Am i lost or is this a shame ?

I just went to gamedebate.com

and try to check about some PC combinations for a later system

And if i understand well the results, specs seem too much over rated

my very first PC had a processor athlon 64, 512 RAM and the geforce 7300GS graphics card

its really really low, i bought that PC back in 2005.

but then i check the results here

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=371&game=Microsoft+Flight+Simulator+X%3A+Gold+Edition&popSysReqRAM=2&p_make=AMD&p_deriv=Athlon+64+3500%2B&gc_make=Nvidia&gc_deriv=GeForce+7300+GS+256MB&ram=0.512&checkSubmit=#systemRequirements

and it just shows how that GC could run FSX so well...

may be you can explain what im missing or lets consider

this website a shame for giving so much false info

Sites like that are just comparing the specs of your system to what the game developer puts on the box. They haven't actually tested the games on any hardware and thus don't really know how they will run. In the case of FSX, the minimum requirements for the Deluxe version were a 1 GHZ CPU,256MB of RAM for Windows XP, and a 32 MB (I believe) DX9 video card. Just about every PC made in the past 10 years could meet those requirements. The reality, as those on this forum know, is very different if you want a good experience. To have anything approaching decent performance requires far more those minimums.

Personally I don't bother with these sorts of sites as they don't offer much. For those not familiar at all with computer specs these sites can be a starting point, but they really won't tell you how well a given is going to actually run.

Is that your report? Did they poll your machine? Is that based on the the 2.7GHZ processor DDR2Ram?

If so, that's the opposite of what I would have expected for a CPU based program like FSX. Everything I've read says 3.7 is about the minimum for FSX. Can't address the GPU as I don't know anything about that model. But from what I have long understood, almost any GPU is fine with FSX.

Perhaps this test was based on other programs which are more GPU based.

Is that your report? Did they poll your machine? Is that based on the the 2.7GHZ processor DDR2Ram?

 

If so, that's the opposite of what I would have expected for a CPU based program like FSX. Everything I've read says 3.7 is about the minimum for FSX. Can't address the GPU as I don't know anything about that model. But from what I have long understood, almost any GPU is fine with FSX.

 

Perhaps this test was based on other programs which are more GPU based.

Read my reply above closely. Those sites don't actually test any game and thus don't actually know how any given game will perform on a specific system. They just compare a PC's specs to the requirements on the box, nothing more.

Is that your report? Did they poll your machine? Is that based on the the 2.7GHZ processor DDR2Ram?

 

If so, that's the opposite of what I would have expected for a CPU based program like FSX. Everything I've read says 3.7 is about the minimum for FSX. Can't address the GPU as I don't know anything about that model. But from what I have long understood, almost any GPU is fine with FSX.

 

Perhaps this test was based on other programs which are more GPU based.

Il you read carefully,you will understand its my old system. Amd is 2.2, my Intel is 2.7 dual.

And again i dont agree at all with that minimum 3.7 requirements.

Minimum requrements is for low settings, and i had no problem at all on those minimums.

Really, i dont know where you took that info from :confused:

But from what I have long understood, almost any GPU is fine with FSX.

.

From what I've seen for several years, it's clouds that stress the GPU's the most of

anything in FSX.

Many of the low end graphic cards will run scenery pretty well. But throw in some

dense multi cloud layers, and things can slow to a crawl mighty fast.

And the nvidia cards have always seemed to handle FSX clouds the best of all the

graphics cards I think.

With the new i7 box I just built, it handles dense max scenery settings really well with just

the onboard HD 4600 graphics. But I finally ran into some dense clouds today that were really

straining it for a minute or two or three.

And it was right after takeoff going into some dense multi layer stuff. I had the default five

layers running with ASN, and today going out of KHOU, it must have been using them all

with massive quantities.

It was the first time I had seen clouds drag it down since I started using it.

Once I cleared the clouds, my frame rates popped back up to normal, even though they

were still pretty dense below and in front of me. Just wasn't trying to deal with so many

layers and a IFR zero vis layer out the front window in front of those other layers.

So I really need to get a good video card if I want smooth rates in the really dense multi

layer clouds.

Even a medium strength CPU with a lower end video card can usually handle dense scenery

pretty danged well.

Even my older AMD Phenom II and cheap video could run max scenery settings pretty

fast as long as no dense cloud layers to bog the video, and no high level aircraft to

chew the CPU up. The NGX needs the brute CPU power fer instance to not bog down

the frame rate to lower levels due to CPU strain. But I could run the FSX FA/18 at max

settings and fast at tree top levels, and it was pretty decent. Even over SFO, etc..

But that FA/18 doesn't chew on the CPU near as much as the 737NGX.

Something about dense clouds that really stress the video.. I think it's because

they have so many varying shades and such.

You'll see kind of the same thing with HD video.. Even low bit rates can usually show

good detail when it comes to fine details that aren't moving around much.

But add stuff like multi shade skies, smoothly varying shade backgrounds, or something

that is moving across the screen fast, and it will often start to show pixel and artifact

mayhem, even though there is not much fine detail to show.

Takes a high bit rate to avoid that stuff, kinda like FSX needs high throughput video

to chew through dense cloud layers. I'd really like to get a GTX 770 or so.. But the

appx $300 or more price kind of gags me a bit.. Might have to settle with a GTX 760??

or so, to keep it around the $200 range.. Even that gags me a bit being as I'm cheap.

But that should still work a lot better than the on board graphics I'm using right now as

far as dense clouds.

From what I've seen......

I allways repeat it. its a matter of taste, nice graphics and smooth video

is relative depending on the simmer.

Many go to youtube and will like their system to run as in those videos

with really nice graphics with super rigs. it becomes a reference to them.

I discovered FS back in 2001, in my school. they had really low performance PCs

but it seemed amazing for me. So the first thing i did when i bought my first PC in 2005

went and get FS2004 and then FSX in 2006, i knew it would be hard for my PC

but it could handle it very well at low settings, i was happy then.

Its all taste.

I allways repeat it. its a matter of taste, nice graphics and smooth video

is relative depending on the simmer.

Many go to youtube and will like their system to run as in those videos

with really nice graphics with super rigs. it becomes a reference to them.

 

I discovered FS back in 2001, in my school. they had really low performance PCs

but it seemed amazing for me. So the first thing i did when i bought my first PC in 2005

went and get FS2004 and then FSX in 2006, i knew it would be hard for my PC

but it could handle it very well at low settings, i was happy then.

Its all taste.

Well, maybe so, but when the frame rate drops low enough to notice a definite

stutter, I'd say that transcends taste, unless the person doesn't mind slide

show video. And it's usually realistic clouds that cause that more than anything.

I don't really pay too much attention to what's on the youtube videos, and am

not overly concerned with real fancy scenery. Most all of my FSX world is default

scenery. But I like to run realistic clouds if possible, and often it's hard to do without

some hard core video hardware. In the past, I've usually run reduced cloud levels

in order to keep the frame rates up, because I've often been too cheap to buy

high end video cards. And it seems even with brute i7 horsepower, things will still

be about the same, although the present on board video is a good bit better than

what was on the Phenom II box. So to really be a happy camper and take advantage

of everything else I've done on the new build, I'm gonna have to break down and buy

a decent video card. And it's needed purely to deal with clouds, and really nothing else.

As is, it eats up any scenery I can throw at it, and spits out the seeds, asking for more.

Only clouds seem to be capable of slowing it down.

The main reason I want to improve the clouds is because with reduced cloud coverage

in FSX, you almost never get a constant cloud deck when the real wx is that way, and

the programs such as ASN, etc are feeding that to the sim. It's always partially broken,

which I'm starting to grow a bit tired of.. So it's decent video card time..

Actually, the on board HD 4600 is not doing too bad, being I've been able to run full

clouds and it took a while to finally see some that slowed it down. Often, it keeps up

quite well as long as they aren't too heavy. So it's only an occasional problem with the

present video. For now, I'll probably reduce the default ASN 5 layers down to 4 layers

and see how it does in the heavy stuff.

Well, maybe so, but when the frame rate drops low enough to notice a definite

stutter, I'd say that transcends taste, unless the person doesn't mind slide

show video. And it's usually realistic clouds that cause that more than anything.

I don't really pay too much attention to what's on the youtube videos, and am

not overly concerned with real fancy scenery. Most all of my FSX world is default

scenery. But I like to run realistic clouds if possible, and often it's hard to do without

some hard core video hardware. In the past, I've usually run reduced cloud levels

in order to keep the frame rates up, because I've often been too cheap to buy

high end video cards. And it seems even with brute i7 horsepower, things will still

be about the same, although the present on board video is a good bit better than

what was on the Phenom II box. So to really be a happy camper and take advantage

of everything else I've done on the new build, I'm gonna have to break down and buy

a decent video card. And it's needed purely to deal with clouds, and really nothing else.

As is, it eats up any scenery I can throw at it, and spits out the seeds, asking for more.

Only clouds seem to be capable of slowing it down.

The main reason I want to improve the clouds is because with reduced cloud coverage

in FSX, you almost never get a constant cloud deck when the real wx is that way, and

the programs such as ASN, etc are feeding that to the sim. It's always partially broken,

which I'm starting to grow a bit tired of.. So it's decent video card time..

Actually, the on board HD 4600 is not doing too bad, being I've been able to run full

clouds and it took a while to finally see some that slowed it down. Often, it keeps up

quite well as long as they aren't too heavy. So it's only an occasional problem with the

present video. For now, I'll probably reduce the default ASN 5 layers down to 4 layers

and see how it does in the heavy stuff.

The frame rate drops depending on how high you set the other sliders

You can put them all at the lowest, put FPS at limited level and you wont notice a thing

all is nice and smooth.

I think clouds and traffic settings are the worst, i've had fsx block suddenly after

a traffic settings set too high, also when you have multiple windows open

and undocked. Antialiasing is also a killer.

My PC setup is not too bad right now

almost all sliders to 66 to 75 %, no antialiasing, all traffic to 25% to 50%,

clouds at low settings. No additional windows.

If i fly a complex aircraft, i lower everything about 5 to 10 %.

