Bekol From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2001, 44 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 11334 times:
Hello,
I am planning to build a new PC for FSX. The budget is about US$1,300. I have been reading posts regarding the CPU and display card and finally come out with this specification.
20X DVD+/-RW
INT. Card reader
OnBoard 7.1 HD Audio
OnBoard 10/100/1000 Lan Card
ATX Case + RF405 485W P.S.
In additon, I am also planning to buy a 22' LCD monitor to have a higher enjoyment.
I am not sure whether this spec is enough for flying with high density w/ max/many autogen scenery and for future add-ons such as Wilco Publishing Airbus Series 2.
I have read some posts regarding this Q6600 CPU and the Core 2 Duo E6750 1333MHz 4MB CPU. Some suggest that the E6750 is performing just at a slightly slower loading speed than the Q6600 but other performances are just the same. But these two cards is differentiated by about US$90. I wonder if it is worth going for the Q6600 or just the E6750.
Any comment/suggestion/advice on the spec would be very much appreciated! Thank you very much.
Bekol From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2001, 44 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11281 times:
Thanks for all your valuable comments and suggestions!
It appears that, even with this spec, I may not be able fly FSX smoothly & perfectly in those built up areas, let alone to install some highly-detailed sceneries/aircraft that would probably be released in the future.
So I may now consider to build a pc that would be ready for upgrades in 1 or 2 years time when there are more supports (both hardware & software) for FSX available and I will stay at FS9 for the time being.
I am thinking whether to get the 8600GTS card instead of the 8800GTS as it is some hundreds cheaper and i could get more than happy graphics and frame-rates on FS9. On the other hand, I also wonder whether I should go for the Q6600 or Core 2 Duo E6750 1333MHz 4MB.
Any comments or suggestions would be much appreciated! Thanks again for all the comments.
Zenarcade From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 11263 times:
At work so I cannot type a proper reason why, but trust me get the 8800GTS. I recently (yesterday) returned my 8600GTS for the 8800GTS and I saw a good improvement.
The 8800GTS is far more powerful and can handle more.
If a plane falls on the tarmac and no one is there, does it make any sound? - Starlionblue
Genius12 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 189 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11253 times:
That system looks fine that you suggest, Bekrol. However, I would consider upgrading the memory from 2GB to 4GB, as FSX can be a little bit jumpy even with 2GB and (although very infrequently) give a 'lack of system memory' message.
Alternativley, you could consider (if you're loading the PC with Vista Home Premium/Vista Ultimate) using the Windows ReadyBoost technology by inserting an empty 1GB USB data stick to up the memory temporarily.
Goinv From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 262 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11229 times:
Quoting Genius12 (Reply 6): Alternativley, you could consider (if you're loading the PC with Vista Home Premium/Vista Ultimate) using the Windows ReadyBoost technology by inserting an empty 1GB USB data stick to up the memory temporarily.
I've tried 2 different USB sticks and both times it says they are not fast enough - what do you have to use?
Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
Bekol From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2001, 44 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11228 times:
Thanks for all the inputs. The info are all very helpful!
I will probably go for 4GB RAM and 8800GTS.
As for the CPU, I read from other FS forums (e.g. from avsim) and it appears that FSX do support Quad Core, but the improvement, as compared with the Duo Core, is insignificant (a little bit faster in start-up but almost no improvement on fps). So I would probably go for the E6750 and test whether it can run FSX smoothly. If not, I will just stay at FS9 and wait for a few years for a better display card or more RAM.
Thank you once again for all your suggestions! My mind wouldn't be so clear without your helps! Please do advice me if you have further suggestions. Thank you!!
Sv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11199 times:
Delete
The message you were about to post is too short and probably not of any higher value to the topic at hand. You should think long and hard before posting a message in this forum and make it detailed and a valuable addition to the topic discussed.
Avoid posting "Me Too" messages. These are messages that are posted by people who agree to a point being discussed and post a one liner, "me too!", "Good post Jim!", "I disagree" or similar message. This takes up time as readers must sort through these messages which have no real value to the group at large. Any message containing nothing more than a line or two of text is probably not worth posting.
If you have an opinion on a topic, you should in detail express why you have the opinion and what made you come to that conclusion.
Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.
Genius12 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 189 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11164 times:
Quoting Goinv (Reply 8): I've tried 2 different USB sticks and both times it says they are not fast enough - what do you have to use?
The USB stick must be USB 2.0 compatible (and plugged into a USB 2.0 port) and must be able to access data at least at 3.5Mbps (megabits per second). Microsoft recommend you use a data stick with the same capacity as your RAM inside your PC, or greater. For example, if your PC has 1GB of RAM, use a 1GB data stick or greater capacity.
B727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11136 times:
That original system that you quoted Bekol is almost identical to the one I have just upgraded to (running Vista Home Premium). As usual, it appears to work OK until there are heavy clouds and rain - in fact - it is almost unplayable in this situation (about 4fps). I have also had it crash often telling me that I do not have enough RAM - who would have thought that 2GB was not enough . I have had some problems with the game not displaying correctly too, particularly in window mode (display is like looking through a venetian blind).
I am going to play around with the sliders, but essentially will be waiting for the DX10 service pack before really getting stuck into it. In the mean time I might give FS9 a bash on the new machine - if I can get all the addon stuff accross from my old XP box.
I have this motherboard - it wouldn't recognise more than 3Gb of RAM until I upgraded to Vista 64bit.
According to my PC the slowest bit is the 6600 Core 2 Duo processor.
I'm not sure whether you're aware but Vista has a Windows Experience Index. 1.0 is crap thro to 5.9 which is the best. My 6600 scores 5.3. 4Gb DDR2 800 RAM scores 5.7. 8800 GTS graphics scores 5.9
Of course these figures are not the best guidelines but I would go for the E6750 processor.
Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2001, 44 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 262 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 256 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 85 posts, 
Heres hoping.
From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, 
. I have had some problems with the game not displaying correctly too, particularly in window mode (display is like looking through a venetian blind).
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
