Will Stewart Posted February 8, 2008 at 03:23 AM Posted February 8, 2008 at 03:23 AM (edited) ~~~~ Edited September 7, 2021 at 07:39 PM by Will Stewart vatsim's insistence on using real names means my vatsim posts are effectively doxxing me forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Cote Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:06 AM Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:06 AM Hopefully you will have better luck than I did with this request... http:// http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=26856 the system posted there has 30+ fps....budget was same as yours...I am pleasantly surprised with fsx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat Lawrence 965555 Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:23 AM Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:23 AM More video card than anything else. Expect to spend ~$200 or more on a high performance video card (Such as an nVidia 8 series). And avoid the celeron series processors. Stick with the real pentium core duos. Vista and a healthy 4gb of RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Kolin Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:26 AM Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:26 AM Vista and a healthy 4gb of RAM. I've found that Vista may introduce more issues than it solves, and appears to be significantly slower than XP. That and with "only" 2GB, I've not had issues running FSX, Eclipse, ACARS and Visual Studio 2008. Cheers! Luke ... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts. ... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Miller 873677 Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:37 AM Posted February 8, 2008 at 04:37 AM I get 45 fps running FSX on a Amd 64 3000+ 1GB RAM Geforce 6600. This is with all settings in the middle, without autogen. I'm running 1280 by 1024 resolution also. I'm not sure why no one else is getting this performance. This is on XP too. Andrew Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven Groot 1044304 Posted February 8, 2008 at 07:10 AM Posted February 8, 2008 at 07:10 AM FSX is very CPU heavy. Things like CrossFire don't help much because of that. Get a CPU, as many cores and as much GHz as you can afford. Dual core should do for basic FSX, if you run lots of add-ons then quad core is best. Then get a fast videocard to match. Phil Taylor recently posted an article about video card performance in FSX and what are the important metrics to look for. I have a Core 2 Duo E8500 and a Radeon HD3850 (nothing overclocked) and I can get 30fps with everything on ultra high and scenery and autogen maxed out (in most places, really heavy areas like Tokyo won't handle that). When using a CPU-heavy add-on plane like the PMDG 747 I need to reduce settings a bit. When configuring FSX, be aware that water reflections (setting Mid 2.x or higher), bloom, and shadows (aircraft and scenery) are the major frame rate burners. If you turn those off it's much easier to get higher framerates. Creator of VATSIM Monitor, a sidebar gadget for Windows Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Stewart Posted February 8, 2008 at 02:03 PM Author Posted February 8, 2008 at 02:03 PM (edited) ~~~~ Edited September 7, 2021 at 07:39 PM by Will Stewart vatsim's insistence on using real names means my vatsim posts are effectively doxxing me forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycliffe Barrett Posted February 8, 2008 at 02:18 PM Posted February 8, 2008 at 02:18 PM Hi Dont get a quad core you will be wasting two cores and all that money. VISTA and FSX only have the capability of using duo core chips. My system spec is Gigabyte Motherdboard 1333 fsb Intel P35 chipset 2 gig Kingston DDRii ram Intel Duo Core e6400 processor nVidia 8800 gts gfx card. 2x 300gig sata drives Windows XP (I will move over to Vista soon) My machine runs like a drean at 30fps set and locked, I have VFR Genx Horizon photo scenery of the UK and many addon scenries. I mostly fly the Lvld767 FSX version at 30fps, aswell as the PIC737x payware aircraft. I fly online using FSInn and do not have FPS degredation. Hope this helps. Wycliffe Wycliffe Barrett: C3 Controller "if god meant for us to fly, he would have given us tickets" Mel Brooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Van Eps 987241 Posted February 8, 2008 at 02:23 PM Posted February 8, 2008 at 02:23 PM I agree with what everyone has said for the most part. For starters, check out the technical sub-forum over at www.flightsimworld.com There is constant discussion about what to get. Obviously if you put the machine together yourself you will get more FPS for the buck. I average around 30-40 (depending