Updating PC

Good morning flight simmers, and grace and peace be with you.

Respectfully request those who are more tech savvy than myself to weigh in and offer your opinion, tips, advice, ect on the following.

I am currently running FSX Delux on an outdated HP Pavillion with AMD (more specs to follow) I would like to upgrade to either of the following, however I am concerned with respects to price. I do have COMNAVHOMELANT approval for purchase (COMNAVFORHOMELANT=Commander Naval Force Home Atlantic....aka the wife...)

I recently went to the Navy Exchange in Norfolk and saw the behemoth of a machine from Alienware, the Alienware Area 51, specs below, going for approximately $1,999. I was blown away from the sheer size of the machine and got thinking, what am I actually paying for? From what I read the Alienware , as a subsidiary of Dell, is one of the premier gaming computers. On the other hand they have been said to be over priced for what they offer, and the same components can be had in a custom machine, for much less. Segway into newegg.com. While searching for an alternate to Alienware, as I don't believe COMNAVFORHOMELANT will be excited to shell out $2,000 for a machine when I could get something for less. That something for less led me to a google search and I came upon the following, all with specs below, in order. NZXT Noctis Build (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2406920) $1,215 (plus any additional hardware), or Raidmax (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2489116) going for under $1,000.

So here's what I would like the PC to do, which, if I understand what my own research has concluded FSX needs essentially two things: a fast processor, and a good video card, correct?

-Run setting sliders full right, maxed out (Scenery very dense, traffic 100%, ect.)

-Frame rates over..15/sec. Is that too many? I currently have everything at 25%-50% and can barely fly in/out of major cities because the sim just can't handle the load.

-I'd like to be able to fly in/out of NYC, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Paris, London, Los Angeles without the sim stuttering due to the scenery complxity.

I am a novice and this will be my first custom built or high performance machine, mainly for flight simming purposes.

Area 51:

Blu-ray Player...No

Bluetooth-........EnabledIntel 7260 802.11ac Wireless

Graphics Card...Single NVIDIA GTX 980

Operating System...Windows 8.1

Operating System Bit Version....64 bit

Operating System Platform....Windows

Processor....Intel Core i7-5820K (6-cores, 15MB Cache, Overclocked up to 3.8 GHz w/ Turbo Boost)

Warranty....1 Year Onsite

USB.... Port4 USB 2.0, 6 USB 3.0

Hard Drive Capacity....2TB SATA 7.2K

Wireless Technology....Intel 7260 802.11ac 2x2 Wireless, WiFi and Bluetooth 4.0

Optical DriveSlot-Loading Dual Layer DVD Burner (DVD/RW, CD-RW)

SD Card Slot....Yes

NXZT Noctis Build:

Intel Core i7-4790K Devil's Canyon 4.0GHz Quad-Core CPU, ASUS Z97-Pro Gamer MOBO, Hyperx Fury 8GB MEM, ASUS STRIX-GTX 970 4GB, SAMSUNG 850 EVO 250GB SSD, WD Black 1TB HDD, Rosewill Photon 750W PSU, NZXT Noctis 450 Case

Raidmax Cobra:

Intel Core i7-4790K Devil's Canyon Quad-Core 4.0GHz CPU, ASRock Z87 Extreme4 ATX MOBO, ADATA XPG 8GB DDR3 1600 MEM, EVGA GTX 950 2GB VGA, Toshiba 1TB HDD, Kingston V300 120GB SSD, Rosewill Glacier 500W 80 PLUS Bronze, Raidmax Cobra Z ATX CA

What else would I need with these machines, and more importantly WHY would I need it. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Very Respectfully,

Brian Allen

~*Never Forget*~

Do yourself a massive favour and build it yourself. You will save a buttload of cash to spend on additional upgrades you can select yourself.

If you are not "tech savy" do not worry. You can purchase pre-made "bundles" of core parts (ie cpu/mobo/ram) already setup and they simple need fitted to a case and plugged up to the PSU.

Building a PC is no more difficult than changing the tyre on a car. If you can do the later, the former is not as hard as it may seem.

I have made my own PC's for 15+ years, if I can do it so can you.

Do yourself a massive favour and build it yourself. You will save a buttload of cash to spend on additional upgrades you can select yourself.

 

If you are not "tech savy" do not worry. You can purchase pre-made "bundles" of core parts (ie cpu/mobo/ram) already setup and they simple need fitted to a case and plugged up to the PSU.

 

Building a PC is no more difficult than changing the tyre on a car. If you can do the later, the former is not as hard as it may seem.

 

I have made my own PC's for 15+ years, if I can do it so can you.

Dear Mr. CptCaveman,

Thank you for the reply. I do agree with you with the custom aspect of it. The two bundles I found on newegg.com, from what I understand about the components, are the bundle where the hardware is supplied I have to assemble the bloody thing. Which will give me a fine weekend project to work on.

PSU= Power Supply Unit?

What are the benefits of this "overclocking" I keep seeing? Or is the I7 4.0GHz plenty to run FSX, without overclocking?

I would prefer to stay away from any AMD video card because that's what I have and from my research they are garbage. Will the:

- ASUS GeForce GTX 970 STRIX-GTX970-DC2OC-4GD5 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready SLI Support G-SYNC Support Video Card

Be sufficient for fsx?

Very Respectfully,

Brian Allen

Brian,

You're on the right track!! I find two big advantages to building yourself even ignoring price. Which I can never do.

