Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best combo for Flight Simulator X???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 29, 2007 8:44:50 PM

Best combo for Flight Simulator X???

Processor, Motherboard, amount of memory, video card.....

More about : combo flight simulator

April 29, 2007 9:02:52 PM

Quote:
Best combo for Flight Simulator X???

Processor, Motherboard, amount of memory, video card.....


How much money you got?
April 29, 2007 9:09:33 PM

Quote:
Best combo for Flight Simulator X???

Processor, Motherboard, amount of memory, video card.....


How much money you got?

:p  :p 
Related resources
April 29, 2007 9:20:00 PM

Quote:
Best combo for Flight Simulator X???

Processor, Motherboard, amount of memory, video card.....

Processor: E6600 is fine. For some odd reasons, FSX is only single threaded. It'll chew your one core to pieces, while leaving the other sitting around. So if you can OC E6600 to about 3.2 or up, you'll be fine. If not, E6700 will also do.

Motherboard: if you want SLI, nVidia 680i will do. If not, 650 can do.

Memory: FSX is a memory hogger. I would say at least 2Gb of memory if you're running on XP.

Video Card: 8800GTS 320Mb should do. I'm currently running @ 1024 x 768, at around 30FPS. if you want more, you might have to go and get 8800GTX.
April 29, 2007 9:55:13 PM

They are working on a patch to help FSX to better utilize Dual core or greater CPUs, but even then it is likely to still be a CPU limited game as opposed to a GPU limited one. No matter what get the fastest CPU you can afford.

Memory...lots...2 gig min. 4 gig will be better, esp. in Vista, you want Vista because.....

....DX10...the second patch coming for FSX is the DX10 patch, this will likely be the first true DX10 game available. However due to the CPU limited aspect mentioned, it is likely that it will still only need a mid range DX10 card to see everything that the processor can move through it.

Hard drives...get a fast drive dedicated to the game. A Raptor would be nice...this game moves a lot of small files, so access time is very important and nothing beats the access time of a Raptor except a SSD.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b V Motherboard
April 29, 2007 10:14:42 PM

Can you afford 3 really large LCD flat panels?
April 29, 2007 10:22:56 PM

'Best for FSX' basically means 'Best out there'. That damned thing can bring any system to its knees.
April 29, 2007 11:02:10 PM

ok...

What about ASUS Crosshair or commando motherboards?

I noticed the single core processors over 3ghz are coming way down in price. If FSX is singlethread, until dual or quad processors come down in price should I go for a robust single core processor?
April 29, 2007 11:49:26 PM

Quote:
ok...

What about ASUS Crosshair or commando motherboards?

I noticed the single core processors over 3ghz are coming way down in price. If FSX is singlethread, until dual or quad processors come down in price should I go for a robust single core processor?


I havn't seen any worthwhile prices for singles, like FX-57 is still like $500 lol
a c 108 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b V Motherboard
April 30, 2007 12:02:04 AM

It is my understanding that you can *trick* the cpu affinity settings in Task Manager to spread the workload over 2 (or more?) cores.

Here is a screenshot . . .


The forum thread claims big gains in fps and came from here - - - > http://flyawaysimulation.com/postt21628.html

As noted it would not function as a true multithreaded app until future programming updates but would improve operability.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b V Motherboard
April 30, 2007 12:34:16 AM

Quote:
Best combo for Flight Simulator X???

Processor, Motherboard, amount of memory, video card.....



Motherboard: TYAN S2877ANRF-RS R - - $260

Processor: (2) AMD Opteron 256 Troy 3.0GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket 940 - - $1,050

Memory: (2) 2G KVR400D4R3A/2G - 4gb total (4 sticks) - - $533

Power Supply: SILENCER 610 EPS12V RT - - $170

Video: (2) EVGA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB 384-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 - - $1,300

Monitors: (3) W4207 Westinghouse 42" Flat-Panel LCD HD Monitor - - $3,600

OS: OEM Win XP Pro64 - - $140

With all the other necessarty bells and whistles - - - probably less than $7,500 . . .

:) 
April 30, 2007 12:34:29 AM

ACES is saying that the patch for multi core support will be out in the next couple of weeks so don't go single core.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b V Motherboard
April 30, 2007 12:54:23 AM

I hate changing my mind but we may as well go with the Santa Rosa 2222SE's and the Tyan S2927A2NRF - Add about $3,000 . . .
April 30, 2007 1:11:35 AM

Quote:
Best combo for Flight Simulator X???

