Are my specs are any good for FS2004 or X?

[Dan100]

Hi people, just wondering which version of FS to get, and was wondering which I could run smoothly, my specs are:

Dual core 1.66 ghz processor
4GB Ram
160GB Hard drive
Intel GMA 4500M graphics card (765MB graphics memory)

Cheers, Dan.

[Fozzer]

Hello Dan!....welcome to the Sim... ...!

May be OK with FS 2002...

..and perhaps FS 2004, with the sliders, etc, reduced... ...!

Give them a try...nothing to lose!.. ...!

I suspect FSX will be a definite No-No.... ...!

Best of luck... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

Paul..G-BPLF..FS 2004...FS Nav... 8-)...!

My FS 2004 runs fantastically, maxed, with an ancient AMD Socket A, Athlon Thoroughbred, 2600+ MMX, 2.1 GHz processor, and a nVidia 7800 GS 256 MB Graphics Card....2 GB RAM.

[SeanTK]

I agree with Paul.
The processor is definitely the weak link here, and will affect FS performance the most.
Again, probably fine with FS2002, but with FS2004 you will have to lower your sliders quite a bit.

Your system will definitely not work with FSX.

[Fozzer]

I never cease to be amazed at just how well my FS 2004 runs with my extremely lowly Hardware system!... ...!

All my sliders are maxed, and all the boxes are ticked, and providing I avoid installing dense add-on Airports, etc, and stick to Autogen, I am a very Happy Bunny with my trusty FS 2004.. ...!

Paul...G-BPLF..FS 2004..FS Nav... 8-)..!

There's nothing quite as happy, as a Happy Bunny!... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]...!

[machineman9]

The integrated graphics chipset (I.E., you don't have an actual graphics card) will seriously reduce performance on any game.

Furthermore, you did not say which processor you have - You named the clock speed and cores type, but not the actual processor. Clock speed is only a sign of performance when compared against an otherwise identical processor (E.G., when you're comparing Intel Dual Core E1234 2.0GHz to Intel Dual Core E1234 2.2Ghz. An old P4 3.0GHz processor will be easily beaten by a modern processor running at half the clock speed!)


It will run, but not marvelously. FSX would not be advisable.

[Fozzer]

The biggest improvement I found with my home-built Computers running FS 2000, FS 2002, and FS 2004 was Graphics Card upgrades, rather than Processor upgrades.

My old Socket A Processor, and various old AGP Graphics Cards, runs them all..(including FSX, within limits!).

FSX is highly Processor dependant, ....apparently?.... ...!

Paul...My Computer: It does exactly what is says on the box... ...!

I haven't found a good-enough reason to upgrade, so far.. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

[Sir_Crashalot]

Sorry for sounding stupid, but can someone explain to me why his dual core processor with 4 Gb RAM would be slower or worse than my 4 year old P4 with 2Gb. Which actually can run FS2004 fully maxed out at 24 FPS everywhere?

Carlo (not the brightest when it comes to computer parts)

[Fozzer]

Sorry for sounding stupid, but can someone explain to me why his dual core processor with 4 Gb RAM would be slower or worse than my 4 year old P4 with 2Gb. Which actually can run FS2004 fully maxed out at 24 FPS everywhere?

Carlo (not the brightest when it comes to computer parts)

I think we should organise a Club for Happy Users of FS 2004, using really old Computers!.... ...!

Paul...with a Really old Computer... ... ...!

[pete]

If this is any indicator -- this old PC (must be 2 or 3 years old now) has never had any problems running FSX or FS2004. No compromises and most graphics running above default (not maxed) ... never had a stutter (even before the SP whatever updates) ... and never could see why people had problems ......



Some do -- the silent % don't .... My very old 2004 P4 Dell PC was way less than you have and FS2004 ran no sweat all maxed.

So you may be fine - you may not -- a lot to do with combinations of this & that & what software you run as default. (avoid M$ where you can - hugely inefficient programming)

[machineman9]

Sorry for sounding stupid, but can someone explain to me why his dual core processor with 4 Gb RAM would be slower or worse than my 4 year old P4 with 2Gb. Which actually can run FS2004 fully maxed out at 24 FPS everywhere?

Chances are, it wouldn't.

