Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:05 pmPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:06 pmPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:53 pmmfraser wrote:QUOTE (mfraser @ Sep 27 2010, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Intel and Nvidia - you can't go wrong......... that's pretty much the system I'm saving towards right now........... i7 930 - GTX460 - 6GB RAM
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:07 pmPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:10 pmraddragon wrote:QUOTE (raddragon @ Sep 27 2010, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And is the processor ok? I'm not ready to move from FS9 (have too many addons), but wouldnt mind running FSX somtimes.
You'll find people fairly polarised on this one. I'm an AMD / ATI guy - have got Intel / ATI at the mo, but will be going AMD / ATI next time. I find the Intel's too expensive and relatively sluggish compared to AMD. it's very hard to get a decent "apples for apples" comparison, as the Intels & AMDs process their data differently, and their clock-speeds / caches aren't directly comparable. Basically, if you want to save $200 and get good, maybe even very good, performance, I vote AMD / ATI. If you HAVE to have potentially a better system and believe what the sim-gurus are saying (although I seriously doubt they've tried putting vaugely comparable AMD / ATI and Intel / nVidia systems side by side - the gurus seem largely to just go with Intel / nVidia regardless), then you'll still get a good system with Intel / nVidia - you'll just pay more for it and not necessarily get a commensurate increase in frames.
I'm building an AMD / ATI system tomorrow that I will post info on later in the week - however, it's getting 8GB of DDR3 1600 RAM, an HD5830, a AMD X4 3.4GHz CPU, a 1TB 64MB cache SATA3 HDD going onto a Gigabyte SATA3 motherboard PLUS a 64MB Kingston 200mb/sec SSD! With Win 7 64-bit, of course.
Lastly, bear in mind that even a fairly modest PC will easily run FS9 at full noise, where a more serious beast is needful with FSX.
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:45 pmIslandBoy77 wrote:QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Sep 27 2010, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Lastly, bear in mind that even a fairly modest PC will easily run FS9 at full noise, where a more serious beast is needful with FSX.
Although REX FS9 has bought my framerates back ALOT!!
As a point of interest, I'm getting decent FSX framerates (30+) on an AMDX2 4800+, ATI 5770 and 4GB DDR2-800 - but only with ALL traffic turned off (AI-Ships-Vehicles). All other sliders are maxed, so I guess the CPU isn't loaded up as much with all traffic turned off!!
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:00 pmmfraser wrote:QUOTE (mfraser @ Sep 27 2010, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Although REX FS9 has bought my framerates back ALOT!!
As a point of interest, I'm getting decent FSX framerates (30+) on an AMDX2 4800+, ATI 5770 and 4GB DDR2-800 - but only with ALL traffic turned off (AI-Ships-Vehicles). All other sliders are maxed, so I guess the CPU isn't loaded up as much with all traffic turned off!!
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:45 pm
...but I'm still happily running my ancient 2006 build:
..Athlon XP Thoroughbred 2600+ MMX (2.1 GB).
...
... 
...!
...! ...! ...!
...!Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:33 amFozzer wrote:QUOTE (Fozzer @ Sep 28 2010, 12:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It might be a bit of a laugh...
Windows XP Pro SP3.
Gigabyte GA-7N400S-L. AGP Motherboard.
AMD Socket A..
Winfast AGP nVidia 7800GS 256MB.
2.3 GB Ram.
700 Watt PSU.
It runs my FS 2004 an absolute treat, locked at 22 FPS...
..and even runs my copy of FSX, when I feel in an occasional self-flagellating mood...
One of the many joys of FS 2004 is that I don't require a Cray Super-Computer to have fun with it!...
I must admit that as long as I'm having fun with my FS 2004 and all its various add-ons, (including FS Navigator and LAGO FSE!), I cant see me spending loadsmoney on an upgrade any time soon..
..I like vintage things!...
Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Nav...
Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:40 amraddragon wrote:QUOTE (raddragon @ Sep 28 2010, 06:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hehe, well my socket 754 system fried a while ago, so i built this pentium D with some spare parts. I think the let down on my computer is the video card, but then again I sim on a 32" Samsung TV. I frequently notice blurring, stopping etc. It never keeps a consistent frame rate etc. I remember the days of my Barton - such a good core.
It's always worth looking carefully at where you are spending your money in terms of components. By that, I mean understanding where the bulk of the workload for generating the imagery in FSX is, and having components that don't bottle-neck. So, obviously the CPU is king here, as it has to do serious number-crunching to look after all the various aspects of creating a 3D flying environment. Hard on the heels of that, however, is plenty of fast RAM to enable the CPU to do it's work at peak efficiency. No point having a V8 if you switch one of the cylinders off, aye? But then hard on the heels of the RAM is the hard drive. FSX still relies heavily on dragging copious amounts of data off the hard drive as one flies along. Therefore, one needs the fastest speed possible of getting that data off the hard drive to the CPU / RAM so it can be formulated and passed to the graphics card. Since hard drives are currently the weakest link in the chain - being vastly slower than even DDR2 800 RAM or a P4-class CPU - this is one place to spend a bit extra: either get an SATA3 hard drive with a 64MB cache (which, to the best of my knowledge, is the biggest cache available right now) or a FAST SSD - not a slow one (you want a minimum of 200mb/sec read - basically more / faster is better!). The video card, really, is the least important of the 4 main components. That's not to say that it is unimportant - it's not. But you'd be better to get a nice mid-range card like the HD5830 (which, as it happens, is also a lot cheaper to run since it only uses 185W vs 210W for a comparable nVidia), and spend more dosh on the other components. And last - but not least - a good motherboard. Here, you want the most up to date you can get, so you aren't faced with obsolesence any time soon. To that end, it needs to have SATA3, USB 3.0, be able to take AT LEAST 16GB of DDR3 1800MHz RAM, have Gigabit LAN and, if possible, 4 slots for the RAM, not 2. I like the Gigabyte brand - but most brands are pretty good (warranty length is a good indicator - GB is 3 years). I won't touch Asus as they have awful warranty support, their boards tend to die in the last month of warranty (or just after), and often their capacitors "squeal", which is annoying.
The only other thing to consider is make sure you get a good, solid 600W power supply with a lifetime warranty, active PFC, and at least 2 x 12V rails. Beware of PSUs that say 600W max - that means they only peak at 600, and probably only have 510W "true". One can get carried away with big PSUs. But unless you plan to overclock your CPU AND have 2 graphic cards, 600W should give you plenty with a bit of headroom. I use the AcBel R88 600W PSU for my simming / gaming rigs that I build for my customers.
Whatever you decide to do, I advise 2 things:
1) Don't over-research what you're doing: you can end up second-guessing your second-guesses!
2) Come to a point where you are happy with what you're going to build and then just go with it. You won't get a dog if you get reasonable components following the guidelines above. There will always be someone else who has better / more expensive gear and swears by the opposite of what you have.
As a very last comment: bear in mind, always, that hardware does not make a system. Putting good gear together properly and having a slim, well-maintained Windows installation (and all the entails: good defragger, slim AV like Avast, clean / compact registry, no spy-ware etc etc etc) is what makes a PC run well.
Have fun!
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:03 pmIslandBoy77 wrote:QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Sep 27 2010, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You'll find people fairly polarised on this one. I'm an AMD / ATI guy - have got Intel / ATI at the mo, but will be going AMD / ATI next time. I find the Intel's too expensive and relatively sluggish compared to AMD. it's very hard to get a decent "apples for apples" comparison, as the Intels & AMDs process their data differently, and their clock-speeds / caches aren't directly comparable. Basically, if you want to save $200 and get good, maybe even very good, performance, I vote AMD / ATI. If you HAVE to have potentially a better system and believe what the sim-gurus are saying (although I seriously doubt they've tried putting vaugely comparable AMD / ATI and Intel / nVidia systems side by side - the gurus seem largely to just go with Intel / nVidia regardless), then you'll still get a good system with Intel / nVidia - you'll just pay more for it and not necessarily get a commensurate increase in frames.
