settings.

As for Vista, current hardware can run Vista almost as fast as XP.  If you disable much of the extra features of Vista, you will find that it runs more or less the same speed.  You have to realize that XP has been around since 2001. It has been optimized and tweaked and optimized hundreds of times over those 8 years.  Vista is still relatively new and hasn't had 8 years of software engineers tinkering with its performance.  Many people (including myself) prefer Vista over XP. I had been running a Dual boot Visa/XP configuration for about 6 months before I switched to Vista only because I never used XP anymore.

[terbert]

With all due respect to those with money to burn, but why is it in the gaming world is it presumed that the more you spend the better your system will be !!! I appreciate the saying 'you get what you pay for'...but that is not always true. I built my comp for under

[GuitarFreak]

I'm thinking the GTX 280 will help out the framerates quite a bit. From what I've heard, ~50% faster than the 9800GX2. Although, it'll still come down to the cpu.

[NickN]

With FSX its all CPU

The 8800GTs 640 and the GTX 768 are 384bit memory buss cards... these cards are actually BETTER for FSX than the newer 9xxx series however with the 280 that may change because they will be incorporating a higher number of TMU's and a few other changes

The 9xxxx cards are a marking joke.. unless you are coming from a slower card their use in FSX is no better than the original GTS/GTX because they reduced memory, memory buss but increased TMU's so its 6 of 1 , and 1/2 dozen of the other

CPU and memory speed is what FSX needs and it does need the right card matched to that speed. You cant put a Q6600 quad with a 8800GT and get the same result as pairing that with GTX.. the GTX will squash the GT in a hearbeat 8x or 9x in FSX