Processor, Motherboard, amount of memory, video card.....



Motherboard: TYAN S2877ANRF-RS R - - $260

Processor: (2) AMD Opteron 256 Troy 3.0GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket 940 - - $1,050

Memory: (2) 2G KVR400D4R3A/2G - 4gb total (4 sticks) - - $533

Power Supply: SILENCER 610 EPS12V RT - - $170

Video: (2) EVGA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB 384-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 - - $1,300

Monitors: (3) W4207 Westinghouse 42" Flat-Panel LCD HD Monitor - - $3,600

OS: OEM Win XP Pro64 - - $140

With all the other necessarty bells and whistles - - - probably less than $7,500 . . .

:) 
as said earlier, FSX cannot take the advantage of multicore, so having two CPUs won't help at all.

If you don't mind running at 1024 x 768 for now, i would say having a budget computer of 1,000 will be more than enough.
April 30, 2007 3:01:14 AM

Quote:
It is my understanding that you can *trick* the cpu affinity settings in Task Manager to spread the workload over 2 (or more?) cores.

Here is a screenshot . . .


The forum thread claims big gains in fps and came from here - - - > http://flyawaysimulation.com/postt21628.html

As noted it would not function as a true multithreaded app until future programming updates but would improve operability.


That screen shot still only shows 52% utilization. My experience is most apps and games will do that unless I purposely set affinity to one processor.

I'm sorry but half of one sandwich and half of another identical sandwich still equals one sandwich.
April 30, 2007 3:28:01 AM

Dude, 'best' is dependant on your budget.

Anyways, FS-X is mainly dependant on CPU speed, so get something like an E6420 or E6600 and overclock it to 3GHz+, should make 'ultra high' settings playable @ ~30fps.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_093c.html

RAM, the more the merrier obviously. 2GB minimum I would say.

Motherboard, there are heaps of choices, the Intel P965 and nVidia 650i/680i based ones are pretty popular atm, it all depends on if you need SLI support or other features. You didn't specify so it's hard to make a suggestion at this stage.

Videocard, as already said the 8800GTS 320MB would be sufficient to run the game at the highest settings the CPU can manage.
April 30, 2007 4:18:49 AM

Quote:
I hate changing my mind but we may as well go with the Santa Rosa 2222SE's and the Tyan S2927A2NRF - Add about $3,000 . . .


If you're going all out it may as well be two quad core cpus. :p 
April 30, 2007 11:26:14 AM

If I had the bucks I might as well get an Alienware computer, but I don't. How about some realistic recommendations with a budget between 1000 and 1500.
April 30, 2007 11:51:37 AM

Quote:
Processor: (2) AMD Opteron 256 Troy 3.0GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket 940 - - $1,050
A single QX6700 would be a faster and more energy efficient choice.
April 30, 2007 12:42:54 PM

Why would you buy Alienware? Over priced Dell = Alienware. You can build one of their "elite" systems for about half the price they charge.

Here's a build for about 1500 bucks that should handle it tho....

EVGA 680i MoBo
Core 2 Duo 2.4 (Don't waste money on a single core proc)
2 GB DDR2 1066 Corsair XMS Dominator (on special at Newegg)
EVGA 8800 GTX (on special @ Newegg)
Either 75 or 150 GB WD Raptor 10k SATA HD

I'm sure you can figure out the rest, but there's the core of the system.

BTW - noone has said it yet, but don't waste money on a single core proc. With virtually everything coming out now either being, or capable of being multi-threaded, it's just dumb to go single. Besides, that 2.4 C2D can OC to 2.8 or better at stock voltage, on stock cooling. If you go for an extreme overclock, you may have to move up a notch or two on RAM speeds, but I know the Dominator is pretty reliable.
April 30, 2007 1:34:17 PM

The best you can get?
Just saying...
a c 108 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b V Motherboard
April 30, 2007 2:10:10 PM

I'd buy a cheap mobo/cpu combo (like a Gigabyte GA-945GZM-S2 and a Celeron Prescott 2.66GHz).

I'd buy a Seagate sata 3gb/s hard drive - 400gb 16mb cache

I'd buy a really nice power supply and case along with 2Gb of really good *flexible* RAM.

And then I'd buy something like an EVGA GeForce 8800gts 320mb and a 19-inch LCD flat panel.

With a good DVD burner you should be under $1,100 total.

I'd install that copy of XP yah got laying around and save up $1,000 over the next 6-8 months.

