Jump to content

Computer For FSX


waterbombs16

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone.

Lately, I have been looking at purchasing a desktop to play FSX on. My laptop just cant run it anymore. I found one on

E-bay, and it is in new condition. I am wondering if it would be able to run my FSX smoother

 

I Need to run: Fsx, and the PMDG 737-800 ngx

 

It is a "barebones gaming desktop" and has the following:

 

AMD FX-4130 Black Edition Quad Core 3.9GHz Processor

1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM Hard Drive + Windows 8.1 Pro Trial 64 Bit

8GB DDR3 1600MHz Team Elite RAM

 

The only concern I have is that the computer comes with windows 8.1, and I am pretty sure you need FSX-SE to run on Windows 8???? Or if there would be a way to downgrade to windows 7?

 

Hopefully someone will be able to help me out. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FSX loves CPU with high Ghz

FSX loves SSD drives

FSX prefers Intel CPU (quad cores)

 

Search an Intel I7 2600K or 2700K, the best CPU for FSX. It can be overclocked to 4.5 or 5 Ghz without problem (requires a good cooling and a good power supply)

 

I prefer run FSX on XP32 (FSX is a 32 bits software), because I find that it run better and I hate to give money to memory sellers but it is my opinion :p

FD-FMC website with SID/STAR/Approaches databse : http://freenavdbgroup.com/

 

My photo website : http://francois-dore.fr/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought this off-the-shelf laptop from the local comp shop earlier this year for 300 Brit pounds (460 US dollars) and it runs FSX fine at highish graphics settings and good framerates-

 

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/laptop-spec_zpszfskgdch.jpg~original

 

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/lapt-spec-disp_zpsyj0sp325.jpg~original

 

THREAD- https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?292809-Can-my-laptop-run-FSX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FSX loves CPU with high Ghz

FSX loves SSD drives

FSX prefers Intel CPU (quad cores)

 

FSX loves single-threaded performance, full stop. That typically means an Intel CPU with a faster clock speed, but there's nothing inherent in clock frequency or Intel CPUs that FSX takes advantage of. If AMD made a lower-clocked CPU with high IPC, that would be the new "goto" for FSX.

 

Search an Intel I7 2600K or 2700K, the best CPU for FSX.

 

Not any more. Going to Ivy Bridge or Haswell gives a 10-20% boost clock for clock, and the Devil's Canyon Haswells are guaranteed up to 4.4Ghz - not to mention lower power consumption. I wouldn't take a Sandy Bridge anymore, especially since you'd need an older motherboard.

 

I prefer run FSX on XP32 (FSX is a 32 bits software), because I find that it run better and I hate to give money to memory sellers but it is my opinion :p

 

XP32? Wow.

 

Not only are you limiting FSX to 2GB or at most 3GB of VAS (instead of 4GB), you're also significantly restricting the disk cache and slowing down your I/O. Use a modern 64-bit OS.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intels 3.8ghz is a lot more effective then AMD 3.8 ghz. Get an Intel if you can.

 

Since Service Pack 2 for fsx, and also for FSX Acceleration, FSX can work with more then one core. I use a quad core and when running fsx all cores are constantly almost fully used.

 

Still, most of the work is done by the first core, and that means the faster the processor is, the better.

 

Nothing wrong with a 2600k processor. They can be bought cheap second hand, can be overclocked very high, and are fast even if you don't whish to overclock them. (Overclocking is risky and can damage the processor beyond repair.)

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/433/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4130_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-2600K.html

 

Also great options: the i5-3570k or i7-3770k

Or the next generation, the i5-4670k or i7-4790k

 

If you are thinking of getting a prebuilt-pc, be aware that "gaming-pc's" are not the greatest for fsx. They usually have weaker processors, and expensive videocards.

Better spend your money on a good processor. You really don't need the latest and greatest videocard for fsx.

Do get a videocard, one with active cooling (it's own cooling fan). But you really don't need the most expensive one. Especially if like most people you use only one screen/monitor.

