Is this good enough for F. simulator X

[no1donjuan]

Hi all,

Firstly thanks for taking the time to read this.

My boss has asked me to purpose build a PC and buy FSX for his son as he absolutely loves FS. He wants it done as a surprise. His son is quiet technically minded so I want to put a bit of effort into the build and get a wow factor when he opens it up.

Now I have been on the net for the last 3 days and everyone has different opinions so I said I'd ask about the following spec and will it be an EXCELLENT system for FSX.


DUALCORE PREBUILD (1)

INTEL P4 3.8GHZ LGA 775 CPU & COOLER (1)

2GB of DDR2 6400 (800 MHz) RAM at CAS 4 or lower

250GB SATA HARD DISK DRIVE 720 (1)

DVD RW IDE BLACK BEZEL (1)

MS VISTA HOME PREMIUM 32-BIT OEM (1

GAINWARD BLISS 8800GTX PCX TV DUAL DVI - GRAPHICS ADAPTER - GF 8800 GTX - PCI EXPRESS X16 - 768 MB GDDR3 - DIGITAL VISUAL INTERFACE (DVI) - HDTV OUT


Any thoughts guys, will this do the trick for FSX, where should I improve.

many thanks

tim

 

[Assman]

INTEL P4

8O oh no, get core 2 duo :!: what is the budget?

 

[cutthroat]

Do NOT skimp on the CPU, FSX is CPU intensive, go with the best you can afford C2D.

Honestly with my experience with FSX, it's the only game I have come across that is unplayable on my system, P4 3.4GHZ, 2GHz PC5400, 7800GTX. I had to turn the settings down to the point where FS2004 with addons looked way better. I can play any other game out there at max settings and rarely have even a hiccup.

Performance on Vista might be poor right now, DX10 drivers don't work, the FSX DX10 patch is not released, and there are well known problems with game performance in Vista. Also I thought there either was already, or was going to be patched a 64bit executable for FSX, maybe 64bit Vista would be better?

 

[stefx]

I agree. Get a Core 2 Duo CPU

 

[t53186]

Short answer No FN way.

Get a C2D

I'm running FSX deluxe using a E6600 oc to 3.0ghz. FS looks as real as it gets without any lag or loss of video quality even though I'm using an ATI FireGL workstation card.

 

[sirheck]

everything else looks good.

but get a better cpu. c2d is reccomended.

 

[mcgruff]

Don't forget the interface. Rudder pedals and a good yoke / joystick system will add wow.

 

[piratepast40]

Like others have allready pointed out, FSX is very CPU and memory intensive. Go with the best processor you can afford. You might even want to consider 64 bit so you can effectively utilize more memory. There are several indepth forums dedicated to aviation simulation and you would be well advised to look there also. Avsim happens to be one forum with an extensive hardware and performance section.

Do him a favor with the build and add links to tips and tweeks sections of the forums. Just be carefl about tweeking the program for performance yourself - you might get hooked 8)

 

[cutthroat]

Don't forget the interface. Rudder pedals and a good yoke / joystick system will add wow.

Absolutely if you can afford it, I would love to have this stuff.

 

[CompuTronix]

I agree with cutthroat. FSX will bring the most powerful rig to it's knees.

I ran FPS tests on my system at stock clock 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3, 3.6 and 3.7Ghz. Results showed that FPS scaled 48.6% while CPU scaled 54.2%. This indicates that FSX is 89.7% CPU bound on my rig's configuration, with an X1900XT OC'd to 700 / 1700. You need every bit of CPU horspower you can get. Extreme GPU horsepower has a minimal impact on frame rate in FSX. Check out the following FSX info links:

http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41

http://flyawaysimulation.com/forum24.html

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxOCwxMywsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

For the same money, you could reverse your priorities on the CPU and GPU selections, and have a better Frame rate..

Hope this helps. 8)

 

[everett]

I agree with everyone else.

 

[Wonderwill]

The words "Wow Factor" and "Pentium 4" don't go together. Get a C2D for crying out loud.

 

[bunkgoats]

You need to get a dual core processor. There will be a dual core patch released by Microsoft for FSX. It appears that the patch will be limited to the Vista operating systems. This should make the program run even better on a dual core system. Therefore, ditch the Pentim 4 and get either and Athlon X2 or a Core 2 Duo. I would personally go for the Core 2 Duo.

 

[no1donjuan]

Assman, cutthroat, Stefx, t53186, sirheck, mcgruff, piratepast40, CompuTronix, Everett, Wonderwill, bunkgoats

Many thanks for the advice.
I have altered the makeup and it looks something like this.
One of you asked what my budget was and I'd say its approx 3000 dollars +/- 300

Am I now on the right track. What about a power supply unit? what should I be looking for?

