New computer for fsx

Hello everyone,

 

I was thinking of building a new PC to run FSX. Do you think the following specs would work? I want to run payware aircraft with addon scereny at a smooth fps.

 

Amd fx 9590 5.0 ghz 8 core

ASrock fatal1ly 970 Preformance motherboard

4 GB DDR3 2000 Mhz Ram

120 Gb SSD

Geforce GTX 750

 

Thanks

The 750 is rather weak, you should get a 960 or better.

 

RAM should be at least 8 Gig. You need 4 of those for FSX alone and probably want to run stuff like ASN and Windows alongside it as well.

 

SSD is on the small side for addon scenery. For example FSGlobal Ultimate mesh alone weighs in at 100 Gig. You should add an SSHD with 2TB.

Okay, but from what I have heard, fsx can only use 4 GB of Ram. Also, should I go for this, or should I buy something with an i5-4690k. It gets slightly better reviews than the fx-9590, but it is a lot more expensive. Also, I find it difficult to believe that a quad core 3.5 Ghz out-preforms an octa-core 5.0 Ghz processor. Also, I thought FSX is 90% CPU dependent, so does the video card make a huge difference?

You are running more than FSX on your system. Windows wants its share and any other program running alongside too. If you only have 4 Gig then the memory available to FSX will be a lot less than that.

 

About the AMD vs Intel: the AMD will probably work. FSX does not care too much about how many cores there are, it is the single core performance that matters most.

 

FSX needs a powerful CPU, that is true. But this does not mean that you can skimp on any of the other components. It requires a very good GPU too, and yes, the difference is huge. A 960 is twice as powerful than the 750. With a good processor, the right addons and settings, the 960 will be running at 100% capacity. Imagine what the poor 750 will do in these circumstances. This is like motor and tires really. If you get a car with more horsepower, you wont buy smaller and slimmer tires with it. If the CPU delivers more data to be displayed, the GPU has to keep up.

The i5 you chose is definitely better for fsx. Clock speed is everything with fsx. Fsx is basically a single core game. The main process of fsx runs on one core, and the other cores are only used for scenery loading. A quad core sure has it's use, but an octa core does not add much.

I think the i5 is a very good choice, also because fsx can not make use of hyperthreading. The i7 only adds hyperthreading and some add a slightly higher base clockspeed. So unless you want to go for the absolute maximum clockspeed a i5 is the best value processor you can get.

I built my pc almost 2 years ago, around a i5-3570k. I'm still very glad I did.

Are you sure that a quad core CPU 3.5 Ghz from Intel out-preforms an octa-core 5.0 Ghz CPU from AMD? Like you said, fsx is pretty much a single core program, and one the AMD processor, it is running on a 5 GHz core whereas on the i5 FSX is on 3.5 GHz. I would prefer to not have to do any overclocking on my Computer as I do not want to damage the expensive components. Also, the i5 is almost $100 more expensive, so my question is will an AMD fx 9590 run FSX with payware aircraft and scenery and still achieve a smooth frame rate?

sure, no.

 

I am sure the octa-core part will not bring fsx anything.

 

The freq... Amd's ghz don't directly compare to intel ghz.

but sure, no.

the price difference should say something.

You pay 100 $ more, you get 100$ more performance. The market is tough.

 

.... Let's have a look. "fx9590 vs 4690k"

hey presto, the 4690k has it by 2 nosehairs !!

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

 

:);) il88pp

Have fun building!:)

Even if you don't overclock, you may need to add cooling (liquid) system. I have and i7 and it runs at 3.875 with tubo-boost. But it heats up to 71 C. No good. So I am going to get liquid cooling. Case fans alone don't make it. And the other thing to consider beisdes the extra cost is the how much power the CPU draws so DO shop for a power supply that 'delivers' (80+) clean crisp voltage. A cheap PSU will 'cost' you in performance and longivity of parts. Voltage regulation is essential. A cheap PSU will not regulate as well and you get tearing,etc, and even you SSD and USB devices will suffer. Build it yourself and save a bundle.But read up on things you have to do BEFORE you install ANY programs (including FSX). Go watch how-to videos on YTube.

Chuck B

Okay, thank you for all of your help. So basically, the i5-4690k will definitely be the better option. I will probably go for that. Thank you all for your help.

Are you sure that a quad core CPU 3.5 Ghz from Intel out-preforms an octa-core 5.0 Ghz CPU from AMD? Like you said, fsx is pretty much a single core program, and one the AMD processor, it is running on a 5 GHz core whereas on the i5 FSX is on 3.5 GHz.

 

Processors have instruction sets ("micro programs") you call from the outside to make the CPU do things. The better programmed and optimized these micro programs are, and the more sophisticated the circuits are, the better any program will run. Hypothetically speaking, if AMD had really bad ALUs that took twice as long to do the same job as the Intel, you would have to run the AMD on 7 GHz to get the same result.

 

Of course reality is not so simple. You can build good FSX rigs with AMD, and I think in this case the AMD is the better choice - if Intel, I'd choose an i7 to match the 9590...

(I'm a bit surprised that Darryl is not here yet , and I need to choose my words carefully in case he reads this.)

 

If you look at benchmarks, FSX needs a CPU with good scores in everything FLOP (Whetstone, Linpack, Sandra, anything with MFLOP in its description)