Another one of those "PC Spec" questions

[Ruahrc]

So right now I fun FS9 on a pretty modest box.  AMD 64 X2 4800+, 2GB RAM, X1900GT 256MB video card.  It runs FS9 pretty good, where if I'm not in a big city or near a big airport I am locked at 25fps always, no matter what airplane I use or no matter what weather I fly in.  If I get near a big city or complex airport, the frames will drop some but not too bad.  And this is with AI cranked up really high (100% on the slider and I see over 700 AI planes flying around in the NYC area)

Anyways I am suffering from some hardware problems and may need to get a new PC.  I have considered taking this opportunity to try FSX, which I never really considered due to the fact that it would run terribly on my box.

I am thinking about taking a very different approach to the simming this time, going for a highly accurate sim but much more limited in scope than what I had going in FS9 (in FS9 I had a ton of airport sceneries, almost all the top end payware airline sims, some medium aircraft like the PC12 and B1900, DC3, etc).  Since I love the PC12 so much, my plan was to go for a PC-12 centered sim, and focus on Australia flying with the great FTX scenery.  This probably fits better with my simming habits as of late too, with less time to do long airliner flights and enjoying more the medium-scale flying.

I want to know what kind of system one needs to run FSX and FTX in a good fashion.  So that I can have very high or maxed out detail settings, with consistent high framerates, and solid performance in any weather.  If it looks and runs at least as good as it does in the FTX videos, that is the kind of thing I'm shooting for.

Here's what I had in mind:

C2D E8600 (3.3GHz, possibly overclock that some too)

GTX260-216 (or maybe an HD 4870 1GB)

4GB RAM

120GB 7200rpm HD (It's the one I have now, its big enough for my needs and I'm not going to get much faster unless I go RAID or 10k/15k)

I intend to run XP Pro SP3, unless there are very compelling reasons to use Vista.

Will that be enough to run FTX at a good level?  I intend to fly mainly the Flight1 PC-12 (using RFDS repaints ), and probably will upgrade my ActiveSky 6.5 to whatever latest version they have for FSX.  I'll most likely be running a 22" 1680x1050 LCD monitor as the primary display, and a 15" 1024x768 secondary display placed off to the side to display 2D panel parts only.  Will I have enough horsepower to get the job done?

Norman

[Hotspot]

Hi Ruahrc'

Welcome to the best forum in town, friendly faces, but sometimes take the p--- in a light hearted way.

Can't answer most of your questions as I'm no guru, but the latest (April 2009) oz mag PC Authority has a good comparison of a wide range of graphics cards, putting the  Radeon HD 4870 ahead of the GTX260+216 - might be worth a look.

I've been quite happy with my E8600 (runs smoother than my Q9550, neither OC'd) on a Vista 64bit OS, but couldn't guarantee 'solid performance in weather'. I'm waiting for the next generation i7 and Windows 7 to make my next move.

[Russ White]

Hi Norman,

The specs you state in the thread will run FSX + FTX very well and be kind to your budget. The E8600 is an excellent bang for buck CPU for FSX, it may lack the texture load capability of a quad, but more than makes up for that short comming with masses of grunt! the E8600 is a well known overclockers powerhouse, and can easily do 4.5Ghz if you know what you are doing and have a good after market cooling solution. 4.5Ghz will rip through FSX! I have had this chip running FSX before and it does perform very well, but you need to be realistic when in VERY complex scenery areas as unless you have a massive budget there will always be a performance hit when using extreme autogen and scenery, especially in big city areas.

4GB of RAM is a good standard but look to go to 8GB if budget allows (and if you have a 64bit OS)

You would also be better off going with Vista (64 bit for extra RAM functionality) as it has been proven during our Beta testing to have better texture handling than XP, especially for DXT5 textures.

The 2 monitor setup will be easily managed by either of those graphics cards.

Russ.

[Ruahrc]

Thanks for the comments.  Can you elaborate a little more on the dual vs quad core issue?  I had been under the impression that FSX only really utilizes 2 cores well (and not the greatest utilization of 2 cores either), but not 4.  And that you were better off with a higher clocked dual core than a lower clocked quad core, because the utilization of the 3rd and 4th core was pretty poor.  Much the same as you were better off with the highest GHz single core CPU you could afford for FS9 rather than going for a lower clocked dual core.

Is this true, or have things changed?  You're not going to get "double" the performance on 4 cores vs 2 I know that, but how much gain do you get?  Enough to offset say a 10% difference in clock speed?  20%?

Looking at some prices, the system I put together would be around $800.  I looked at some prices again and it would seem that I could put in maybe $300 more and get an i7 system instead.  The issue is, the E8600 is 3.3 GHz, and the i7 processor (920) is only 2.6GHz.  That's around a 30% difference in clock speed.  Is the i7 30% faster clock for clock than the C2D?  I am thinking I might just want to hang on for a while and suffer through with 1GB of RAM and FS9 on my current system and wait until prices on the i7s drops a little, then make the upgrade.  Or wait until Windows 7, which from what people have been saying, is an OS worthy of succeeding XP.  Prices will be cheaper by then also.

I put in an order for 2 22" LCDs today, one for the FS computer and one for the working computer.  So at least I'll have that.

Norman

[Hotspot]

  And that you were better off with a higher clocked dual core than a lower clocked quad core, because the utilization of the 3rd and 4th core was pretty poor.  Much the same as you were better off with the highest GHz single core CPU you could afford for FS9 rather than going for a lower clocked dual core.

Norman

Yep. that has been my experience, but no doubt there are plenty of simmers who have a different take on the issue, they may be kind enough to elaborate.