*****************
PREVIOUS MAKE UP
*****************

INTEL P4 3.8GHZ LGA 775 CPU & COOLER (1)

2GB of DDR2 6400 (800 MHz) RAM at CAS 4 or lower

250GB SATA HARD DISK DRIVE 720 (1)

DVD RW IDE BLACK BEZEL (1)

MS VISTA HOME PREMIUM 32-BIT OEM (1

GAINWARD BLISS 8800GTX PCX TV DUAL DVI - GRAPHICS ADAPTER - GF 8800 GTX - PCI EXPRESS X16 - 768 MB GDDR3 - DIGITAL VISUAL INTERFACE (DVI) - HDTV OUT


******************
NEW MAKE UP
*****************

CORE 2 DUO

Intel® Core2 Extreme Processor x6800

2GB of DDR2 6400 (800 MHz) RAM at CAS 4 or lower

250GB SATA HARD DISK DRIVE 720

DVD RW IDE BLACK BEZEL

MS VISTA HOME PREMIUM 64-BIT OEM

GAINWARD BLISS 8800GTX PCX TV DUAL DVI - GRAPHICS ADAPTER - GF 8800 GTX - PCI EXPRESS X16 - 768 MB GDDR3 - DIGITAL VISUAL INTERFACE (DVI) - HDTV OUT

****************

thx

tim

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

This looks waaay better. The only thing is the ram, there may be better (and cheaper) out there not sure tho. Anyone?

 

[CompuTronix]

The X6800 is a waste of money. You could overclock a C2D Xeon 3060, identical to an E6600, except higher bin, and more likely to reach 3.6 Ghz.

 

[commanderspockep]

The X6800 is a waste of money. You could overclock a C2D Xeon 3060, identical to an E6600, except higher bin, and more likely to reach 3.6 Ghz.

I agree. However he is building it for a boss. You will have the chance of it overheating afterwards if you go the OC route. Which translates into more tech calls. I say stick with the X6800 and run it at stock making last longer .

 

[darkstar782]

If you are building the "ultimate" FSX machine....

I'd have 2 150GB Raptors in RAID 0, FSX has massive amounts of data to shift around.

Depending on budget, consider 8800GTX SLi, although I dont think there are SLi DX10 drivers out yet, there will be by the time the DX10 FSX patch is out.

Wouldnt touch the x6800 when the qx6700 is the same price, and also multiplier unlocked.

Will hit around the same overclocks as the x6800, if you want to run close to stock you can just up the multiplier by 1 and have 4*2.93GHz rather than 2*2.93GHz. The dies themselves are still from the top bin.

 

[no1donjuan]

I agree. However he is building it for a boss. You will have the chance of it overheating afterwards if you go the OC route. Which translates into more tech calls. I say stick with the X6800 and run it at stock making last longer .

Commanderspockep,

You hit the nail on the head. i dont want to be going down the OC route myself, his son can play and experiment all he wants, i just want to get a system spec'd that will allow him best result from FSX from 1st installation of program.

any ideas on a power supply?

thx

tim

 

[CompuTronix]

no1donjuan, you've misquoted me above.

commanderspockep wrote:

...You will have the chance of it overheating afterwards if you go the OC route. Which translates into more tech calls. I say stick with the X6800 and run it at stock making last longer.

Overtemp is a non-issue with after market coolers such as the Tuniq Tower. Further, the topic to which you refer regarding CPU longevity, is electromigration. CPU's are designed to run 10+ years, and overclocking has a minor impact on this figure.

darkstar782 wrote:

If you are building the "ultimate" FSX machine....

I'd have 2 150GB Raptors in RAID 0, FSX has massive amounts of data to shift around.

I agree completely. I find that it works very well for me.

Depending on budget, consider 8800GTX SLi, although I dont think there are SLi DX10 drivers out yet, there will be by the time the DX10 FSX patch is out.

FSX is a CPU bound simulation, and DX10 won't change that. A single card is more than enough. Your recommendations for a graphics solution is massive overkill. Please read the previous posts on this thread:

"FSX will bring the most powerful rig to it's knees.

I ran FPS tests on my system at stock clock 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3, 3.6 and 3.7Ghz. Results showed that FPS scaled 48.6% while CPU scaled 54.2%. This indicates that FSX is 89.7% CPU bound on my rig's configuration, with an X1900XT OC'd to 700 / 1700. You need every bit of CPU horspower you can get. Extreme GPU horsepower has a minimal impact on frame rate in FSX. Check out the following FSX info links:

http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41

http://flyawaysimulation.com/forum24.html

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxOCwxMywsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

For the same money, you could reverse your priorities on the CPU and GPU selections, and have a better Frame rate."

Wouldnt touch the x6800 when the qx6700 is the same price, and also multiplier unlocked.

Will hit around the same overclocks as the x6800, if you want to run close to stock you can just up the multiplier by 1 and have 4*2.93GHz rather than 2*2.93GHz. The dies themselves are still from the top bin.

FSX is single threaded, so the QX6700 serves no purpose, which disipates 105 Watts and doesn't overclock as well, compared to the E6800 at 75 Watts. Of those two processors, the E6800 is the better chioce.

