Could FSX be the most CPU-intensive game to this date?

[ozzman1997]

I mean, jeez...for a game that was released 6+ years ago, I've never seen any other game run at such slow frame rates maxed-out--not even Crysis. You pretty much need alien technology to run Flight Sim X in all its glory and still achieve a decent FPS, like 30-40. Anybody with me on this?

 

[NoUserBar]

It certainly sounds like it needs to be optimized.

btw this sounds like a discussion thread not a "best answer" thread.

 

[ozzman1997]

Oops...didn't know it was supposed to be a discussion thread nor did I know how to. Anyway, it's just driving me crazy trying to build a budget system that can run this beast!

 

[wr6133]

I think ARMA 2 and the Witcher 2 are meant to be more demanding but I may be wrong.

Anyway I'm pretty sure with a current i5 and a decent GPU (it may be CPU intensive but you still need a half decent card) you will do fine

Whats your budget anyway?

 

[maestro0428]

Sure, its a demanding game for cpus. A 3770 or 3770k (or Xeon for that matter) should tame it though as it will run on many threads.

 

[geofelt]

I mean, jeez...for a game that was released 6+ years ago, I've never seen any other game run at such slow frame rates maxed-out--not even Crysis. You pretty much need alien technology to run Flight Sim X in all its glory and still achieve a decent FPS, like 30-40. Anybody with me on this?

You might be right. From all I read, FSX is very cpu intensive, and can benefit from multiple cores.
If you want to optimize your FXS experience, I suggest you fisit some FSX specific forums. There is more to FSX performance than just hardware.
You will get more informed answers than you will get here.

 

[mesab66]

As geofelt said.
I have fsx+rex+addons and the game runs perfectly smooth (no stuttering) at 1920x1200 on my (old) X58 system - i7 920 @3.9GHz, 1 x GTX580. It's does not need the latest gfx card to run best....but you do need to meet minimum specs. Optimisation can also help alot in lower spec'd systems (reducing eye candy).

You'll get much more info from fsx forums.

 

[COLGeek]

I mean, jeez...for a game that was released 6+ years ago, I've never seen any other game run at such slow frame rates maxed-out--not even Crysis. You pretty much need alien technology to run Flight Sim X in all its glory and still achieve a decent FPS, like 30-40. Anybody with me on this?

Not by a long shot. By no means is FSX highly optimized by today's standards, but there are more demanding titles out there.

My father-in-law pretty much maxes out FSX with an AMD Athlon 5000+ on an "ancient" rig by today's measure. He is happy with the performance

 

[ozzman1997]

I forgot to tell you, my budget is about $650 for all the tower components. I plan on getting a GTX 650 ti, (some sort of Ivy Bridge i5, probably -3570k), Asus P8Z77-v LK, Antec 620M power supply, I already have a Seagate Barracuda 500GB, and I will need a new Asus DVD Burner. I might just have to get a lower-end i5 to save some money but I don't know how performance will differ from a -3570k. It seems like when Sandy Bridge CPU's were introduced, THAT'S when people finally started realizing FSX's true potential. I mean, add-on companies are still pumping out great products and that keep on pushing the game to its uppermost limits, so I think that will be what keeps FSX alive for several more years to come.

 

[mesab66]

Wouldn't it be great to get to the point where satellite data e.g. google (all zoom levels+full 3d close-up data) can be incorporated into the game, and the game plays smoothly on reachable configs for the average joe?......nice/sweet!

 

[ozzman1997]

Best answer selected by ozzman1997.