The memory shouldn't be of much concern, I doubt FS9 goes anywhere near 2GB RAM to start with. Nearly 1gb of their memory is reserved towards graphics anyway.

As for processors, the clock speed is not a show of performance. 1Ghz just means '1 billion cycles per second' as you probably well know, but that does not mean that each cycle is efficient or does much. A very very vague way of understand it is like this: Which goes faster: A car in 1st gear at 2000RPM, or a car in 5th gear at 1500RPM? (Let's not get too technical, you'd obviously have to get up to speed to be in fifth gear anyway).


So in that example, although the engine was going slower (fewer Hz) the speed of the car would remain higher. Fuel efficiency would probably be higher too.


So a modern, slower, processor can be better because it is more efficient with each cycle. Dual cores means that information can be processed in parallel, so if one core is dealing with a certain task, the other core will handle other tasks at the same time.

It gets complicated, but that's the simple version. The more complex version is like a hopscotch grid where at random you have to go back to the start. A more efficient processor would have a shorter grid (5 steps or so) than an older, less efficient, one (10 steps). There's a better chance that you'd get past the hopscotch sooner if it were 5 steps long than 10 steps. On the 10 steps one you'd have to sprint it across and hope you make it to the end before getting reset to the start. Hence, a faster clock speed and more heat. More efficient = shorter pipelines (hopscotchs) so it can afford to go slower.


Phew.

[Capt.Propwash]

with my 5 year old LAPTOP..



Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
128mb RAM


I am running FS2004 / 9 steady ... Locked @ 25 FPS (defaut scenery .. everything) MAXED OUT . and roughly 15-17 around KJFK in the POSKY B747-400v4 {which to me is Frame Heavy}, with Ultimate Terrain AND REX2004 installed as well.


You will have absolutely no problems achieving a nice 40-50 FPS on your rig with AUTOGEN maxed out anywhere you choose to fly.  I just wish I could afford something NEW..  :-/

[Dan100]

I forgot to say my Laptop isn't exactly old, I bought it brand new last year, my processor is Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600, 1.66ghz, I just bought FS2004 and I can play it on maxed settings with no problems at all, looks fantastic.
It uses according to Task manager about 45-50% of my cpu on maxed settings and uses about 200MB ram.

[Sir_Crashalot]

And another happy FS2004 user. Now stay with it and don't get tempted to join the dark side...

Carlo

[garymbuska]

I have a Intel D865PERL mother board a Pentium 4 CPU 3.2Ghz 4 gigs of ram a 7600 AGP video card and Three hard drives.
I have FS2004 maxed out and still get 20 to 30 FPS in bad weather and and high detailed aircraft.
I also use Active Sky for weather It slows down a little when the weather gets what some of us refer as 0/0 Which means GET YOUR BUT ON THE GROUND AND HEAD FOR COVER. 8-)

[Fozzer]

I have a Intel D865PERL mother board a Pentium 4 CPU 3.2Ghz 4 gigs of ram a 7600 AGP video card and Three hard drives.
I have FS2004 maxed out and still get 20 to 30 FPS in bad weather and and high detailed aircraft.
I also use Active Sky for weather It slows down a little when the weather gets what some of us refer as 0/0 Which means GET YOUR BUT ON THE GROUND AND HEAD FOR COVER. 8-)

Like Garry, I am presently locked into a AGP nVidia 7800 GS 256MB graphics Card on my Gigabyte GA7-N400 S-L AGP Motherboard with its Socket A AMD Athlon XP 2600 (2.1 GHZ)Thoroughbred Processor....

All this runs FS 2004 wonderfully at max settings with my Frame Rates locked at 22 FPS.

There is nothing I can do to upgrade my system at the moment. My Processor is the fastest for Socket A, and my Graphics card is the latest for AGP slots.

It would be nice to get a Motherboard to include a socket for more recent Processors, (Intel/AMD), and an AGP slot as well as PCIe slots, to enable continued use of my AGP Card for a while! (save money!)...!

My PSU is plenty big enough (700 Watt), but I would need the later memory types. (DDR 400MHz. 184 pin at the mo').

This would speed my system up somewhat, (especially for FSX)... ...!

All is fine at the moment, but an upgrade would make most of my present hardware obsolete!

Paul...Home-build computers.... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]....!