I am new to PC gaming and i have just managed to afford a gaming PC. To be able to play FSX on a setting so it looks great would be my gaming dream come true as i have always wanted to be able to play a flight sim and i loved the trial version.
My computer ran the trial version with most things on medium high and with plane detail on high, i don't know what FPS i was getting but it was quick as anything. However i keep reading that the actual game is different in terms of requirements.
My system is
Processor: Q6600@ 2.4ghz
Motherboard: P5N-E-SLI
RAM: 4gb Corsair
GPU: Nvidia GTX 260
PSU: Corsair 550w VX series
Screen res: 1680x1050
I keep reading that this is CPU based and people need a high number of Ghz even for quad (which seems crazy). I haven't got the game yet but want to but can someone tell me how it would run on my current system?
Do i really have to overclock? As i am new to PC gaming and overclocking seems daunting.
overclocking helps, and FSX needs a Quad core or above anyway, hence the i7 is so amazing at FSX because it has 8 threads out of a possible 32 that FSX can use.
FSX is at the extrteme CPU end of the CPU / GPU performance spectrum. It's the most CPU intensive "game" title that you can run. FSX frame rate increases with CPU cores and clocks, but requires just a sigle mid-range nVidia-based GPU card. A graphics card with dual slot rear exhaust is preferred, so that computer case temperature is as cool as possible for an overclocked CPU.
As a licensed pilot, I've been a Flight Simulator enthusiast since 1992 running Flight Simulator 4.0, and have since built my rigs especially to run flight simulations. Overclocking is essential in order to achieve the best frame rate (FPS), which increase proportionally with processor clock frequency.
The Q6600 is relatively easy to overclock, since it's no stretch to run the Front Side Bus (FSB) at 400 Mhz, which yields 3.6 Ghz. If you download Real Temp and report the "VID" under the "Settings" button, then I can tell you approximately how much vCore you'll need to reach a stable OC. Also, at 3.6, you'll need a case with good airflow, and a high-end CPU cooler.
Comp
Message edited by CompuTronix on 05-30-2009 at 01:07:05 AM
Regarding your motherboard; since you're not trying to run the FSB at higher frequencies such as 467 Mhz required to OC a Q9650 to 4.2 Ghz, 400 Mhz is no stretch, as I have already made clear.
Regarding your case; make sure that your cable management is neat and tidy, and just run with the door open.
Overclocking is about understanding Intel's Vcore and Thermal Specifications, and pushing your rig as high as possible without exceeding the specs.
Message edited by CompuTronix on 05-29-2009 at 08:07:39 PM
The Q6600's have VID's (Voltasge ID) which are in 0.125 volt increments, and range from 1.200 (best) to 1.325 (worst). Nevertheless, even those which are 1.325 VID can still reach a stable overclock at 3.6 Ghz on high-end air. This typically requires a Vcore of 1.5125 to 1.525 at 100% workload (Prime95 Small FFT's), and is just slightlt above spec, which is 1.5.
What cooler are you running, and what are the specs for your Corsair memory?
Message edited by CompuTronix on 05-29-2009 at 08:48:23 PM
I am not sure, i bought the PC second hand (never use ebay, i was conned with the description).
I have all the fans in the case and there is a big fan on the motherboard where i guess the CPU is with intel written on it, i guess that is the standard fan.
Cool, i don't fully understand some of the details but i take it that is a positive thing which is great.
Thanks for your help so far, and for introducing me to real temp and cpu-z, they are handy.
Do you know of any software which measures your PSU load? because i would like to know how much more wattage i have left for possible items such as a new cooler after all the power my GPU and CPU, etc take up. My PSU is great quality but it is only 550W so i don't want to push it too far.
Do you know of any software which measures your PSU load? because i would like to know how much more wattage i have left for possible items such as a new cooler after all the power my GPU and CPU, etc take up. My PSU is great quality but it is only 550W so i don't want to push it too far.
Your PSU is quite adequate for your present hardware configuration, even when overclocked, which will draw far more amps, than is required to run low current peripherals such as a 120mm CPU cooler fan or 120mm case fans.
The 9800 GTX 512 is the best card available for $99.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814150371 - which will do a great job of running FSX, as long as you don't exceed 1280 resolution. Also, the 9800 is a 10.5" card.
The best card for FSX is the 8800 GTS 512 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] _-14130325 - which is available at $109.99, and also has a $20.00 mail in rebate for a greeat buy at $89.99. The same point regarding 1280 resolution applies to the 8800, which is the most powerful nVidia based 9" card available, and is on par with the 9800.
To understand how these two cards compare to one another, check out the "Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart" at the Conclucion of Tom's "Best Graphics Cards For The Money: May '09" - http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 296-6.html
Both cards feature dual-slot rear-exhaust cooling so that case temperatures will be as cool as possible for an overclocked
CPU. Also, check out Tom's Gaming Graphics Charts for FSX - http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] 2,783.html
Comp
Message edited by CompuTronix on 05-30-2009 at 05:55:14 PM
I mentioned 1280, because that's generally the break point for 512 cards, where the frame rate takes a hit at higher resolutions. Nevertheless, either card will perform well enough at 1920 res in this extremely CPU bound simulation.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.