 

 

---------------------------------

If you are somewhat handy tinkering, build your own pc. That will be cheaper, plus you nknow exactly what you have and what it can do.

Pick a processor and select a good mainboard for it. Pick 8gb Ram that goes with the mainboard.

Then see what parts you want to keep from your current pc, and get what you don't have yet new.

videocard, harddisks, dvd player, and a power supply unit to power it all. Oh, and a computer case to put it all in. Andyou need a monitor of course.

If you selected well, putting it all in the case and connecting it all up can be done in a day. Not much harder then screwing in a lightbulb really.

Then comes getting it to boot, and once that is done and you have "proof of life", it is time to install Windows (7). Get the 64bit version of Win7 so you can use more then 4Gb Ram.

 

Sounds allmost too simple. And you're right, If it's your first time it is always difficult.

I must admit, I didn't think it was all that simple the first time either.

When I built my last pc, 2 years ago, I had been looking up every morsel of info I could find out about the parts well in advance. I spent well over 3 months on that.

I did not just pick a processor and choose a mainboard.

I compared many processors, and chose one that within the budget.

Then I comared loads of mainboards, looking them all up on the manufacturers websites, and comparing as best I could.

Once I thought I had found the right one I googled: "mainbord name + problem", and found out that it looked good on paper but had some serious issues. So I started the search again.

Eventually I had one.

Then located the Ram the mainboard manufacturer recommended on their site.

etc etc.

 

And before I bought anything I Visualised how it would all look and fit in the case during building. That way I found out a few more small niggles.

Only once I was 100% sure did I order all the parts.

Choosing had taken a long time, but once the parts arrived the pc was up and running Windows7-64 within 36hours. (And It is running still, not a single issue with it ever.

 

You may think "I'll leave that work (choosing parts) to a company/shop".

It doesn't quite work like that. They aren't trying to build YOUR perfect pc but instead create something that has "something for everyone".

Also, with a prebuilt pc, you have no idea what's really inside it.

I've seen ATX boards (should have 7pci ports) that had only 3 ports, mainboards that had only two sata ports instead of the normal 4, etc.

A prebuilt pc usually means upgrading it later (extra harddisk, extra usb-ports, getting some nicer Ram, etc.) is totally impossible.

 

Much better to build yourself. It teaches you a lot, and you know exactly what you have inside the pc.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FSX loves single-threaded performance, full stop. That typically means an Intel CPU with a faster clock speed, but there's nothing inherent in clock frequency or Intel CPUs that FSX takes advantage of. If AMD made a lower-clocked CPU with high IPC, that would be the new "goto" for FSX.

 

 

Since SP2, FSX manage multi core. Performances increase until 4 cores. Above, no gain.

 

With same frequency and same number of core, Intel is always better than a AMD with FSX. I had 2 CPU's

 

Not any more. Going to Ivy Bridge or Haswell gives a 10-20% boost clock for clock, and the Devil's Canyon Haswells are guaranteed up to 4.4Ghz - not to mention lower power consumption. I wouldn't take a Sandy Bridge anymore, especially since you'd need an older motherboard.

 

You cannot overclock Haswell as Sandy Bridge. Haswell heats

 

I run my i7-2700K at 4,8 Ghz with a simple aircooling (noctua)

 

 

XP32? Wow.

 

Not only are you limiting FSX to 2GB or at most 3GB of VAS (instead of 4GB), you're also significantly restricting the disk cache and slowing down your I/O. Use a modern 64-bit OS.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

A 32bit software is limited to 2Gb of memory addressing. So even you use in 64 bits OS, you will limited to 2Gb of addressing. THe only difference is that data has a occupancy doubled (you memmory cells are filled with "0").

 

For example, a boolean variable use 4 bytes in a 32 bits OS. But in a 64 bit OS, the same variable will use 8 bytes, only to store a "0" or a "1" :D

 

ON 64 bit OS, your FSX will crash when you will reach 2 Gb of memmory addressing ( 4 Gb of memmory occupancy).

 

It is an illusion to believe than an 64b OS give at your 32b software more memmory space.

