FSX Computer

[Pato]

I have a friend who wants to get a Computer built that will run FSX.
Can someone advise the minimum requirements or advise where I should look for this information please?.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (Pato @ Jan 4 2013,12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a friend who wants to get a Computer built that will run FSX.
Can someone advise the minimum requirements or advise where I should look for this information please?.

I think if you look into the technical thread , most today PC are getting built on a shoe string budget and with performance to match .. be the best place to start .

[Pato]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jan 9 2013,12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you look into the technical thread , most today PC are getting built on a shoe string budget and with performance to match .. be the best place to start .

Thanks Ian, I will have a search on there. I am a bit out of touch as have been away from the Forum in recent years.

[bjocque]

you could (not sure ifn i'm allowed to post links here???) have a nose around in/post the same question on the forums on pricespy.co.nz or even pressf1.co.nz (been a while since i've looked on that last one so am takeing a stab in the dark that it's still going)

or the old equation I tend to use - figure out total allowable budget, multiply it by around 1.5, then go from there, remembering ifn you pay peanuts, you tend to get monkeys - after a recent mother board failure i just walked into playtech and told them my story and they have upgrade packages - worked well for me in that scenario

[IslandBoy77]

It's worth remembering that FSX has a built-in "bias" towards Intel CPUs and nVidia video cards. I personally prefer AMD for both CPU & Video, but when in Rome... Since FSX is so old, there are a number of gotchas that I've heard of:
1) It can't make use of more than 2 cores of CPU. Still worth having a quad-core for the sake of other things, but FSX itself won't benefit from the other 2.
2) FSX won't make use of more than 4GB of RAM. Have yet to have this absolutely confirmed, but still worth doing 8GB of DDR3 dual-channel RAM anyway, so that FSX can have a clear 4GB to play with.
3) Due to FSX's age, it can't make use of quite a number of the advances in programming or architecture in the last 3-4 years. Again, still worth having "the latest" anyway, just don't expect FSX to be able to do much with the extra bells and whistles.

It appears that, barring a re-write by some enterprising individual, FSX will still be reliant on heaps of CPU GHz first, closely followed by a powerful video card (again raw through-put power vs one that is "efficient" due to it's new technology), followed very closely by using SATA3 64MB cache hard drives or SSDs, then followed by enough fast RAM.

If you didn't want to spend a bomb, I'd look at:
CPU - Upper end of the i5 series, remembering that for FSX it's the raw GHz speed (and a good-sized L2 cache) that matter most
RAM - 8GB DDR3 1600MHz dual-channel (Kingston's a good mid-range quality chip - just don't buy "cheap & nasty")
Video - Even the likes of a second hand GTX 460 will do very well, and these can be had from TM for around $150-$170 or $120 if the auction finishes at an odd time of day Note that even some of the new GTX 5 & 600 series only just surpass the good old GTX 460, some extra "features" notwithstanding.
HDD - SSDs are still expensive, and how much extra scenery you have will dictate whether having FSX on an SSD will be a good idea or not. You could always have a fast 60GB SSD for Windows, a fast 128GB SSD for FSX, then a good (Western Digital is my preference) SATA3 64MB HDD for all the rest of the scenery.
PSU - Get a quality one that will give you at least 600W true with 2 x 12v dedicated rails AND Active PFC. AcBel make a fair range (in terms of quality vs features vs price), but so long as you're spending more than $120 on the PSU you should be going in the right direction. Warranty length is often a good indicator...

There's no doubt that an SSD definitely makes a good difference, but getting a truly fast SSD (one with both good sustained transfer rates and good burst rates) is not cheap. I suppose even a mediocre SSD is on balance better than a good SATA hard drive, but I've not been impressed with some of the cheaper SSD's performance.

[Pato]

Thanks for all the information. I will pass that onto my friend.

[dbcunnz]

Sorry but I must disagree with you on one thing there Pete FSX does not benefit or run any quicker on a SSD but the Operating system yes a huge benefit in boot time etc.
The best HDD for FSX I find is a Western Digital Satta-3 10000rpm 64MB
I have tried FSX on 7200rpm HDD also SSD and the 10000rpm give me the best performance.
On my PC I have 1 Intel Solid-State Drive 330 Series - Solid state drive - 180 GB - internal - 2.5" - SATA-600 with my windows 7 x64
1 WD VelociRaptor WD2500HHTZ - Hard drive - 250 GB - internal - 3.5" - SATA-600 - 10000 rpm - buffer: 64 MB with my FSX
1 WD Green WD20EARX - Hard drive - 2 TB - internal - 3.5" - SATA-600 - buffer: 64 MB split to four partitions for everything else

[Ian Warren]

Tried and tested and discussed the facts across MPs and compare different flight regimes .

[metalnwood]

QUOTE (dbcunnz @ Jan 4 2013,5:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry but I must disagree with you on one thing there Pete FSX does not benefit or run any quicker on a SSD but the Operating system yes a huge benefit in boot time etc.
The best HDD for FSX I find is a Western Digital Satta-3 10000rpm 64MB
I have tried FSX on 7200rpm HDD also SSD and the 10000rpm give me the best performance.
On my PC I have 1 Intel Solid-State Drive 330 Series - Solid state drive - 180 GB - internal - 2.5" - SATA-600 with my windows 7 x64
1 WD VelociRaptor WD2500HHTZ - Hard drive - 250 GB - internal - 3.5" - SATA-600 - 10000 rpm - buffer: 64 MB with my FSX
1 WD Green WD20EARX - Hard drive - 2 TB - internal - 3.5" - SATA-600 - buffer: 64 MB split to four partitions for everything else

I am not sure what SDD you tested but these days a good ssd should not be beaten by a raptor in any test. Also a SSD is quiet, do the current raptors still sound like a scsi drive?

