Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Bad Build Need Advice(Flight Simulator System)

Last response: in Systems
Share

Hey all,

So I made the mistake of letting a friend sell me on the idea of running an AMD system due to my budget constraints and I am now paying the ultimate price. My goal is to run Microsoft Flight Simulator X at good frame rates with scenery. Here's the unfortunate build I went with.


CPU: AMD FX-4170 Zambezi 4.2GHz (4.3GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor FD4170FRGUBOX
Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
Ram: CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B
Vid Card: SAPPHIRE Vapor-X 100358VXL Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16

Sadly to say my frame rates with default scenery in the cities are below 20fps!

Is there any chance I can keep the video card/ram and just upgrade the mobo and cpu? If so what would you guys recommend? I suppose I should also point out that I just ordered 3 monitors and an Active display port adapter because I plan to run FSX across 3 displays.

Thanks so much for all of your advice.

James Germana

More about : bad build advice flight simulator system

Register or log in to remove

Well I can tell you that I am running a fresh install of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit and all of my drivers have been updated to the latest versions. If you guys need anything just let me know and I will post the info immiedately. I am in a rather short time crunch if I need to get out from underneath this CPU/MoBo
Related ressources
Ask the community

Yes that is due to the CPU, but if you are expecting to get good performance at 5760x1080 out of your system you maybe looking at a GPU and CPU upgrade. But like i said i am not sure how graphic demanding FSX is.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/01/05/amds_ati_rade...

The 7770 performs somewhere bettween the 5770 and the 5850... So you can expect around 35-40 FPS if you use the settings they have for the 5770. But you will have times where your FPS will drop into the low 20's

On Ultra High with Default Aircraft:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2241, 156968, 0, 28, 14.277

On Ultra High with my normal Addon Aircraft:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
433, 56238, 0, 25, 7.699

These were on Takeoff out of Boston which has a LOT of scenery.
CPU Usage in the task manager is about 67% while sitting on the ground and jacks up to a solid 100% by the time I am lifting off of the ground.

Was thinking of changing the following and keeping my Memory:
Cpu: Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 77W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4000 BX80637I73770K

Video Card: PNY VCGGTX670XPB GeForce GTX 670 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

It's a little more than I'd like to spend but I would like good performance. Would this be a wise path? Also, what would be the best motherboard to go with?

If I stick with AMD I suppose I could keep my motherboard?
I can easily afford the AMD FX-8350 Vishera 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8350FRHKBOX .

It sounds like the GPU would need to be upgraded as well. Any suggestions? I just want to make sure I'm going to get adequate performance from the money spent.

Well i can't find anything positive about any of the Dynex PSU's though i can't find any 550w ones. Most reviews I see of them are like 2.5/5... I was trying to find your model to see the AMPS and if it had 2 6 pin connectors that you will need for the 670.

If i was you i would just get the corsair one i linked. Using a no name brand PSU is a bad idea, can take out your whole computer if it fails.

You can get this PSU if you think you will do some heavy OCing on both the CPU and GPU and want to be safe, although even with that your system shouldn't pull more than 400w.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5818/nvidia-geforce-gtx-6...
See even with an overclocked 670 you should only see ~360w on full system load... add another 30-50w for your CPU and you are still only around 400w, so that 500w PSU should be plenty. And thats 400w (80% efficient PSU)from the wall so only using about 320w of the 500w psu.

I've run FSX since it was first released, as well as all previous versions of MS Flight Simulator, and have built all my rigs specifically to run it.

FSX is very heavily CPU bound (~80%), so frame rate depends upon building your rig around a fast Intel Quad Core CPU, a high-end air cooler, and as much overclock as you can achieve while still remaining within voltage and temperature specs. An i5 such as the 2500K or 3570K will do nicely. You don't need to spend the extra $100.00 for an i7 because of it's Hyperthreading feature; the return on frame rate per dollar just doesn't make sense unless money is no object.

As for the GPU, FSX is so lightly bound that a mid-range card works fine. FSX historically ran with higher frame rates on nVidia cards. Many FSX experts were convinced that nVidia graphics drivers were better optimized for this simulation than ATI drivers, however, this frame rate gap was closed with the 7xxx cards and newer drivers.

Also, since FSX is so dependent on CPU performance, a high-end graphics card or SLI / CF, on a single monitor, typically has no benefit. Most "gamers" find this unbelievable until they research FSX.

Nevertheless, as you will be using 3 monitors which requires appropriate GPU memory and performance, adding a second 7770 in CF may be the most practical solution for you.

Hope this helps,

Comp :sol: 

CompuTronix said:
I've run FSX since it was first released, as well as all previous versions of MS Flight Simulator, and have built all my rigs specifically to run it.

FSX is very heavily CPU bound (~80%), so frame rate depends upon building your rig around a fast Intel Quad Core CPU, a high-end air cooler, and as much overclock as you can achieve while still remaining within voltage and temperature specs. An i5 such as the 2500K or 3570K will do nicely. You don't need to spend the extra $100.00 for an i7 because of it's Hyperthreading feature; the return on frame rate per dollar doesn't make sense unless money is no object.

As for the GPU, FSX is so lightly bound that a mid-range card works fine. FSX historically ran with higher frame rates on nVidia cards. Many FSX experts were convinced that nVidia graphics drivers were better optimized for this simulation than ATI drivers, however, this frame rate gap was closed with the 7xxx cards and newer drivers.

Also, since FSX is so dependent on CPU performance, a high-end graphics card on a single monitor or SLI typically has no benefit. Most "gamers" find this unbelievable until they research FSX.

Nevertheless, as you will be using 3 monitors which requires appropriate GPU memory and performance, adding a second 7770 in CF may be the most practical solution for you.

Hope this helps,

Comp :sol: 


Yes i agree the i5 would be slightly better than the 8350... But the difference is pretty small and not worth the $100-$200 dollar difference that he would have to spend to get a new intel motherboard. As for the 7770 CF, CF'ing low end cards is never ideal and can cause microstuttering even more so with the AMD cards due to there much higher frame latency. That being said, he probably could get away with getting a slightly lower end card, but the one he picked is the one i would suggest for his needs.

itsjames said:
So I received all of my new stuff and did the rebuild tonight. With the aftermarket cooler on the FX-8350 before overclocking it's settling at 41C under an 8 core torture test in Prime95. Does it sound like I have some room to OC as far as temps go?


How was your build on the new AMD system? Is FSX running a lot better now?
Register or log in to remove
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Systems categories
!