Most important computer specs for flight sim?

**fierobear** · 03-01-2007, 09:20 PM

I need to get a new computer, and want to build it with flight sim in mind. I currently use FS9 with XP Pro, but will eventually migrate to FSX. I might wait until DX10 and patches are available. I'm not sure I want to start the new computer with Vista because of incompatibilities, drivers, bugs, etc. So, I have a few questions:

1. What are the most to least important specs on a new computer? One post I read said "CPU" was #1, dual core doesn't help FS9, and helps FSX a little. What about video board? Video ram amount? Video chip series (nvidia 7000, 8000)? SLI board, and dual video cards? RAM type?

2. Will XP pro run FSX OK, or would it be better to start with Vista? How does FS9 run with Vista?

**noell** · 03-02-2007, 08:13 PM

The CPU is absolutely #1 when it comes to running FS9/FSX. Core 2 Duo rules the roost these days and I consider the E6600 to be a good starting point when designing a system that will run flight sim well. You are right in that FS9 does not benefit from a dual core CPU. A possible advantage is that if, while FS9 is running, other tasks are happening in the background. In that case, the operating system may utilize the second core and FS9 may be less affected than if it was on a single core. You are also right in that it is said that FSX does use the second core a little for texture decompression and some types file operations. That being the case, during those types of operations, the overall performance in FSX should not be impacted adversely whereas when FSX is run on a single-core CPU, performance would likely be affected.

I consider the video card as being the second most important factor in achieving acceptable flight sim performance. A simple rule for choosing one - get the best you can afford as the more it costs the better it will be for flight sim. That being said, there is no point in pairing a super-duper video card with a slow processor any more than it would makes sense to pair a very weak video card with a fast processor. In other words, its is all about system balance as the best performance is achieved when system components compliment each other. I consider 256MB as the minimum amount of video RAM required for good flight sim performance. You benefit most from larger amounts of RAM when running at screen resolutions greater than about 1280 X 1024. The obvious difference between the NVIDIA 7000 series and the NVIDIA 8000 series is that the 7000 series is not DirectX 10 compliant whereas the 8000 series is. In general terms, the 8000 series architecture is more advanced than that of the 7000 series and thus yields better performance. In putting together a new system I think it only makes to go with the 8000 series video cards. I say that because FSX will be patched for improved performance with Vista/DirectX 10 and future games and graphics programs will all be written to benefit from DirectX 10.

Not quite sure what you mean when you ask what RAM type - pretty well all current systems require DDR2. I'd say nothing slower than PC6400. If you plan to over-clock, PC8000 or greater would be best. Some benefit may be achieved by purchasing "premium" RAM which has better timing specs. As for amounts, FS9 doesn't seem to gain anything by going beyond 1GB. FSX, on the other hand, runs best with at least 2GB.

XP Pro runs FSX just fine (or as fine as FSX will run right now). Reports I've seen, seem to indicate FSX runs fine under Vista as well but is supposed to run better once it is patched to take advantage of DirectX 10 providing of course, you have a DirectX 10 compliant video card. I don't yet have Vista but I did try FS9 with Vista Release Candidate 2 and I thought it ran a bit slower (lower FPS) than with XP. I can't say if that holds true for the production version of Vista. From what I have read though, it seems games in general run a bit slower with Vista as compared to XP. That could, however, be due to immature drivers. If I was building a system today from the ground up and had to buy an operating system, I'd go with Vista. If I already had XP and was building a new system, I'd stick with XP until I see some reports on what the much anticipated DirectX 10 patch does for FSX and/or see what everyone has to say about Vista once it gets past a service pack or two.

....Noell

AMD Athlon 4000+ (San Diego) @ 2750MHz
CoolerMaster 'Aquagate 120' Liquid Cooling
ASUS A8N-SLI Premium
2GB Corsair TwinX2048-3500LLPro @ DDR500 (2.5-3-3-6&1T)
BFG 7900GTX OC (512MB) @ 670/1640MHz (Driver: NGO v1.9381)
2 X 36GB WD Raptor (RAID 0)
74GB WD Raptor
120GB WD Caviar
SB Audigy Gamer
OCZ GameXStream 700W
Antec P180B case

**fierobear** · 03-02-2007, 09:52 PM

OK, so CPU first. Is it worth the money for the fastest dual core I can afford?

Video card - I'll go for an 8800. Any particular brand?

RAM - would 4gb make any difference over 2gb?

Motherboard - so far, the 680i SLI looks best from everything I've read.

**RyanbATC** · 03-03-2007, 12:50 AM

Save some money, get good bang for the buck - stick with the E6600

Video card, 8800GTX if you plan to stick with it for a while, otherwise go with the GTS model, OR if you want to stay DX9 then upgrade go with the 7950GT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130072
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814143086
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130066

RAM - Under XP, I'd stick with a nice pair of 2GB (dual channel 2 x 1GB)
If you run vista someday, you can add another two and it would be helpful.