Then I'd dump the mobo/cpu - and yah still got a bunch of options

You could go sli with another 8800gts 320mb (and another 19-inch LCD flat panel - or 2?) . . . .

Agena will be out and Penryn will be right around the corner. The CD2's will be 40% less cost as will the mobo.

By that time a copy of WinV spk1 should be out and MS will be giving it away . . .
April 30, 2007 2:17:29 PM

Quote:
I'd buy a cheap mobo/cpu combo (like a Gigabyte GA-945GZM-S2 and a Celeron Prescott 2.66GHz).


Worst.Advice.Ever.

FPS is the most CPU bound game to date, and you recommend a Celeron D 2.66GHz. :roll: :roll: :roll:

It's like telling someone to play Oblivion with integrated video.
April 30, 2007 2:56:07 PM

What ever other equipment you get, make sure you can run three monitors, preferably at least 19" LCD's. I'm running FSX on a 6600 oc'd to 3.2, AW9D-Max, 4 gig 6400 memory 1:1, X1900XTX with Crossfire card, 3 Syncmaster 204B's. Got my front, left and right views running all at the same time. FPS always is decent.
April 30, 2007 3:03:09 PM

You're going to need something damn powerful to handle FSX. It slows even the fastest system.

I recommend a Core 2 Duo E6600 with a Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 or DQ6 as the base. For RAM, any one of these sets are good for what you need. For GFX, you need the fastest card there is, which is definitely the 8800 GTX. I recommend this one from Foxconn.
April 30, 2007 3:22:08 PM

Money no problemo ?

Get those Striker or EVGA.
QX6700, OCed it.
Get 2 8800GTX.
Get 4GB RAM
Get 4 HDD then RAID 0 them. Raptor aren't obligation, but if you can afford them, it's better.

FSX will release patch soon (this year) and apparently "more cores" aren't issue anymore and it'll support DX10.

FSX aren't optimize for SLI, but it support multi monitor. With 4 DVI output you can have 4 monitors and you can create an amazing view in FSX.

RAID 0 ?
Well, FSX is a games with big scenery, lots of components need to be loaded on the beginning of the games and while in the games. Those RAID will help you to reduce the loading times and reduce skipping between changing the view.

That's it. Have a good fly, sir.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b V Motherboard
April 30, 2007 3:43:36 PM

Quote:
I'd buy a cheap mobo/cpu combo (like a Gigabyte GA-945GZM-S2 and a Celeron Prescott 2.66GHz).


Worst.Advice.Ever.

FPS is the most CPU bound game to date, and you recommend a Celeron D 2.66GHz. :roll: :roll: :roll:

It's like telling someone to play Oblivion with integrated video.

And your recommendation would be ... ??? :?:

A $500 mobo/cpu combo that will be worth $250 or less in six months?

A dual core processor that FSX will not utilize ???

PCIe x16 SLI with x8 or worse lanes that has been recommended ???

I recommended a mobo/cpu combo that costs $100 with a cpu that can be OC'ed over 3.6ghz - even a caveman like you could do it.

I recommended a mobo with a 1066 FSB that will support a X6800 stock at 2.93GHz with 4MB L2 cache. A cpu which costs $980 TODAY . . . .

I recommended a roadmap with an intial total cost of $1,100 with a goal by the end of the year
of TRUE SLI x16 and *TRIP* 19-inch LCD's for a cost of an additional $900 to $1,000.

Flame-on Beeg Boi . . . .
April 30, 2007 5:14:34 PM

Slicesoul has been the closest in his recommendations so far but his recommended equipment is a little to high-end to fit your budget. Its clear to me that the people who keep recommending core 2 duos haven't been following FSX developments closely, and have instead based their recommendations on general core 2 duo supremacy. I think its great they are trying to help but I know you can do better than an E6600.

The Microsoft Aces Team (group respobsible for FSX development) have been blogging about FSX enhancements in the upcoming service pack release. Phil Taylor (Aces Team lead) has said that the SP1 patch will essentially take advantage of multiple cores and people will see a performance increase from having a quad core. Essentially, FSX will become multi-threaded in the SP1 update. The SP1 patch isn't released yet so we don't know the true impact of the multi-threading on a quad core. Based on the significant performance increase in other multi-threaded applications, however, a quad core may have a huge impact on FSX. SP1 was supposed to be released in late April, but they encountered some problems in Beta 3 and they have pushed back release until May.