I can notice a "minijump" (or stuttering ?) frame about every 5 seconds, but it doesnt really offend me because it happens when the camera is focusing the ground, but its ok

when looking the horizon.

The frame rate drops depending on how high you set the other sliders

You can put them all at the lowest, put FPS at limited level and you wont notice a thing

all is nice and smooth.

I think clouds and traffic settings are the worst, i've had fsx block suddenly after

a traffic settings set too high, also when you have multiple windows open

and undocked. Antialiasing is also a killer.

My PC setup is not too bad right now

almost all sliders to 66 to 75 %, no antialiasing, all traffic to 25% to 50%,

clouds at low settings. No additional windows.

If i fly a complex aircraft, i lower everything about 5 to 10 %.

I can notice a "minijump" (or stuttering ?) frame about every 5 seconds, but it doesnt really offend me because it happens when the camera is focusing the ground, but its ok

when looking the horizon.

Yep, that's the usual fix. I was testing a few settings today and found that

using max water texture made a fairly big hit when using dense clouds even if

I wasn't actually looking at water. And the best setting was low 2x.. What was

really weird was setting water detail to off, or the other levels lower than 2x low

were not any better. The two settings below max, 2x med and 2x high were both

better than 2x max, but about equal. But not quite as good as low 2x..

So I think that will be my cure to help the rates when there are heavy clouds with

this video. And I reduced the cloud layers from 5 to 4.

The water change was giving me an average of 10 extra fps when in the 20-30-40 fps

range.

And it's when I'm flying the NGX that I want good rates through heavy clouds.

And with that plane, I could care less about water quality, being as I'm usually too

high to see it. I can always turn it back up for low level water skimming with other

planes. I noticed with the trike out in AZ, I was getting 200+ fps with the sparse

clouds ASN was showing out there. That was with max scenery, but water at low 2x.

So I diddle around with it finding the best settings for certain types of flying.

It runs the orbx stuff real well. I've been flying around the Bowerman WA area with

max scenery, and no problems at all. Being as I can now run pretty dense being on the

64 bit OS, I might break down and buy that Orbx global stuff so I can get decent detail

all over the country. I never tried it with the 32 bit OS as I figured if I tried to run it

with the NGX, I'd vapor lock and OOM pretty fast. With that plane, I couldn't run the

default more than "normal" without risking OOM mayhem with the 32 bit OS.

With this box, I've been limiting the frame rate at 30 so far. I used 20 on the older

Phenom II box. Even if it can do much higher in many areas, I think it's smoother overall

with the limiter. Using unlimited can sometimes cause the stutters.

...And it's when I'm flying the NGX that I want good rates through heavy clouds.

And with that plane, I could care less about water quality, being as I'm usually too

high to see it....

In fact, setting water effects very high when flying at 30000 feet is unnecessary.

Also, flying an aircraft very fast at very very low altitude will make stutters.

But if you fly the "recreation" aircraft very close to the water at max high water settings is peace of cake.

In fact, setting water effects very high when flying at 30000 feet is unnecessary.

Also, flying an aircraft very fast at very very low altitude will make stutters.

But if you fly the "recreation" aircraft very close to the water at max high water settings is peace of cake.

I think I've about got it whooped.. The slight tweaks I made with the water and

dropping one layer of clouds seemed to have helped. But I also made a change with

my puter, and the way the CPU is run. It was set using the Intel speed management,

of which I forgot the exact name, but it would widely vary the speed of my CPU

depending on load. Down to 800 mhz with low loads. I hadn't worried about it too

much as when using the monitoring software it seemed that the cpu was running

fairly fast pretty most all the time when FSX was running.

But I turned that off, and now the lowest it will go is around 3400 mhz, and most

times is bumping higher, with a lot more peaks at the full 4000 mhz.

Danged if it didn't give me several more fps running that way. So with that increase,

and the increases from the water change, that should give me the overhead to deal

with most any thick cloud mayhem, being as my overall increases greatly outweigh

the slowest rate I saw.

And I just flew Southwest 4 from HOU to DAL. Clouds were pretty much wall to wall

most of the flight, and many layers. Descending into Dallas was pretty much wall to wall

and several layers down to about 2000-3000 ft. Ran smooth as silk the whole way.

Had some wind mayhem on final to 13R.. Had a radar/wind shear advisory on short

final.. Landed with no problem, but then as I did a 180 and was taxiing back to the gate,

I was getting a yellow windshear alert on the ND to the north all the way until I turned

into the gate.

So anyway, the clouds were really thick that flight, and no problem at all. And my puter

does seem much snappier even out of the sim when I turned off the Intel speed control.

So I think I'm going to leave it off.

I'm starting to wonder now if maybe the slowdown I saw the other day was possibly

my CPU going partially to sleep on me for a few seconds.. Shouldn't have been being I

had just taken off, but you never know.

I generally have no problems at all flying real fast, real low. I didn't even with the older

AMD box most of the time with the FA/18, and I don't with this one.

I can run the FA/18 600-700 knots at tree top level with max scenery and no stutters.

The slower planes naturally even less of a problem.