Noelg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9862 times:
For FS9 the new processor probably won't help too much as it only utilises one core of the E6600, but you may see some improvement. SP1 for FSX comes out in the next few weeks which will make FSX use both cores together so there should be some improvement then.
The other thing is that your graphics card will restrict the speed somewhat. I would recommend upgrading that to a Geforce 7950, or even the new DX10 Geforce 8600s that are pretty reasonably priced, and will aid FSX a long way, particularly once the DX10 patch comes out.
Oh and you will need a bigger PSU once you start upgrading components - at least a 400W. You can pick one up for not a lot of money.
Take this piece to the nearest junker and destroy it. It doesn't deserve to be in any gamer's PC.. Well, you can give it to your mother, or your sister's PC.
Like Noelg said, that will slow down your PC, not a bit, but A LOT!! Those beautiful, nice sharpened graphics you see in the screenshots threads, are because of the graphics.. well, also because of the CPU... and also because of the RAM. See, to have great visual effects, it takes 3 components: CPU + Graphics+RAM. If you underestimate any of the tree, your games will not be as pleasant. You can also gain more performance by getting a fast spinning Hard Drive, no less than 7,200 RPM. You'll also notice a big performance increase overall in your whole PC experience by using a RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration (that requires to hard drives).
But yeah, you need a great (not good) graphics card for FSX.
Quoting ,reply=0: Today Intel announced their new 2.93G QX6800 Quad Core processor here.
As part of this press release, Aces Studio participated with a quote about our improved multi-core support in SP1. The quote stated
“The latest version of Microsoft Flight Simulator* X, Service Pack One (SP1), due out later this month, is a great match for the extreme multi-core processing delivered by the new Intel Core 2 Extreme quad-core processor”
“Flight Sim X SP1 greatly increases multicore utilization and will scale as more threads are available leading to reduced load times as well as frame rate improvements and greater visual complexity during flight. The Flight Simulator team at Microsoft is pleased to work with Intel to provide our end users with a great gaming experience."
And I wanted to take some time and explain what this means for FSX and FSX flyers.
Our multi-core support will take advantage of both 2 and 4 cores today, and more cores in the future when they become available via a config setting. This is for both Intel and AMD processors.
Jasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9814 times:
Quoting Noelg (Reply 1): The other thing is that your graphics card will restrict the speed somewhat.
I have used a 6200 (256Mb) card for FS9 and the performance was pretty good for what it was, by todays standards it is a pretty cheap, entry level card by any yardstick. You need to couple it with a decent CPU and RAM (I had a Sempron 2400 and 1Gb of RAM) however. This setup, particularly the graphics card will struggle on FSX though
ReguPilot From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2004, 495 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9811 times:
Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 4): So if I were to upgrade over the next year? I would plan to buy a component every couple of months so whats first in my list. I would play FS9 more as I just like it more Big grin
I would upgrade my CPU very badly AND my Graphics Card. Now, here comes some weird specs from your machine: You're using an Athlon XP 2500+, which relies on DDR 1st generation memory. It is NOT DDR2. To upgrade your processor, you might have to change your motherboard and RAM. Its a smart choice to wait for a bit to upgrade, since DX10 cards are a bit expensive or restricted to the nVidia solution; also, FSX is still not DX10 ready. So by waiting, you might be able to get a really good proven system.
If I were you, I would try to catch the last Athlon 64 4000+ on the market, or the last of the Athlon X2 4600+ using socket 939. That would really increase your FS9 performance at a very cheap price. You will also have to upgrade your motherboard, since AthlonXP fit on sockets 462, not 939. I should point out that the 939 plattaform is dying now, but if you stick to it, you will not have to upgrade your RAM and your Graphics card so quickly. If you, however choose the current AM2 plattaform from AMD, you will have to buy new DDR2 memory, which is not the one you have, and will also have to buy a PCI Express graphics card. Doing that at the moment is still quite cheaper than building a high performance Core 2 Duo PC, but
#1. It will die soon
#2. Is more expensive than getting a new board and a new, cheaper 939 CPU.
#3. Forgot what to write here.. LOL!
