Apollo13 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22407 times:
SO im getting a new computer for basic school work but i also decided tht i finally want to use my FSX. Its been sitting of the shelf since the first day it came out.
The specs im looking at right now are an AMD 64 Dual Core Processor. With 2048MB of RAM (or 2GB) and a 300-400 GB Hard Drive. Will FSX Run on a computer such as this and what video or graphics card would you suggest that i buy.
Md11fan From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 111 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 22413 times:
Hmm.. well what is your price range? if its about 1000 then you can get an OK system to run FSX. There are a couple things that need to be taken into view 1.grapics card 2.memory 3.CPU 4.Screen. OK well start with the graphics card if your going to buy a dell, hp etc.. then they usually come with Intel graphics card and if you wana run FSX DO NOT GET A COMPUTER WITH INTEL GRAPHICS no matter how good it is. Look for one that offers a ATI or Nvidia. When looking at specs take the memory of the graphics into perspective, you want something with at least 256 DEDICATED video ram! ok next is memory try and get a setup with atleast 2048MB and see if its either DDR/DDR2/DDR3. DDR is fairly outdated and try not to get one with that. Look for something with DDR2/DDR3 they are much faster and there isn't really a difference between the 2 so don't stress about witch one is the best. the 2 types of CPUs your going to wana look at are the AMD and Intel Core Duo, AMD has there 64x2 and Intel has the core duo. For gaming and overall processing i will always stick with AMD it always makes a better product. the Screen, Look for an ok size screen. and the rule of thumb of buying a LCD or CRT monitor is that the bigger the monitor the bigger and more powerful the Graphics card has to be. For example a Nvidia 7600GS with a 17inch LCD is ok for gaming but switch out the LCD for a 20-22 and the card will start to have a harder time rendering and in turn will produce crapy graphics. I hope this helps and if you got any other questions feel free to ask
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1275 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 22411 times:
Well, the three critical points for FSX are the CPU, Graphics Card, and RAM.
CPU: With the recent price drops on the Intel Q6600 and FSX's new service pack supporting multi-cores, this might be a good option. Intel has been dominating the market for some time now, and the current line-up leaves AMD's top chips in a dead heat with mid-range Intels. AMD, of course, has compensated for this by dropping prices, so you might get a better price/performance deal with them.
GPU: The big question iwth graphics is if you want to go for DirectX 10. FS will be upgraded to support DX10 before the end of the year, and if you want to take advantage of this you most likely want to look into an NVIDIA 8 series card. ATI also offers some competitively priced DX10 cards. For FSX, its recommended you look into one good card, don't expect great Performance by stringing two lesser cards together. If you can afford it, I'd look at the NVIDIA 8800 GTX or GTS (the 640mb version). The 320mb 8800 GTS and the 8600 series cards might be an option if you are looking for a better price.
RAM: You can't have too much. Keep in mind, if you want to run more than 3gb or so of RAM (depends on your GPU) you will need a 64 bit operating system. 2048mb is the minimum if you are running FSX on Vista. I'd suggest not worrying about DDR3 for now--the performance gain is minimal and the price jump is huge. You'd be better off buying more less expensive DDR2.
B727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 22122 times:
Go the biggest and fastest you can find and afford
Below are some of the components of the system I recently put together:
CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 8MB cache
RAM Kingston KVR667D2N5/1G 2 x 1GB 667MHz DDR2
Hard Drive Seagate 320GB SATA drive
Graphics XFX 8800GTS 320MB 1.6GHz PCIe
Monitor Acer AL2216WD 22" Wide
Now this system still struggles to run the current version of FSX (with SP1 installed) in the monitor's native screen resolution of 1680x1050, but I have not tried a lower res as yet. I am hoping that SP2 and eventually the upgrade to full DX10 will bridge the gaps and make this as playable and enjoyable as FS9, but with the extra eye-candy that FSX delivers
If these updates don't make a great deal of difference to performance I have left enough upgrade scope with my base hardware to go to an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 (2.6GHz) and more importantly the 8800 Ultra graphics card. I would also consider going up to 4GB of the current RAM, but not sure if upgrading totally to 4GB of the 800MHz RAM is worth the extra bucks.
