FSX Hardware Questions: What to Upgrade First?

[W201028]

Hi guys, long time FSX pilot here, looking for some input on hardware upgrades.
Ive been flying on laptops for a few years now, and I just bought a half decent desktop to upgrade for the maximum FSX experience. Heres where Im at:
I got a Dell business PC at a hell of a deal on ebay. Its got a 2.7 ghz AMD with 2 gigs of RAM, and an ATI Radeon HD 2400 with 256 megs. Running on Vista with nothing else on the 160gb drive but FSX.

I used to build PCs in highschool, but that was a long time ago. In fact, the last upgrade I performed was a TNT card with 32 megs! Top of the line at the time, if my memory serves me.

Anyway, I am running with full aircraft detail, high draw distance, 75 percent on clouds and traffic, high on detail, and full light effects. So maybe 80% all around with almost no stutter, except on the ground at major airports.
I was running max draw distance, but it skipped bad, maybe 15 frames but I didnt count it. I want to run full settings all around.

Now heres the kicker; I am running a 32 bit system.

Both my previous laptops were Intel and had 64 bit systems, but suffered to provide even medium settings. So I feel like its the AMD and the graphics that make the biggest difference. But can a 32 bit provide the speed I need?

So I am wondering: do I need to upgrade to a 64bit system and start from there, or can I upgrade my video card and RAM on the 32 bit and get the full experience I am looking for?

Any input would be very appriciated. Thanks.

[FraisLive]

RAM!!! Get at least 4g... I recommend more because FSX runs by its self on 4g stabely...the you might what to consider overclocking your processor

[PPSFA]

Vista is garbage, right up there with ME, and the video card is weak. I would get Win7 64, add 4 gigs of RAM, and get a decent video card with at least a gig of memory.

[jerryj3]

There is a computer company named Jetline Systems that custom builds computers for FSX. They test a lot of hardware with FSX and publish the results on their website. Just because it is the fastest item out there and it works with other games is might actually slow down FSX. They have good information such as 75% of the frame rate in FSX comes from the CPU. I don't believe they talk about 32 bit vs 64 bit but this really helps me with hardware selection. Here is the link. http://www.jetlinesystems.com/performance.php

[PAULCRAIG]

One thing I can tell you is that FSX is 32bit software, so having a 64bit operating system will not make any difference. As it is 32bit software it will only use just over 3GB of ram maximum, you could upgrade your ram by adding either 1GB or 2GB which may improve performance.

[fxsttcb]

One thing I can tell you is that FSX is 32bit software, so having a 64bit operating system will not make any difference. As it is 32bit software it will only use just over 3GB of ram maximum, you could upgrade your ram by adding either 1GB or 2GB which may improve performance.

The difference in a 64bit OS is, it allows Windows and background processes to use any installed RAM beyond 4GB. Thus allowing the sim it's entire 32bit address allocation...Don

[loki]

One thing I can tell you is that FSX is 32bit software, so having a 64bit operating system will not make any difference. As it is 32bit software it will only use just over 3GB of ram maximum

With a 64 bit OS and FSX SP2/Acceleration/Gold, the sim can use up to 4GB of RAM. Moving to a 64 bit OS isn't going to get one much in the way of performance, but it does remove memory limits as Don says.

Upgrading to 4GB of RAM and a better video card would the easiest upgrades to do.

Vista is no where near as bad as Windows ME. Make sure you have all of the updates, including the service packs installed. Most of the problems were from third party drivers and software not being updated properly for Vista. XP was just as bad when it came out, but people seem to have forgotten that it took 2 service packs and a lot of third party updates too.

[JSkorna]

Save some money and keep Vista.

[W201028]

Wow guys that was alot of good info really fast.
I always thought Vista 64 was really rough, and initially I liked 7 better, but the 32 bit does seem to be less freezey. Its good to know that I can stick with 32 bit and get good results. I was cringing at the thought of getting a new MB, new processor, and then a 64 bit Windows OS.
I thought the system said it could handle 8 gigs RAM max, but paulcraig, you say I can run 3? Dont the slots have to be evenly distributed, like 2 and 2, or 4 and 4? Thats what I had heard years ago and always followed that rule. But if I can add unevenly, I can get a 1 gig stick from work for free...

[loki]

32 bit Windows can only use a max of 4GB of RAM. This is further reduced by the system having to share memory addresses between the system RAM, video RAM and other hardware. So in the end, 32 bit Windows systems usually only have about 3.2-3.5GB of RAM available for use by the OS and programs. Also, on 32 bit Windows, running programs can only use a max of 2GB of memory by default. The so called /3GB switch can be used to change this to an extent, but it does have limits. This is where a 64 bit OS comes in as the system can address and use far more than 4GB of RAM, and doesn't have the issues with sharing addresses between all of the hardware. I suspect your previous performance problems were likely due to hardware, not the 64 bit OS. Laptops often have low end parts, especially video cards.

When it comes to installing RAM, it is best to install the sticks in pairs for best performance and stability, but it isn't required. Most systems these days can run mixed RAM configs. They just won't be as fast.