[Kahu]

Just a note I use a program call Tweak FPS that seems to take advantage of my i7 cores and hyper threading(In that all 8 are running at 100%) . Got about 20-30% frame rate increase.

[IslandBoy77]

Interesting info there, Doug. I've never had a client with enough money to be able to afford a 10k SATA AND a good SSD, so have never been able to do that comparison. And let's face it, those 10k drives aren't cheap, and often not easy to get, either.

Your test notwithstanding, if the builder of the system is wanting to keep the cost down a bit, and power consumption too, I think a well-spec'd SSD (and it need to be well-spec'd) is still a good option. It will be quiet, use much less power, and still provide very good performance. Of course if the builder has a healthy budget, doesn't mind the extra noise of the 10k drive, and doesn't mind the cost - and is able to configure the drive properly, then perhaps that is a useful option. The plus for the 10k drive is that it will outlast most SSDs (maybe all of the current SSDs?), so perhaps, bar the noise & extra power use, a 10K drive might still work out a better proposition.

Has anyone else had a play with 10k drives as per Doug's experiment? And were the results the same? What about other factors like CPU, RAM & motherboard?

I wonder how long it will be before we get 128MB caches?

[benwynn]

Going the best you can afford is always good advice. Basic FSX will run on a very mediocre system. My laptop for example. 2.3GHZ i5, 4GB Ram, 384mb intel graphics (not dedicated) runs mid-range FSX settings with default aircraft and scenery at about 25 FPS. Addon scenery is a big no-no as are most addon aircraft.

[Splitpin]

QUOTE (dbcunnz @ Jan 4 2013,5:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry but I must disagree with you on one thing there Pete FSX does not benefit or run any quicker on a SSD but the Operating system yes a huge benefit in boot time etc.
The best HDD for FSX I find is a Western Digital Satta-3 10000rpm 64MB
I have tried FSX on 7200rpm HDD also SSD and the 10000rpm give me the best performance.
On my PC I have 1 Intel Solid-State Drive 330 Series - Solid state drive - 180 GB - internal - 2.5" - SATA-600 with my windows 7 x64
1 WD VelociRaptor WD2500HHTZ - Hard drive - 250 GB - internal - 3.5" - SATA-600 - 10000 rpm - buffer: 64 MB with my FSX
1 WD Green WD20EARX - Hard drive - 2 TB - internal - 3.5" - SATA-600 - buffer: 64 MB split to four partitions for everything else

What a great word "VelociRaptor" .... sounds like a Lamborgini .

[AlisterC]

I agree with Ben (not to say the advice given otherwise is not good!). I just think FSX isn't as scary as it once was. Buying a low end systems now days should result in a computer than can still run FSX. It's been out a long time. The "high end" systems when FSX was released are low end now days.

I have a very modest system, mostly built pre FSX being released and now with the SP packs, and Venetubo site fixes, I run FSX just fine.
If you want to run PMDG NGX virtual cockpit, plus high resolution Rex clouds, at a payware HD airport, with AI traffic, in bad weather, well yeah, then you need something with grunt. All depends on how you want to run your sim I guess.



Me = Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz, 3.25gb ram, Win XP home 32 bit, Nvidia 9800GTX (thanks Doug), 550w power supply. Ordinary hard drives

[AndrewJamez]

I used to have FXS on an older SataII Velociraptor 10,000rpm drive then went to a Intel 520 series SSD. A definate improvement with loadtimes. Remember a stock FSX install wil run like a pig untill you put some decent addon scenery into it. Sounds stupid I know.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (AndrewJamez @ Jan 8 2013,3:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A definate improvement with loadtimes. Remember a stock FSX install wil run like a pig untill you put some decent addon scenery into it. Sounds stupid I know.

Not stupid , comes down to how much and how many different scenery and aircraft models .. choose were your plan your flight .. when your spoiled with so much and so much install ... thats when it hits ya .. INSTALLATIONS - APPLICATIONS - REGISTRATIONS - DEMARCATIONS - FRUSTRATIONS - ALTERATIONS - and other NATIONS .. glue all that together .. don't matter what ya got .. something has to SNAP !

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (AndrewJamez @ Jan 8 2013,3:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I used to have FXS on an older SataII Velociraptor 10,000rpm drive then went to a Intel 520 series SSD. A definate improvement with loadtimes. Remember a stock FSX install wil run like a pig untill you put some decent addon scenery into it. Sounds stupid I know.

That's interesting. By that, do you mean that the actual performance of FSX improves once add-ons start being activated? My FSX install has been down for a while, but it's been so long since I flew "vanilla" FSX that I don't recall noticing any difference.

[AndrewJamez]

I mean go and fly a default flight after a fresh install, say NZ, it will not be smooth at all. The Waikato default scenery is nearly a desert, yet performance is poor with a lot of stustustustutters. After loading in a scenery such as vlc, performance is a lot smoother. I have found this to be the case on every FSX install I have ever done. Someone else must have noticed this before??

[IslandBoy77]

I might try that one day just out of interest. Thing is, I hate FSX default with a passion, so the first thing I do after the basic install (incl Acceleraton) is plonk in VLC. In fact, I don't even recall the last time I saw NZ in default mode: probably just before VLC came out...

[AndrewJamez]

I know it seems strange. I'm no expert but maybe modern add on scenery is a lot more optimised??