My system including operating system cost about AU$2,000 (about US$1,600), and would be looking at about AU$1,000-AU$1,200 more (US$800-US$1,000) if I had have gone the faster CPU, GPU and 4GB of RAM. Based on what I have seen so far the big-end system is going to give reasonable performance, but not sure if it is worth the $$$ right now considering it still ain't gonna give you 20+ FPS with all the sliders to the right with the current version of FSX.
My recommendation would be, based on very recent experiece, if you can't afford the best available then wait until FSX goes full DX10 and spec your hardware then.
ZuluLima From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 444 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21985 times:
I have nearly the same setup you described:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ with 2GB DDR2 RAM (graphics card is ATI radeon X800XL with 256MB DDR3) on a 19" 1280 x 1024 digital LCD.
Hard drive is irrelevant as long as you have the space you need.
This is not nearly enough to run FSX. Sure, you can cut down the frame rates to choppy-time, or lower the scenery and special effects to medium, but that looks worse than FS9 by a noticeable margin (thus defeating the purpose of buying a newer and better sim). I have both installed on my PC and always run FS9. In my opinion FSX is an unbelievable sim with features that are so top-notch that they are simply too CPU intensive to run on any reasonably fast system. You need a twin-dual core setup with 4GB or more to get it right (I've seen this at the store, and it does fairly well) but good luck with funding.
I've heard of people getting good frame rates with lesser machines than mine, but have never seen that in person. I've tried every setup combination known to man (target frame rate, draw distance, texture density, air/water traffic, etc.) to get an acceptable looking/functioning display, but this spec. machine just won't cut it. (disclaimer: I haven't installed the 64-bit friendly update yet). I may soon try doubling to 4GB RAM and crossfire (dual) graphics cards and the service pack, but honestly don't see it making enough difference to be able to have lots of traffic (still not nearly as much as the real world) and awesome weather/reflections/textures and even the wildlife that comes with FSX with frame rates that don't noticeably chop. I hate to be a downer, but my advice is to buy the best you can afford and then run FS9 in full ultra-high setup when FSX bogs you down.
AcroAirFun From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21379 times:
I have Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 GHz, 2048 MB (2GB) of DDR2 RAM, GeForce 8800GTS 320 MB graphic card, Seagate Barracuda 160GB Hard Disk, ASUS Striker Extreme, Nvidia NForce chipset and 19" analog LCD (1280x1024).
It works fine on Ultra High settings. Over the ocean I have about 30 FPS, at "cross-country" trip I usually have 20-25 FPS and over London and Las Vegas at night it's about 12-18 FPS.
It never goes above 90% of CPU on first core and 30% on second core.
Everything is flexible if you know how to bend it.
Sv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21379 times:
Quoting SpenceSaab (Reply 9):
Does anybody know if my graphics card (Nvidia GeForce 7600GS SLI 256mb) will support DirectX 10?
No your card dosn't support DX10 features, only DX 9.0c.
But you might as well upgrade the dx version anyway to 10 because it is backwards compatitable and might offer other benefits. It's free anyway and some games might require it. You just won't get some hardware dx10 features until you upgrade. There might be improvements in software though (don't have dx10 so haven't tried it).
InbarD From Israel, joined Jan 2007, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 21342 times:
Stick with Intel for the time being, they have the best current product. If you don't want to spend too much i would advise you on getting, an intel core2 duo machine, 2gb ram, 8800GTS 320MB (640mb adds pretty much no performance), don't bother with getting two 7600GS in SLi they are DX9 and are very slow.
I have a pretty bad system (AMD64 3000+ @2.7GHZ, 1gb ram, X800, ASUS mobo) and i can get pretty good frame rates on medium on FSX. Ever since the Service Pack came out my FPS has been increased by a huge amount, before the service pack it wasn't playable on medium, now its pretty smooth.
Plus don't spend too much. PC's get out dated way too fast, just buy a decent computer (medium end) for now and if you need a better component just upgrade it later, well thats what i think at least.