I'm building an AMD / ATI system tomorrow that I will post info on later in the week - however, it's getting 8GB of DDR3 1600 RAM, an HD5830, a AMD X4 3.4GHz CPU, a 1TB 64MB cache SATA3 HDD going onto a Gigabyte SATA3 motherboard PLUS a 64MB Kingston 200mb/sec SSD! With Win 7 64-bit, of course.
Lastly, bear in mind that even a fairly modest PC will easily run FS9 at full noise, where a more serious beast is needful with FSX.
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:34 pmraddragon wrote:QUOTE (raddragon @ Sep 30 2010, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'd be still interested seeing the specs if you're happy to post them.
Mark
System build is finished - delivered it to the client late this afternoon. He's going to install FSX & all his usual add-ons (he's a serious simmer who is seen on NZFF on rare occassions) - once he's got all the main stuff squared away, I'll ask him how he's getting on. I've got the figures for the Windows 7 64-bit score - not that they mean alot - but they were 7.4, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 & 5.9. As usual, SATA standard hdd pulling the score down. Considering the highest rating is 7.9, that's pretty good for $2155 incl GST. I wasn't able to get a feel for how the SSD will perform, as I decided to put Windows & all other progs on an SATA3 drive (non-SSD) and reserve the SSD for FSX. If his frame rates are average, we may clone things around the other way just for kicks and see what difference - if any - that makes. I'm hoping to put my 64Mb cache SATA & Kingston SSD into my rig this weekend. I fly in the mud a lot, where the other guy is a 30k+ chappie. I've also got all the RealNZ stuff + VLC where he hasn't, plus the complex Napier scenery (which doesn't work properly on Acceleration and drops my frames to 11.5!) which he doesn't, so I'm beginning to wonder if he'll be putting enough workload on his rig to be of much use - will have to think about that one.
I haven't seen any performance gain with SATA3 - both the motherboard and the main HDD are SATA3, so I was expecting a 20-30% lift here. I presume the cables supplied with the mobo were SATA3-standard, but maybe they're not? Anyone else running a SATA3 board / hdd know the answer to that? I might have to post a question on one of the tech boards to see what the go is.
I did find out something interesting about SSDs - one is NOT to defrag them - ever! It turns out they don't 'need' defragging per se, and defragging them shortens their life. Supposedly, if one were to defrag an SSD as often as one might a normal drive, one might expect to shorten the life of the SSD considerably (no figures were given).
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:05 pmPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:41 pmPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:47 pmAndrewJamez wrote:QUOTE (AndrewJamez @ Oct 2 2010, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have the new Gigabyte intel P55A-UD3R Mobo. Stock Mobo ram speed is 1333mhz even though is G.Skill 1600. In the end I have have the clock multiplyer at 160 so that runs the ram at its proper speed and the i7 870 at 3.8Ghz with turboboost. Several FSX sessions later with no problems and temps in the high 50's under full load, i'm a happy camper. Only have sata2 though. (my old drives) does anyone know the smallest SATA3 avialable. Dont see the point in installing just FSX on a terabyte drive.
Temp doesn't seem to be a problem - I think it's some sort of race condition. Hopefully a BIOS update will sort it, as the board is very new. I've put the latest patch on, but with it's commercial release only being Apr / May this year, there hasn't been time yet for it to 'mature'.
I've only seen 1TB @ SATA3. It does seem a waste, doesn't it? You're only option is either Raptor-class drives or an SSD. And there, you get a bit more speed but quite small HDD, make $ per GB very high. I haven't had time to put my new 1TB SATA3 drive / 64GB SSD into my sim rig yet, but hope to tomorrow.
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:47 pmPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:31 amtdale wrote:QUOTE (tdale @ Oct 2 2010, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I disagree, with respect, re the importance of the HDD.
A sound HDD in a strong system should have no issue feeding data. Issues with blurries, stutter were more to do with mis matched settings, or the videoram being overfilled. Ive never seen an issue resolved with a faster HDD.