on the density of the location) running at high - ultra high with full autogen: e6600 (OC'd to 3.3 ghz) eVGA 8800GTS 640 (oc'd also) ASUS P5K Mobo 2 GB Geil Ram (timings set 4-4-4-12) Matrox Triplehead 2 Go Track IR4 Pro XP Pro for OS Hands down the most important component is going to be your CPU, quickly followed by the GPU. The C2D chips are great and relatively inexpensive. It use to be the the was the most expensive component. Not so much the case any longer. The GPU is the big dollar item. My 8800GTS 640mb was around $350 when I bought it. Let me know if you have any specific questions and I will see what I can do to answer them. I am by no means an expert but I can tell you I am happy with FSX, my computer and the performance I see out of it. Benjamin FSX is great. I have no problems and everything runs like a charm now that I have invested in the machine to do it. ASUS P8P67 Pro | 2600k @ 4.7 | eVGA 460 GTX | 8 GB RipJaw | Matrox 3H2Go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Kolin Posted February 8, 2008 at 03:09 PM Posted February 8, 2008 at 03:09 PM Dont get a quad core you will be wasting two cores and all that money. VISTA and FSX only have the capability of using duo core chips. Please stop saying this. Phil Taylor says, As I stated previously, our multi-core support will take advantage of both 2 and 4 cores today, and more cores in the future when they become available. And this is for both AMD and Intel. http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/05/14/fsx-sp1-news-amd-quote.aspx And to say that Vista cannot make use of more than 2 cores is also incorrect. The kernel should handle 4 cores out of the box - I'm not sure about 8. Even then it's just a licensing thing; Microsoft wants their pound of flesh before giving you all that the kernel can do. Luke ... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts. ... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven Groot 1044304 Posted February 9, 2008 at 03:42 AM Posted February 9, 2008 at 03:42 AM And to say that Vista cannot make use of more than 2 cores is also incorrect. The kernel should handle 4 cores out of the box - I'm not sure about 8. Even then it's just a licensing thing; Microsoft wants their pound of flesh before giving you all that the kernel can do. As for the licensing thing: Vista and XP alike have a licensing limit on the number of physical CPUs. For the Home editions this is 1, for the Professional/Business/Ultimate editions it is 2. They do not however have a limit on virtual CPUs and multiple cores inside one CPU are counted as virtual, not physical CPUs. So while Vista would not let you use four separate CPUs, it has no problem with quad core CPUs. Even eight-core CPUs or sixteen core CPUs or whatever wouldn't pose any trouble as long as they're one physical CPU. This was a change made in XP; Windows 2000 cannot tell the difference so there virtual CPUs do count towards the limit. That was because when Win2k came out not even hyperthreading had been invented yet. Windows currently has a technical limitation of 32 total CPU cores in the 32 bit version, and 64 for the 64 bit version. This is because the thread CPU affinity mask (which controls which CPUs a thread can run on) is a bitmask the size of a CPU word. FSX SP1 and up can and do use multiple cores. It has been shown however that unless you run a lot of add-ons, FSX does not benefit a lot from more than two cores. Creator of VATSIM Monitor, a sidebar gadget for Windows Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycliffe Barrett Posted February 9, 2008 at 09:23 AM Posted February 9, 2008 at 09:23 AM Dont get a quad core you will be wasting two cores and all that money. VISTA and FSX only have the capability of using duo core chips. Please stop saying this. Phil Taylor says, As I stated previously, our multi-core support will take advantage of both 2 and 4 cores today, and more cores in the future when they become available. And this is for both AMD and Intel. http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/05/14/fsx-sp1-news-amd-quote.aspx And to say that Vista cannot make use of more than 2 cores is also incorrect. The kernel should handle 4 cores out of the box - I'm not sure about 8. Even then it's just a licensing thing; Microsoft wants their pound of flesh before giving you all that the kernel can do. Luke I stand corrected, always willing to admit to idiocy, but i still would liek to see the evidence of this. Or has anyone here got a quad core machine that is runnig using all four cores. Wycliffe Wycliffe Barrett: C3 Controller "if god meant for us to fly, he would have given us tickets" Mel Brooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts