Processor speed for fsx 2020

[mopep]

My computer has an INTEL i5-3570 processor running @ 3.46ghz and it looks like the minimum specs call for an i5-4450. What will happen if I try to run it FSX 2020 on my machine?? Will it just run slow or not at all?? Thanks. mopep

[stinger2k2]

The sim needs a good graphics card more than cpu power. What is yours?

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[mopep]

The sim needs a good graphics card more than cpu power. What is yours?

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

I have a NVIDIA GeForce GTX650 with 9gb of total memory (8gb shared and 1gb Vram). Does that help??

[mallcott]

I have a NVIDIA GeForce GTX650 with 9gb of total memory (8gb shared and 1gb Vram). Does that help??

 

Not enough.

Nowhere NEAR it!

[mopep]

Looks like I am "SOL"!!! The specs call for a GTX770 or better with 2GM of Vram. I will at least need a new video card if it will even work in my computer. If not then I will need a new computer to run FSX 2020!! Thanks for the help anyway.

[bam1220]

What is FSX 2020?

[Nat]

I also have the I5 3570. I have the GTX 970 card and 8 ram. At first I was just going to wait until I got a new computer, but decided to just purchase the sim anyway. Turns out it's playable, or at least better than I expected. I'm enjoying it but it's not good enough for the long run. I'm buying a new video card. If that upgrade alone is not good enough I'll swap out everything else!

[dogdish]

What is FSX 2020?

 

Give him a break, he meant to post FSX MMXX

[misbah]

Before you consider buying a new PC you might like to take a look at bench marking done recently at Toms Hardware, https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/features/microsoft-flight-simulator-benchmarks-performance-system-requirements

regards

[KateCold]

My computer has an INTEL i5-3570 processor running @ 3.46ghz and it looks like the minimum specs call for an i5-4450. What will happen if I try to run it FSX 2020 on my machine?? Will it just run slow or not at all?? Thanks. mopep

 

Hi there.

 

I'm new to the forum so please excuse me butting in, but I just wanted to report my experience in relation to this, as someone who's running FS2020 on a machine that's way under spec. My processor is an extremely old AMD Phenom II X4 955 (basically it barely shows up on benchmark comparison graphs next to the Ryzen 3). I have a slightly less old 2Gb GeForce GTX 960, and 8Gb DDR2 memory. All of this on an Asustek M3N78-EM motherboard.

 

I can report that FS2020 does run on my PC. It's not as pretty as it could be: obviously I have to run with most of the detail set to bare minimum - though I've found some of the settings can be nudged up a little. I assume these are the ones that put more load on the GPU than the CPU, like volumetric clouds, etc. Some things I'm happy to live without and would probably have turned off anyway (it's an aesthetic preference but I've never been fond of lens flare, simulated depth-of-field or too much bloom).

 

Obviously, it's not a smooth experience, but I didn't expect it to be. And with a machine like mine I'm used to low frame rates anyway. When FS2020 is running acceptably for me I'd estimate it's probably somewhere in the region of 15-20 fps, so if you're used to a strict 30-60 you might find it troubling.

 

That's when it's running well for me. There are periods of severe slowdown and stutter, but in my experience these tend to be confined to certain places. The initial start of the flight is one: I guess a lot of stuff is being loaded and generated at the point you appear on the runway - I tend to give it 30 seconds or so to get all that done (a good indicator seems to be whether you can mouse-look around the cockpit reasonably smoothly). Changes of weather can create minor stuttering, and the occasional short freeze. And arriving over areas of particularly dense autogen scenery can produce fierce stuttering for a few seconds while it sorts itself out. Though, again, you'll have your own idea about what's acceptable: yesterday I flew back and forth for a while over Rome, which still looked pretty impressive by my standards - though of course nothing approaching the FS2020 adverts and the sort of thing I imagine you'd see on YouTube.

 

Terrain at distance looks a little bare, and with low texture settings and no antialiasing there's not much more than a general impression of far-off scenery, but, again, it suffices for me. Cities can be variable: as I said, Rome was happy enough; London a little stuttery here and there but broadly okay (although the London Eye wasn't modelled, but I'll leave it to others to debate whether that's a good thing or not). And there are also some geographical areas I have more trouble with: I tried a flight out of Astoria Regional (KAST) in Oregon, and that flight was quite jerky. Whether it was the high density of autogen trees or the hilly terrain I don't know.

 

I will say, though that all of the above constitute the worst of the experience I've had. And it's not too bad, honestly. Like I say, you'll have your own limits for what's bearable, but for me this is very bearable. And I've got to say, even with all the graphics turned down (the only thing I've kept off the bottom peg are the clouds, as mentioned, which I have at Medium, and Render Scaling set to 100 out of 200), it's still a really pretty game. Seriously. The lighting alone is gorgeous. The colours are beautiful.

 

In the end obviously I can't guarantee it'll run at all on any given sub-spec setup. I can only say that with the kit I've listed above, it does. Not brilliantly. Certainly not at the level it's intended to run at. I'd like it to be better. Smoother and sharper and more detailed. Maybe it'll be good enough for you, maybe not. But given there's no chance of me affording a CPU and motherboard upgrade in the foreseeable future, for me at least, it'll do.

[dogdish]

Good read Misbah, THANKS

 

Looks like the Intel/Nvidia formula of FSX still holds true for FSMMXX, and might as well forget running at 4K

[Kapitan]

no, its bad. I explain

 

I have an i5 7800 you see that number?

its not i5 or i7 what matters, its the second number

you have 3570...too low

 

the i5 7800 is specially for gaming. Because it has Bios features like IVT and XMP that multiplies the speed. Plus having a Freesync monitor with this cpu helps a lot

 

So never think the power is in the cpu model i7,

many i5 are more powerful than a lot of i7

[jslnr]

I am running a i5 3570 with gtx 1060 16GB of memory and ssd hard drive. I have tweaked my settings a little bit. I think video card, SSD, and memory are your top considerations if trying to use a i5 3570.

 

My observation is that the game runs decent in rural or low density, even Ted Stevens in Anchorage. SeaTac can be glitchy and slow due to density of scenery.

 

I have performed well all the landing challenges and don't feel held back by the PC in that regards. But, this is a game meant for hardware not available yet. I am pricing a mobo upgrade, but rally feel I need to stomach the cost of a good GPU upgrade also if I am going to see a real improvement.

 

So, you can have plenty of fun on the 3570

[bam1220]

Give him a break, he meant to post FSX MMXX

 

And why don't you enlighten us as to what FSX MMXX means?

[stempski]

Roman numerals:

 

M = 1000

X = 10

MMXX = two thousand twenty

[bam1220]

Roman numerals:

 

M = 1000

X = 10

MMXX = two thousand twenty

 

I get that part. But why the FSX first? What does FSX MMXX mean? That was my question. I guess I don't know what Flight Sim10 2020 means.

[stempski]

yup... I didn't see the fsX part.... guess it goes to show you see what you want to see. :)

[P.e.g.a.s.u.s]

KateCold thanks for your input. I think this might help a lot of folks out there wondering if they can enjoy MSFS on older machines. Your findings, assuming they are reproducible, are very informative.

Cheers,

David