Computer upgrade for FS2004 (not FSX)

[JBaymore]

Suggestions wanted:

I am in need to replacing my old machine that has been running fs2004 for a long, long time.  It is dying.

I am looking for uncompromised performance of this older sim running with a scad of payware addons for scenery (along with aircraft like the PMDG 747).  I also am constantly running a number of background programs on the same PC as fs2004 is on..... such as live updated online Ground Environment Pro, FSUIPC, FSXpand, MultiCrewExperience, and so on.  There is network traffic to contend with since the simpit if interfaced on a 10/100mbit network.

I am sick of stuttering scenery and scenery loading pauses and other such "immersion destroyers".  I want this machine to sustain at least a smooth consistent 28-30 fps on short final into a FlyTAMPA payware complex airport like Kai Tak with max AI from World of AI there flying along with me.  (I could care less about 6000000000 fps at FL400 over the Pacific.)

I understand that FS2004 does not take advantage of multi core.  Some of the background apps might be able to be assigned to other cores (Multicrew Experience is written for multicore).  So a lot of cores will likely not help me, particualrly if each core has a slow clock speed (whrn compared to the clock of older single core machines).  I could be werong on this thinking...... correct me if I am.

So where the heck do I head for such a machine? 

BTW...... I am not ready to move over to FSX.... too much invested in the simpit stuff that is not easily changed over.  I own it..... but I wouldn;t be happy with anything excep a NickN cutting edge machine..... that I can't afford  .

Appreciate any help folks.  Purchase is imminent.

best,

..................john

[Slotback]

The older single cores are so slow that each core on a modern quad or dual will be much faster (only have you TWO (or four) of them. ) They seldom ever make single cores anymore, so you will be getting a dual core quad.

Pretty much all single cores are slow.
FS9 is mostly single threaded,  but each core on a modern multi-core is much faster than any single core.

Fastest duals is probably the Core i5 670, followed by the Core 2 Duo E8600, and Core i5 660. If you don't mind spending more and want better FSX performance, then a quad like the Core i7 860 is probably faster than them all (probably slightly better in single threaded apps). Also, a feature of the Core i5 and i7 is turboboost. If one core is in use it automatically increases the clockspeed. Core i7 860 is 2.8ghz, but in single threaded apps it can automatically scale itself up to 3.46ghz. Bear in mind for the same clockspeed it is getting well over three times the performance of a Pentium 4 per core. Core i5 can do this too, although the E8600 can't. In rough order fastest to slowest Core i7 860 --- Core i5 670 --- Core i5 660 --- E8600


I would expect a decent videocard like the 9800GT to suit FS9 well. It's a cheap card that's relatively fast. I'm not sure if anything faster is necessary.

No idea how much RAM fs9 needs. I'd get 4gb anyways.

Generally computer stores can make computers using parts you choose.

[UnkieDude]

JB,

My basic specs:

Vista x64 Ultimate

Intel Q8400 Quad 2.66 overclocked to 3.4

Asus P5KE Board

4gb Dominator RAM for overclocking

BFG GeForce GTX 260 w/896mb RAM

One 150 Vrap for OS and a 300 Vrap for FSX.

[JBaymore]

Thanks guys for the feedback.  Amassing information and opinions now .....will be making decisions shortly.

best,

...............john

BTW.... Welcome to SimV, Unkie.

[microlight]

Hi John. I'm running a maxed FS9 out of its skin on a Sony Vaio laptop with a Core i5-430 processor, 4GB RAM and Radeon HD5470 graphics. Very impressed with the dual Core i5, which is nominally 2.6Ghz but which apparently varies its clock rate depending on what you're doing. I have the FPS set at 25 in FS9 and it doesn't budge anywhere, except maybe down to 19-20 (still very acceptable) in heavy cloud over Heathrow.

It's Win7 which is pretty much all you can get on PCs now, I guess. I was a little concerned when I got it, being the 64-bit version, that I might have trouble, but not a bit of it.

Good luck!

[JBaymore]

Thanks microlite.

I am planning on going Win 7 64 bit.  Everything Nick has told me heads in that direction.

Right now I have to check that all of my peripheral equipment...... CH yoke, pedals and throttle quad, Hagstrom interface cards, Goflight modules and so on are 64 bit compatible.  If I have to change all or most of THAT stuff...... it gets very pricey to upgrade the system.

As it is this isn't going to be cheap.  Going as far as I can stretch the budget.

best,

.................john

[ermias]

John,

I suggest you try www.tigerdirect.com and compare it with other you know for some hardware. I got

[Slotback]

Either the Core i5 670 (3.46ghz, 3.73ghz TURBO) or Core 2 Duo E8700 (3.5ghz) is the fastest dual. I don't know which one is specifically faster. I added this post because previously I didn't know the E8700 even existed.



Here's a benchmark of my Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.0ghz running on only one core, versus a Pentium 4 @ 3.4ghz.

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/U ... tled-2.jpg

Each core on the E8700 should be 2 - 3 times faster than your current proc.

[Groundbound1]

How much were you looking to spend?

[JBaymore]

Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2 G LGA 1366 Quad core sitting on an ASUS P6X58D Premium mobo.  Bells and whistles to match.

Done deal.

best,

..............john

[Groundbound1]

[quote]Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2 G LGA 1366 Quad core sitting on an ASUS P6X58D Premium mobo.

[JBaymore]

Yup, that MIGHT do it!

       8-)

[PilotGonzo]

Lol for FS2004, NASA will be asking to borrow that thing!