Flying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2427 posts, RR: 9 Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day ago) and read 6712 times:
Maybe I'll buy a new PC next summer. One important thing in my choice will be that it can run FSX without any problem.
So, which configuration do you advise me ?
1024mb RAM ? 2048mb ?
Would a 512mb video card be enough ?
Dan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6688 times:
You don't need to go crazy, and don't go out and spend all your money just for a video card with 512MB of ram. 256MB is more than enough, unless you want to go crazy and drop out a huge wad of cash. Whats your budget?
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
AMD Athlon 64 x2 4400+ 2.2GHz Socket 939 Dual Core 2GHz FSB 2MB Cache
Abit KN8 SLI Nvidia nForce4 2000MHz Front Side Bus, Firewire, USB 2.0, SPDIF, SATA Raid Controller
2GB PC3200 DDR2 400MHz
ATi Radeon X800XL 256MB GDDR3 PCI-Express X16
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 4 24-Bit
250GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 SATA-150
Dual DVD / CD-RWs
What do you guys think ?
Built it 4 months ago....
A config similar to the one above should run FS9 with no problems. The only issue I could see with the rig above is the video card. the x800 chipset is aging quickly. It'll run fs9, but if you turn on any of the eye candy (anti-aliasing and antistropic filtering) and higher resolutions (1280x1024 for example (what I'm running)), it'll start to get rough. I have a 7800GT OC and it does FS9 alright with all the eye candy, but FSX should be a little rougher with older video chipsets (even mine) due to the lighting effects and more detailed textures in FSX. I suggest you save for a better video card if you want all the eye candy like in the screenshots Microsoft's been putting out.
AC21365 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6531 times:
Quoting LawrenceMck (Reply 7): You can now get 1GB graphics cards which would be plenty, also, 4 Gig of RAM would be a big plus towards FSX.
Problem with running 4gb of ram (on AMD systems at least) is that most boards only have 4 ram slots and can only handle 1gb per slot. If you run 4 sticks of ram as opposed to 2, you'll have to run the memory timing at 2T timing instead of 1T. 1T is faster than 2T. Hopefully AMD's newer chips will have memory controllers that'll run 4 sticks at 1T, but that has yet to be seen as far as I know.
Kaktusdigital From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6491 times:
Just make sure u get an SLI board, and grab ureself a nice 7900GTX. regardless ure gonna fall behind, but at least you have the option to purchase a secondary video card and put it in when u can afford it.
NorthwestEWR From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1384 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6467 times:
My current system ( See above ) can run FS9 with full AI, maxed settings, full Anti-Aliasing, full antistropic filtering, 1680 x 1050 at a FlyTampa airport in the PMDG 747 at 30 FPS. Once FSX comes out I plan on upgrading my video card so that I can run it well. Sample screenshot from my current PC : http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/rolldog393/ha121.jpg