So, to save money, I would get:
#1. Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego core (939) $61.99 at Newegg.com
#2. A new board, the Abit AV8 is a great choice (as long as you don't do RAID). - The reason I picked this particular board its because it is the few High Performance 939 boards available that has an AGP slot. Most 939 boards at the moment have PCI Express. However, this is the only board I found in Newegg.com with 939 and AGP.
#3. A new graphics card.This nice geForce 7600GS make do it until you're ready for DX10.
That's what I would do. That's my cheap, great upgrade for the moment. By the time you're ready for DX10, AMD Quad core CPU should be out, and also its graphics solution. Nvidia should have improved its offerings, maybe new 9000 series GPU, and who know what Intel has under its sleeve.
And the Intel chip you are on about getting costs £150
If you ask me it's a no brainer - AMD!!!!!!!!!
It's not as clear cut as it was - these days the Core2Duos and Core2Extreme are getting much better benchmark results than AMD. How long this will last is negotiable, but for the moment the Intel is the way to go!
ReguPilot From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2004, 495 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9764 times:
Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 13): Why waste your money on an Intel chip, you can get an AMD Athlon X2 5000 for £102.21.
Well, as for this moment, getting an Intel chip, namely a Conroe core chip (Core 2 Duo, etc.) is an investment rather than a waste.
Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 13): It's not as clear cut as it was - these days the Core2Duos and Core2Extreme are getting much better benchmark results than AMD. How long this will last is negotiable, but for the moment the Intel is the way to go!
Correct. I also debated over this about a year ago in this forum, but the story was different back then. AMD was the clear leader, and the Conroe architecture was still being tested, but some info on its performance was being leaked. Again, the Intel Conroe architecture is better than AMD current offering in general terms. The Athlon, however, can kick the Pentium's butt in just about every benchmark.
Right, but which one? The Pentium D is a dual core processor. Also the Athlon X2 is Dual Core, and the Core Duo, the Core 2 Duo and the Athlon 64 FX60+.... So which one of those is it?
Quoting Ag92 (Reply 10): AFAIK only the Nvidia 8 Series are direct X compatible
Correct, the only DX10 capable cards in the market today are the nVidia GeForce 8 series cards.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, you can have DX10 installed in your PC while having a GeForce 7 series card. Your games will run fine, and it will be shown that you have DX10. Thing is that, since your card is not DX10 capable, it will not render the DX10 only effects, but the ones your card is capable of. So if you have a DX8 capable card, and you have DX10 installed in your PC... you won't be able to see the nice water reflections in FSX or FS9. Why? Because water reflections are DX9 effects, and your card can only show DX8 effects, EVEN while having DX10 installed in your PC. What you'll end up seeing is a big water texture. No more.
Quoting AirbusA346 (Reply 11): Why waste your money on an Intel chip, you can get an AMD Athlon X2 5000 for £102.21.
This sounds like a very nice price. Problem is that, it's an AM2 based processor, which means he would have to buy new RAM (DDR2) and a new PCI Express board.
Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 9): Seeing as my RAM has just failed on me Sad I am now only running on 512 so I should juist go for all 3
If that is the case, then why not get a whole new system instead. Try getting a nice Athlon X2 based system or, if you can, get an Intel Core based system. The Core 2 Duo E6400 is a good deal but better is the E6600. For the Athlon, I would not get anything lower than the Athlon X2 5600+.
Jamesbaldwyn From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9758 times:
Quoting ReguPilot (Reply 14): Right, but which one? The Pentium D is a dual core processor. Also the Athlon X2 is Dual Core, and the Core Duo, the Core 2 Duo and the Athlon 64 FX60+.... So which one of those is it?
AMD 2500 1.7Ghz
Nvida 6200 128MB
1.23GB DDR2 RAM
230V Power Pack
I am thinking of upgrading my processer to intels E6600 £ 150 and with a motherboard with it.
Also some high speed 1GB RT
I hate to say this but your system is so outdated you would want to just save up and buy a whole new computer. The reality is that as it stands RIGHT NOW, the Intel Core2Duos are the best chips right now as far as benchmark tests go. Not to say it wont change in a week though.
The video card is yucky. I have a D840 3.2 Dual core and I HAD a GeForce 6800. When I upgraded it to a GeForce 8800GTS 640 MB VRam I went from about 20-24 FPS to 35-40 FPS in dense scenery.
The new generation of Video cards will never run on your power supply. The GeForce 8800 recommend a 425 Watt.