XP requires 200Mb to run. Seven requires 2 Gb !!!!!

 

64 bit OS are a goldmine for memmory maker.

 

About cache disk, I disabled this feature long time ago. Not necessary. Disk slows system. and not necessary because I never filled all my memmory.

 

The only advantage to use 64b OS with FSX is DX10.

 

Excuse me for my very bad english

 

Regards

 

Francois

FD-FMC website with SID/STAR/Approaches databse : http://freenavdbgroup.com/

 

My photo website : http://francois-dore.fr/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since SP2, FSX manage multi core. Performances increase until 4 cores. Above, no gain.

 

A 32bit software is limited to 2Gb of memory addressing. So even you use in 64 bits OS, you will limited to 2Gb of addressing. THe only difference is that data has a occupancy doubled (you memmory cells are filled with "0").

 

FSX only has limited multi-core support, and benefits more from clock speed than more cores. The bulk of the sim processing is still handled on one core alone.

 

As for memory, 32 bit programs that have the largeaddressaware flag set, such as FSX SP2, can access up to 4GB of address space on 64 bit systems, giving them more room to play with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since SP2, FSX manage multi core. Performances increase until 4 cores. Above, no gain.

 

Even after two, there's little gain, since the extra threads are just doing I/O and other high-latency tasks. FSX is still limited by the main (rendering) thread.

 

You cannot overclock Haswell as Sandy Bridge. Haswell heats. I run my i7-2700K at 4,8 Ghz with a simple aircooling (noctua)

 

Yes, but a Haswell is clock-for-clock around 20% faster than a Sandy Bridge, as well as using less power. So your 4.8Ghz 2600K is running a little bit slower than a 4.4Ghz 4790K that isn't being overclocked at all.

 

A 32bit software is limited to 2Gb of memory addressing. So even you use in 64 bits OS, you will limited to 2Gb of addressing.

 

As loki points out, this is completely incorrect. If the executable image has LARGEADDRESSAWARE set (FSX SP2 and onwards does) then it can use 3GB of user space provided you booted your 32-bit OS with the /3GB flag. With a 64-bit OS, it can use the entire 4GB address space without any modifications.

 

For example, a boolean variable use 4 bytes in a 32 bits OS. But in a 64 bit OS, the same variable will use 8 bytes, only to store a "0" or a "1" :D

 

And in the grand scheme of things, a few variables on the stack or heap don't affect things one way or another. The big memory consumers (textures and other raw data) won't change their consumption one bit. If I store a 250K chunk of data, it's 250K no matter what mode the CPU is in.

 

ON 64 bit OS, your FSX will crash when you will reach 2 Gb of memmory addressing ( 4 Gb of memmory occupancy).

 

Nope. Go read around - plenty of people regularly exceed 2GB of VAS with FSX. So do I from time to time.

 

XP requires 200Mb to run. Seven requires 2 Gb !!!!!

 

So what? My phone has 2GB of RAM, for crying out loud. Win7 can take advantage of modern hardware, supports hyperthreading properly in the scheduler and gets regular security updates. What's the point of using less RAM if malware takes it up?

 

About cache disk, I disabled this feature long time ago. Not necessary. Disk slows system. and not necessary because I never filled all my memmory.

 

Something is lost in translation. Task Manager should tell you how many KB of your RAM is being used by disk cache. Trust me - it's on. :)

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that FSX not use all core as the same manner (first core for the sim, all other cores display terrain). THis is the reason why I recommend I7, for its excellent overclocking capability.

 

But in all case, FSX will run better as same frequency on a quad core than a dual core.

 

About largeaddressaware flag....it's a flag to allow a x86 app to use more than 2Gb address memory on 32b and 64b OS.

 

But FSX was, is, will be a 32b app, so even if you have 32Gb of memmory, you will have an OOM error ....above 4Gb ram occuped by the app.

 

If you post a screenshot of FSX with more than 4Gb memory, I send my XP on the trash :D

FD-FMC website with SID/STAR/Approaches databse : http://freenavdbgroup.com/

 

My photo website : http://francois-dore.fr/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...