680i if you want to spend a lot, or the 650i if you want to save a little...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131142

One other thing, personally, I have noticed a difference between 1 GB and 2 in FS9....when using payware planes that consume plenty of PF, like the levelD 767 or Dreamfleet 727/ATR etc etc...I run 2 myself and love it

**kc10** · 03-03-2007, 06:28 AM

Although dual core is not actually "used" by FS9, the improved architecture over what was Netburst makes my 2.4 conroe absolutely slay my old P4 3.0 Northwood. In other words, the core2 is much faster (smarter) even without the second core.

Just don't get the e6300. Only has 2mb L2 cache, and the 7x multiplier is not good 4 overclocking (requires more expensive ram).
The e6400 has 2mb cache also, but 8x multi makes it a better overclocker.
The e6600 is the sweet spot, with 4mb cache, and 9x multiplier, makes overclocking very easy on your ram, i.e. don't need super premium ram to keep up, as you would with the e6300.

Forget SLI, that's all I'll say about that.

Unfortunately, in the end it's not just any single hardware that will give better performance. Along with the cpu you will need a series 7 vid card, at least 1gb (but no more than 2gb) ddr667 or 800, and most importantly, a mainboard that will support the latest technologies and overclock well. There's been a lot of talk about the Gigabyte DS3.

**fierobear** · 03-03-2007, 10:44 AM

>Just don't get the e6300. Only has 2mb L2 cache, and the 7x
>multiplier is not good 4 overclocking (requires more expensive
>ram).
>The e6400 has 2mb cache also, but 8x multi makes it a better
>overclocker.
>The e6600 is the sweet spot, with 4mb cache, and 9x
>multiplier, makes overclocking very easy on your ram, i.e.
>don't need super premium ram to keep up, as you would with the
>e6300.
>

I don't know anything about overclocking. It is unlikely I will try it, at least not in the short term.

>Forget SLI, that's all I'll say about that.

OK, now you have me curious. I've read good reviews about the 680i, so what's your take on SLI?

>
>Unfortunately, in the end it's not just any single hardware
>that will give better performance. Along with the cpu you will
>need a series 7 vid card, at least 1gb (but no more than 2gb)
>ddr667 or 800, and most importantly, a mainboard that will
>support the latest technologies and overclock well. There's
>been a lot of talk about the Gigabyte DS3.

No more than 2gb? Why is that?

**kc10** · 03-03-2007, 06:04 PM

>Forget SLI, that's all I'll say about that.

>OK, now you have me curious. I've read good reviews about the 680i, so what's your take on SLI?<

Waste of money. The increase in performance is not worth the cost; for the same performance, or better, you're better off going with a high end series 8 (or ATI equivalent) since they are not only as fast as an SLI settup of equal cost, but they are also superior in rendering abilities (newer technology, and more of it). Now, if cost is not a factor, then performance vs cost is irrelevant, so of course two series 8 cards in SLI are even better than a single (if the game supports SLI).

>No more than 2gb? Why is that?<
There's nothing wrong with having more than 2g. But since 2g is more than you need, why spend money on even more ram, when alternately you could use it to get a more powerfull CPU or GPU? As a non overclocker, you will need those two components to be as powerful as spending permits.
You can always add more ram later :)

**fierobear** · 03-03-2007, 07:11 PM

>Waste of money. The increase in performance is not worth the
>cost; for the same performance, or better, you're better off
>going with a high end series 8 (or ATI equivalent) since they
>are not only as fast as an SLI settup of equal cost, but they
>are also superior in rendering abilities (newer technology,
>and more of it). Now, if cost is not a factor, then
>performance vs cost is irrelevant, so of course two series 8
>cards in SLI are even better than a single (if the game
>supports SLI).

I had a suggestion to get an SLI board and one top-of-the-line 8000 series card. Then, add another after the price on that card drops. I thought that was a pretty good plan.

Primary games are FS9/FSX and Doom 3.

>
>>No more than 2gb? Why is that?<
>There's nothing wrong with having more than 2g. But since 2g
>is more than you need, why spend money on even more ram, when
>alternately you could use it to get a more powerfull CPU or
>GPU? As a non overclocker, you will need those two components
>to be as powerful as spending permits.
>You can always add more ram later :)

If you say 2gb is enough for FSX, and 4gb is not necessary, then I'll go with that assessment.

**kc10** · 03-03-2007, 08:06 PM

I'm saying 2gb ram is more enough for fs2004, and enough for FSX. For most of us, pc building includes making the best use of available funds, and my 1st priority is the cpu not only because it's the heart of your frames per second, but because it's the most inconvinient to upgrade, and must be replaced as apposed to added to. Whereas RAM not only simply pops into place, but you can add more of it as required down the road.

The money spent on over-the-top ram (4gb), between $150 and $220 or so, could buy some far more crucial horsepower if spent on a more powerful cpu and/or vid card that you may not afford if you go with the 4 gigs.
BTW, don't forget the PSU needed for this upgrade is not going to be cheap either. And it's yet another component, like the cpu, you don't want to be upgrading any time soon.

You said you probably would move to FSX later on, which to me makes the decision to go with 2gb ram a nobrainer. If eventually FSX is proven to run better with 4gb, it's so easy to just add another 2 sticks, already having had a solid foundation (CPU, GPU, mobo, PSU) in place and running.