After they finish SP1, the ACES team will start working on the DX10 patch for FSX. They hope that can be done in September. Although Phil Taylor is loathe to recommend any specific hardware, he did make an off the cuff statement that seems to favor the ATI DX10 solution. He said something to the effect that DX10 might be harder to implement because of the different approaches taken by ATI and NVIDIA and trying to figure out why ATIs geometry shaders were so much better than NVIDIA.

So, for a new computer under $1500 to run FSX, you should definitley aim for a budget quad core processor and then the best DX10 card you can buy. The Q6600 keeps falling in price and is a reasonable $550.00. If the ATI 2900 XT is as good as it seems, and is in the $400.00 price range, than that might be a good option for a video card. You can get some good RAM for $200.00. That leaves you $350.00. I don't know what other components for the computer you already have, but I would invest in a good motherboard and power supply before I messed with anything else. A good budget mother board is the Gigabyte P965 DS3 and the Corsair HX620 PSU has gotten great reviews everytime a professional evaluator has touched it (thought its pricey).

The main thing is getting the Quad Core processor and the best DX10 card you can afford after that. Happy simming!

Rob
April 30, 2007 5:53:44 PM

I don't understand how someone who recommended a nearly $4000 system is the "closest". He clearly stated he needed the price to be between 1000 and 1500. For 1500, the system I speced is damn near the best performance you are going to find. If he had said money was no object, then duh, quad core would have been a better solution.

A dual core proc will be all he will need once the multi-threded patch is released.

As for the raptors x4, is kinda pointless. I have had 2 36 gig raptors since they came out in RAID 0 and standalone configurations, and I promise you, the RAID doesn't make that big of a performance difference. What makes the raptors fast is their rotational speed and seek times. Now if they were only SATA 3.0....sigh.
April 30, 2007 8:35:47 PM

Quote:
.


Dude, you just recommended a single core netburst based prescott celeron..... probably the worst CPUs ever engineered.
May 1, 2007 1:05:10 AM

Quote:
I don't understand how someone who recommended a nearly $4000 system is the "closest". He clearly stated he needed the price to be between 1000 and 1500. For 1500, the system I speced is damn near the best performance you are going to find. If he had said money was no object, then duh, quad core would have been a better solution.

A dual core proc will be all he will need once the multi-threded patch is released.

As for the raptors x4, is kinda pointless. I have had 2 36 gig raptors since they came out in RAID 0 and standalone configurations, and I promise you, the RAID doesn't make that big of a performance difference. What makes the raptors fast is their rotational speed and seek times. Now if they were only SATA 3.0....sigh.



No one even read the threads anymore. They just skim the OP, and post whatever gibberish they deem important. I think most of the guys here are just trying to get a larger e-pen. . . post count.
May 1, 2007 1:12:43 AM

*Sigh*

I see my suggestion was ignored then.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b V Motherboard
May 1, 2007 1:56:08 AM

Quote:
Dude, you just recommended a single core netburst based prescott celeron..... probably the worst CPUs ever engineered.
Dewwwwwd. The worst?

For $$37 all I gots to say is . . . . "How do you like your Crow"? :lol: 
May 1, 2007 2:44:11 AM

Quote:
Dude, you just recommended a single core netburst based prescott celeron..... probably the worst CPUs ever engineered.
Dewwwwwd. The worst?

For $$37 all I gots to say is . . . . "How do you like your Crow"? :lol: 

Yes, it's crap, and the price proves it too.

With a freaking Celeron D you'll be lucky to get 30fps at low details FFS.

You're way outta your league, stop talking out of your ass, and start thinking with your head. Highly ironic that you mention 'crow'... :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
May 1, 2007 7:52:59 AM

Quote:
Dude, you just recommended a single core netburst based prescott celeron..... probably the worst CPUs ever engineered.
Dewwwwwd. The worst?

For $$37 all I gots to say is . . . . "How do you like your Crow"? :lol: 

You need to stop posting advice to those that come here in need. Stay, read, learn, ask questions, whatever.

STOP giving out advice. You are only going to take someone's day from bad to worse. Leave it to the big boys to answer questions. Thanks.
April 19, 2014 6:28:51 AM

Since XP Support has stopped for my FS9 system (AMD Athlon 64, 8MB), I like to build a new system with FSX and eyefinity. My budget for MO/CPU/GPU/ is $600 and OS-Win7 is $200. I have a 27" LCD monitor and will add monitors (3x32" later).
!