As you mentioned, a sound system where the components are matched and the settings match the spec, so that no setting overtaxes the capability is the key.
I find NickN 's info very worthwhle and interesting
I would have to agree on that one, I have been running FSX off a Seagate 7200rpm 8meg cache 2nd partition for ages with no data speed issues.
Yes I had stutters, blurries and texture refresh issues even though I am running twin Q9650 CPU's at 3.8 GHz OC. Problem was not the GFX card performance or capabilities, BUT the amount of vram the card had on board. With all the high quality scenery and aircraft out there, saying a good GFX card is way down the list of priorities is way too misinforming these days, especially when the desktop in vista or 7 uses 130 - 250meg of vram right off the bat depending on resolution.
I was pulling my hair out over this issue for ages, reading forums and tech sites doing all sorts of hacks, tweaks and god knows what. I bit the bullet and went to a 1.5gig GFX card and the rest is history................Ohh and the huge jump in constant FPS even over high population and airports was unbelievable.
And one more recommendation- Don't scrimp on the pagefile, FSX loves a decent size one.
Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:19 pmtdale wrote:QUOTE (tdale @ Oct 2 2010, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I disagree, with respect, re the importance of the HDD.
A sound HDD in a strong system should have no issue feeding data. Issues with blurries, stutter were more to do with mis matched settings, or the videoram being overfilled. Ive never seen an issue resolved with a faster HDD.
As you mentioned, a sound system where the components are matched and the settings match the spec, so that no setting overtaxes the capability is the key.
I find NickN 's info very worthwhle and interesting
Uh, who's 'NickN'?
The hard drive IS important, it's just not THE most important thing. I've seen how c r a p p y FSX runs with an old, slow HDD - it's not pretty.
But these conversations always end up being the same: there is NO way to account for the differences in each and every system, how a person uses it, what a person considers to be good performance or not etc etc etc. It's like conversations I have with some of my customers about Skype. They all seem to have spoken to someone using dialup who gets "great Skype". What isn't apparent from the conversation is obvious things like "are they right next to the exchange" or "are they doing voice only" and such.
The truth is that FSX DOES have to render large amounts of DATA, and having a fast HDD IS essential in conjunction with a fast CPU, plenty of RAM and a good graphics card. The best places to spend extra dosh are the CPU & RAM (obviously including a good mobo), followed by a pretty good video card, then the hard drive. But I'd wager this: IF you could take 2 identical systems, give one a c r a p p y old 8MB cache IDE drive, and give the other a really fast SSD or Raptor-class drive, you'd see a noticeable difference. Or even if the c r a p p y drive is an 8MB cache SATA, the results between it and a great HDD would still be noticeable. Of course, herein lies the rub: these conversations are always anecdotal, never comparing 2 identical systems with 'before and after' results. Therefore, when pontificating, the next best thing is go on theory. And theory says that a fast drive HAS to make a difference of some sort. The AMOUNT of difference is the only question...
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:28 pmPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:27 pmraddragon wrote:QUOTE (raddragon @ Oct 4 2010, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well, after contemplating my new FS9 rig for the past week, I have decided on:
Phenom X4 965
Gigabyte 890FX-UD5 mainboard
4GB Memory
EVGA 460 1GB Superoverclocked
From what I have read these are the parts I want. No, althought I work in IT, i haven't kept up with the desktop hardware for a couple of years. Will I have any adverse effects from running the AMD chipset with a Nvidia GPU? I would assume not, but hey nothing surprises me with technology.
AMD & ATI do play together better, but as much as anything it will be the chipset on your motherboard. Since you're using an AMD CPU, the chipset on the mobo will be suited to AMD, but shouldn't unduly hamper the operation of the nVidia card. Ideally, of course, one would want an nVidia chipset on the mobo. I've not had spare money to be able to try combos of motherboard / CPUs / video cards, so it's very hard to say if you'll notice any impact. What speed of RAM have you decided on? Is there a specific reason (other than possibly cost) that you're going with 4GB instead of 8GB?