 

[darkstar782]

Depending on budget, consider 8800GTX SLi, although I dont think there are SLi DX10 drivers out yet, there will be by the time the DX10 FSX patch is out.

FSX is a CPU bound simulation, and DX10 won't change that. A single card is more than enough. Your recommendations for a graphics solution is massive overkill. Please read the previous posts on this thread:

"FSX will bring the most powerful rig to it's knees.

I ran FPS tests on my system at stock clock 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3, 3.6 and 3.7Ghz. Results showed that FPS scaled 48.6% while CPU scaled 54.2%. This indicates that FSX is 89.7% CPU bound on my rig's configuration, with an X1900XT OC'd to 700 / 1700. You need every bit of CPU horspower you can get. Extreme GPU horsepower has a minimal impact on frame rate in FSX. Check out the following FSX info links:

http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41

http://flyawaysimulation.com/forum24.html

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxOCwxMywsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

For the same money, you could reverse your priorities on the CPU and GPU selections, and have a better Frame rate."

Wouldnt touch the x6800 when the qx6700 is the same price, and also multiplier unlocked.

Will hit around the same overclocks as the x6800, if you want to run close to stock you can just up the multiplier by 1 and have 4*2.93GHz rather than 2*2.93GHz. The dies themselves are still from the top bin.

FSX is single threaded, so the QX6700 serves no purpose, which disipates 105 Watts and doesn't overclock as well, compared to the E6800 at 75 Watts. Of those two processors, the E6800 is the better chioce.

Fair enough, as far as the CPU bound argument goes, but the DX10 patch may change that. It is probably better to wait, rather than buy a 2nd now.

I still stand by the QX6700 over the x6800. A multithread FSX patch is planned. Alot of FSX owners end up buying things like radio stacks and unusual controllers that all need supporting apps running in the background.

The only thing holding QX6700 back from the clocks that x6800 reaches is the extra heat. You can always disable core 2 and 3 in the BIOS leaving only 0 and 1 running for now to counter it, at which point you basically have an x6800. x6800 and e6700 (and qx6700) all come from the same bin imho, hence the 10W higher TDP on the x6800 over e6700.

The QX6700 also has a Tjunction of 100°C rather than 85°C anyway, and can cope with its own slightly higher temps.

 

[escrotumus]

Don't put vista on that machine if you want smooth fps with fsx, yet alone vista 64bit! Nvidia's drivers are crap for all their cards with vista right now. My machine gets about half the fps in fs2004 and about 2/3 the fps in fsx while running in vista compared to xp. Nvidia is ruining the vista parade for all of us for now so until they shape up then stick with xp as your flight sim os. This game is very cpu bound but it still relies on gpu as well for all those neat effects like light bloom, lens flare and water effects. I got a noticeable increase in smoothness when i upgraded to an 8800 from a 7900. Running high levels of AA and AF is possible with the 8800 and not with the 7900. Nvidia's drivers are so poor right now in vista that it kills the frame rate of the game. Just because it is cpu bound does not mean that you can toss in an x1600 and expect decent performance. The game needs both.

I have my e6600 o/c'd to 3.2ghz with settings about 3/4 of the way with light bloom and it is playable but i could stand to use another 5-10fps. Without light bloom its very smooth but light bloom kills the fps but really makes the game look 3x better.

E6600 at 3.2ghz or better with 2gb of ddr2 800+ should be a bare minimum for this pig of a game. They are working on a patch for it to fix some problems and to increase fps but I am not holding my breath for any actual tangible increases seeing as none of their other patches for previous flight sims ever did anything that i could see. After this patch then they are going to release a dx10 patch for it later in the year. This game should really look pretty spectacular in dx10 if they can get the frame rate problems under control....

 

[ph33rgear]

There are tons you could choose from.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Category=32&N=2010320058+4802+4017+1131414179&Submit=ENE&SubCategory=58

to get you started...

I agree. However he is building it for a boss. You will have the chance of it overheating afterwards if you go the OC route. Which translates into more tech calls. I say stick with the X6800 and run it at stock making last longer .

Commanderspockep,

You hit the nail on the head. i dont want to be going down the OC route myself, his son can play and experiment all he wants, i just want to get a system spec'd that will allow him best result from FSX from 1st installation of program.

any ideas on a power supply?

thx

tim

 

[Assman]

new setup looks much better, gl

 

[cutthroat]

If you are building the "ultimate" FSX machine....

I'd have 2 150GB Raptors in RAID 0, FSX has massive amounts of data to shift around.

If you can afford this route, it would be the best way to go. Get another HDD to use for the OS, and two 36GB or 74GB raptors in RAID0 just for FSX. My FS2004 installation is nearly 80GB with the addon's. FSX definately benefits from fast HDD's.

The E6700 is half the price of the X6800, the performance difference is negligible. Faster HDD's or more RAM are a better option for the price if you're going over budget.