Taking the plunge!

[Daube]

Well, yes and no.
Even on most modern and powerfull computer, you'll have to adjust the tweaks in the FSX.cfg (for example the texture_bandwith_mult) if you want a real good performance.

[hhomebrewer]

FSX is an "Install and go" program that runs just fine, on computers running near 4GHz, with modern videocards... and is a simming experience in another league.

Are there computers running at stock clock that approach 4GHz? I didn't think so. I am not too up on the latest $1000, six-core chips from intel or whomever. I read in the reviews about people who have bought chips from newegg and proceed to clock them at 3.6 or so. Above that, they tend to go crazy unless cooled by a system capable of freezing a good Polish vodka. Not for me. Like Fozzer, I like the old stuff...

[Slotback]

FSX is an "Install and go" program, that runs just fine, on midrange gaming computers purchased over the past couple of years. These included higher clocked variants of the Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, Phenom and Phenom II. These computers are perfectly FSX capable although an overclocked Core i7 would blow them away. An AMD x2 6000+ is slower than the slowest Core 2 Duo which came out four years ago, thus it is no surprise that it is getting inadequate performance. Honestly I find it amazing how high the system requirements for FSX are despite the extremely dated graphics.

Couple of things:

Ghz ONLY matters if you know the ARCHITECTURE of the processor.

There are no processors running stock at near 4ghz that I would encourage anyone to buy simply because they don't get a whole lot of performance despite the high clock speed. However, a Core i7 however OVERCLOCKED to 4ghz will be insanely fast.

Homebrewer the Phenom II is practically brand new and is a really good processor.

My philosophy is this:

Don't look at ghz. Instead compare the Core i5 Quad Core, Phenom II, and Core i7 based on performance using benchmarks. Find the fastest in your price range and then go and buy it. If you're into overclocking then look at ones which when overclocked are the fastest for your price range. All of them should run FSX fine although you still get pretty what you pay for although some things are definitely better value than others.

[Brett_Henderson]

Yes, architecture is important, but for what the mortal can comprehend; it boils down to the number of cores; the cahce(s), and how the cache(s) are used..

The decision has been made easy for us...

[Slotback]

[quote]

[flaminghotsauce]

It's important to point out that what one considers good performance is an individual perspective. I consider my FSX to be giving me good performance. My rig is a stock HP AMD quad-core Phenom running at 2.5 ghz not overclocked 64 bit, Windows 7 64 bit, 6 gigs of ram, 512 mg NVidia card, and this morning I was flying over the Grand Canyon getting smooth performance at over 40 FPS. All sliders and settings to at least high.

FSX for me is not quite as smooth as FS9 set wide open all sliders to the right, but still very smooth. Very smooth. No jitters, no stutters, or any artifacts. This is totally acceptable performance for ME as I don't fly PMDG or whatever into the busiest airports in the world with five million other aircraft taxiing about and ground crews, etc.

By way of comparison, FS9 on the maximum possible settings everywhere is smooth like a movie. Buttery smooth. However, I don't have any payware aircraft to make FS9 look really nice. I'm still using stock or freeware aircraft. The stock airplanes are not exactly crisply detailed, but for flying purposes they work great.

Your mileage may vary depending on how freaking hard you want to push it. The harder you want to push it, the more money you have to spend. I'm pleased with my $500 computer and FSX.

[Brett_Henderson]

Comparing cache, number of cores, and clock speed can be misleading because that would paint the picture that the Q9550 outperforms the Core i5 750, despite the opposite being true. Like I said, only compare ghz if you can take into account the entire architecture (and architecture would include cache), otherwise just compare the relative performances of them using benchies. You said my Q6600 has a 'tiny' cache which was amusing because the majority of Core i7's being sold have the same amount of cache. Hence architecture.

All of this can be mis-leading..lol  But for this reference.. a Q9550 CAN  outperform an i5-750, and that's why the Q9550  STILL demands a 50% higher price, than the i5-750. 

As for the cost.. an i7-920 can be had for about $270.. and with a reasonable O/C, is a better FSX CPU than even the most expensive AMD's.

Now granted, if you have no intention of O-clocking, you'll get more performance for the dollar out of an AMD, but we're talking about performance levels that can't run FSX very well... so it's moot.

[Groundbound1]

Well, I'll say this. I had a budget of about $200 to build a machine to run FSX. I think I did all right.

Like I said, I have no issues with how FSX runs, even on my machine. Performance isn't the issue for me. (No issues at all really) For me personally, coming from FS9, on which I'd spent literally YEARS modifying textures, making custom effects, testing and tuning the performance of most of my aircraft (not for realism necessarily, but for fun) and what ever else, I just dread having to do it all over again with a new sim.

In fact, I'd lost everything I had done to FS9 about a year ago after a hard drive failure (my own fault, I do regular backups now

[Brett_Henderson]

BTW, If Alrot was still here I'd thank him too, but thanks for a great job on the 310 Brett! (It was one of the first FSX models I downloaded!)

You're quite welcome 

And if I can be un-humble.. performance was key in making my FSX models (especially the Bonanza).. I think they provide reasonable model-quality, balanced with being useable on slower machines..

I recently walked by the PC Games section in Best Buy.. and saw the PMDG 747 for $30  (it's normally $60).. so I snatched it up. Holy moly, it is an incredible model (take me months to figure out all the systems and fly it realistically).. but ugh.. it brings my computer to its knees at a crowded airport..

I'd say,, at 4 years into its life, you should be building an FSX computer that can handle nice payware, at big airports.. which means it's time to upgrade from what I  thought  was a good FSX PC..   :D

[Slotback]

[quote]But for this reference.. a Q9550 CAN

[Daube]

Those are very interesting and clear conclusions.
Thanks a lot NNNG.
I'm thinking of kicking out my poor old Q6600 (that can hardly be overcloked to 2,75GHz only, because of the rest of my hardware I suppose). I'll have to think about a budget, but this i7 920 or 930 overclock is sounding quite nice to my ears

[Brett_Henderson]

This isn't that complicated a topic.. We're not talking about $3000, cutting edge gaming computers here.

I'm guessing that's why it has the sky high price - because spending $280 on a Q9550 is cheaper than buying a $180 faster i5 750 AND a new motherboard AND new DDR3

You guessed wrong.. CPU

[hhomebrewer]

So where is Alrot?

[Slotback]

This isn't that complicated a topic.. We're not talking about $3000, cutting edge gaming computers here.

No, it's not, it's an incredibly simple topic if I don't have to explain basics.

[quote]You guessed wrong.. CPU

[Groundbound1]

This isn't that complicated a topic.. We're not talking about $3000, cutting edge gaming computers here.

I'm guessing that's why it has the sky high price - because spending $280 on a Q9550 is cheaper than buying a $180 faster i5 750 AND a new motherboard AND new DDR3

You guessed wrong.. CPU