What min reqs do you suggest?

[Boxkite]

Okay guys, further to my recent posts about how I'm unable to run FSX smoothly on my current machine (AMD Sempron 3000+/ 512Mb RAM/ Nvidia Ti 4400 128Mb/ WinXPHome SP2), I'm now seriously thinking about buying a new machine that will run it. (I need a spare PC anyway).

So as a starting point can you tell me what in your opinion should the minimum requirements be to run FSX adequately well, and what sort of approx cost would that be for such a PC?
(And shall I use WinXPHome on the new machine or get Vista or whatever?)

In fact I might decide to go for higher specs than the bare minimum but it depends on how much extra cash i'll have to sport, what do you think?

(I'm totally PC-illiterate by the way so hopefully you'll dumb down your replies for me..)
Thanks

[fsxmissionguy]

You should be able to do it for under $1,000 (well under it, if you don't need a new monitor.)

Any computer sold today for gaming is probably going to run FSX fine (albeit, not at the highest settings).

In general, here's what you want to spend money on in the order that it will do you good in FSX:

1) Processor, and number of cores ... more the better, faster the better
2) Fast RAM up to 2Gb
3) Video card up to 512Mb DX9c capable, if you want DX10 preview, it needs to be DX10-capable ... but expect visual problems with DX10. Don't spend extra on video card for FSX ... it's wasted money.
4) Front-side bus speed and hard drive disk speed ... FSX spends a lot of time reading files

A 2-core or better processor of 2.5Ghz or better, 2mb RAM, Windows XP, and an nVidia GeForce 7950 or better is probably minimum for FSX at Normal settings.

Things guaranteed to detract:

1) Vista (pointless and full of DRM that slows it down).
2) some nVidia cards/drivers such as the 8800 (crapshoot on quality)

My 2c.

Cheers,

http://fsxploration.blogspot.com
http://www.flightsimulatorxmissions.com

[Boxkite]

A 2-core or better processor of 2.5Ghz or better, 2mb RAM, Windows XP, and an nVidia GeForce 7950 or better is probably minimum for FSX at Normal settings.

Okay thanks, and what hardware do you recommend if I want to run FSX at the very highest super-duper settings?

[JoeD]

Hight end hardware has never been cheaper... relatively speaking.
Nerver before in computer history have you got more "bang for the buck".

It might help it you tell us your approximate budget.

I would suggest:
*An Intel "core duo Quad core (6600) CPU with an apropriate MOBO.
*A nvidia 8800 series Graphics card
I'm running a 8800 series (8800GTX) and it runs FSSX flawlessly. A 8800GT is good compromise between performance and price.
*Two gigs of high quality DDDR2 RAM can be had for about $50 US. At this point you really don't need DDR3 IMO.
Total price about $550 US dollars for that hardware if you were to buld the computer yourself.
A ready made computer with this hardware can vary greatly in price.

BTW there is no current hardware that can run FSX at all the highest settings in all areas that you may fly.
Major airports in major cities will still tax any current sys.

However, the mentioned hardware will run FSX basically maxed out in most "rural" areras at realively fast frame rates.

Yes... keep XP

Finally keep in mind that FSX is very CPU dependent so , concentrate on that to a large extent.

[Kurtvw]

Look for the new Intel Core2Duos (or Quads) on the 45nm technology, they are quite fast and relatively inexpensive (compared with the 90nm stuff) they also run cooler.

Make sure you get a mobo that can support it.

Get at least 3gb ram and make sure the speed (Mhz) of the ram matches the FSB rating of your chip and MB....

Since harddrives are cheap these days, buy two SATA drives (for a total of however much space you want) and tie them together in a striped RAID... most motherboards can handled this these days and it will double your harddrive performance (reduces texture load times).

Nvidia 8800 GT or greater video card with not less than 320mb ram. When buying Nvidia look at the second number in modle, thats important... Nothing less than a 6 in the second spot (such as 8600 is good, but 8400 is bad).

Thats about it, the rest of the machine can be build to your preference, these items are the key bits for FSX.

[Boxkite]

..It might help it you tell us your approximate budget..

Sky's almost the limit (I'm not married..)
I'll have to tell the shop to build the thing for me and I don't want to be needlessly ripped off by letting them persuade me to pay more than I need to..
I plan to print out bits from this thread and ask them 'can you build me this?" and see what they say

[loki]

I agree with most of what has been stated above, except for the part about RAID0. It rarely, if ever, doubles hard drive speeds. When loading lots of smaller files, like FS and most games, it won't provide much benefit, if any at all. Where RAID0 shines is with very large files, like those you get when video editing. What RAID0 will do in all cases is double the chances of losing all of your data as you now have two drives that can fail.

A single fast drive like the 640GB Western Digital or 1TB Samsung drives would be better. Or if you want to spend the extra money, go for the new VelociRaptor drive from Western Digital. Ignore the older Raptors as the 640GB and 1TB drives mentioned above have similar or better transfer rates.

[JoeD]

Sky's almost the limit (I'm not married..)
I'll have to tell the shop to build the thing for me and I don't want to be needlessly ripped off by letting them persuade me to pay more than I need to..
I plan to print out bits from this thread and ask them 'can you build me this?" and see what they say

OK..

About hard drives..... I' ve run "RAID 0" and not with FSX ant to be honest FSX dosen't seem to like RAID ) too much. It has to do with file size and RAID
"stripe" size when setting up RAID Others have found the same. It's not worh the trouble for FSX IMO.

Just get a fast SATA Drive. Better yet, get two SATA drives. One for your Operating Sys (winXP) and the other for FSX. FSX seems to like (to be installed on) a dedicated drive seperate from the OS.

BTW, I have an (almost) ulimited budget also. However I don't like to spend money unesssarily either. Just concentrate on what will run FSX the best.

EDIT: Loki bet me to it about the RAID 0

[Kurtvw]

Interesting to see both of you come in with a no vote on Raid...

I noticed improvements across the board with the Raid0. Most especially initial startup time for FSX (when I admit, larger files are in motion).

Anyhow... Interesting.

I don't have experience with machines other than my own, so I can't argue about it... On my machine I saw a difference in FSX.

I admit I saw a much bigger difference in my other stuff on this computer... I'm not rolling anything back

[loki]

Here's one article doing a comparison of both RAID0 and non-RAID0 setups. It's an older aritcle, but still relevant.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...px?i=2101&p=11

I've tried RAID0 before, and while some things on the system felt a little faster, it wasn't worth it to me. Loading games and game performance didn't seem to be much, if any better. Not to mention the increased risk of losing everything (definitely have a solid backup system in place).