1. You can install stuff that is "off the shelf." When, not if, you feel the need to upgrade what you buy to upgrade will work with what you already have. Dell, Apple, and many others make computers with custom designed parts. So most of what you want to buy later may but probably won't work with what you already have.

2. Once you crawl around the box a little, skin your knuckles, etc. you will know and understand what you have. And anything you don't understand, you will look up & then understand. The more you know about what you have, the better you can utilize it.

As to your questions:

CPU: As far as I can determine from experience and reading from others, it's important to use an Intel CPU chip. Intel was involved when Microsoft designed the game, so the game was designed to run on Intel chips. Since FSX is based upon the CPU, not to be confused with most newer games which are GPU needy, the faster Intel CPU you can afford will be what's best.

A good i7 running 4GHZ is probably as good or better than what many of us are currently running. You should be fine with that & at least 4GB of good ram. Again, the faster ram the better as well. Oh another thing, buy a nice a CPU cooler as well. A cool chip is a happy chip!

GPU: (See CPU) I wouldn't spend a ton of money on a GPU for FSX only. But you might want to consider whether you'll be playing any of the newest games. They would love more GPU power! Having said that, in either case I suggest you select a GPU with the NVIDIA "Eyefinity" system. If you ever decide to do multiple screens, etc. I expect you'll be glad you did! As to size, for FSX alone a 1GB GPU should do fine.

PSU: Does equal power supply. This being your first build, I'd suggest you go with a bigger power supply than you currently need. If you're like many or most of us, you'll probably end up adding to your system, why buy another PSU later? Plus a low loaded power supply also makes less heat in your box.

These are my suggestions. I'm sure others might not agree with me. Please take all of this with however many grains of salt that works for you. WELCOME ABOARD!! WE CAN ALWAYS USE ANOTHER NAVY GUY!

Look at my specs. I bought individual 'parts' that are MATCHED. NO NEED TO OVERCLOCK. I run FSX Accel locked at 30 fps and get 30 fps ALL DAY with no 'pause' or 'stutters'. Price? $1100 4 years ago. Today's price? $900 ?

'Slider all the way right..maxed out.'. THIS is NEVER going to happen. You would NOT get 15 fps. Maybe 8 fps? Get real. Strike a balance. Getting consistent fps is the goal. Not 60 fps. You can BARELY fly at 15 fps (especially helicopters). So get real. Good luck. You can assemble it yourself. Lots of YouTube videos on HOW to do it.

Chuck B

PS: Oh, get Windows 7 64 bit if you can. They are offering it as OEM again but get the DVD set so you can uninstall/install if needed.

Dear Mr. Rupert,

Thank you very much for the advice, tips, and most of all the explanations. I can learn quickly, however with this type of technology I'm sure everything in this post is already outdated :D:D

CPU: Alright from what I'm looking at, Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon Quad-Core 4.0 GHz SHOULD, optimal word....SHOULD be more than enough without the "Overclocking" attachment or accessory? I'm hard pressed to find Intel processors over 4.0 GHz, without the "Overclock" accessory or attachment. Would you be so kind as to further explain the GPU?

Follow up: I found the following: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gpu+processor&tbm=shop&spd=1128577419041814953 going for $145, which..again I'll have to ask for my allowance to afford.

As previously stated, FSX prefers Intel processors over AMD processors?

Dear Mr. CptCaveman,

 

Thank you for the reply. I do agree with you with the custom aspect of it. The two bundles I found on newegg.com, from what I understand about the components, are the bundle where the hardware is supplied I have to assemble the bloody thing. Which will give me a fine weekend project to work on.

PSU= Power Supply Unit?

 

What are the benefits of this "overclocking" I keep seeing? Or is the I7 4.0GHz plenty to run FSX, without overclocking?

 

I would prefer to stay away from any AMD video card because that's what I have and from my research they are garbage. Will the:

- ASUS GeForce GTX 970 STRIX-GTX970-DC2OC-4GD5 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready SLI Support G-SYNC Support Video Card

Be sufficient for fsx?

 

Very Respectfully,

Brian Allen

I tend to do my shopping on Amazon as there is a warehouse near me which makes it easy to pick it up if I want. Amazon itself has several pre-built bundle packages you can buy that simply require you to screw it down to the case. The actual microchip, memory and motherboard are pre-assembled and sent to you for easy installation. Yes PSU= Power supply, sorry about that I forget at times not everyone is up to speed on acronyms and naming systems for parts.

Overclocking is quite simply forcing the cpu to work harder with more power than its normally set for by manually adjusting power and frequency settings in the BIOS. Intel specifies chips that are compatible with overclocking as "K" variants (ie 4770K = overclockable). As a novice builder I would advise for now to shy away from overclocking until you are more competant with the hardware and its setup. Dont get me wrong I actually overclock myself, and its fairly staightforward when "you know how". However I have been at it over a decade, and I am actually qualified to test and repair any electronics so my level of competence is higher than average.

An i7 at 4ghz is more than enough power to drive FSX with good frame rates, so stick with the non K version of it for now. You can always change it again in a year or two if you want/need more oomph.

As for AMD graphics cards, I am afraid someone is telling you porkies. AMD graphics cards are very good cards and priced extremely well against Nvidia products of a similar specification. I have used both over the years and to be blunt, there is no real difference between them. Some games run great on AMD, some run great on Nvidia, and some just dont like either of them.

When it comes to the graphics card, simply ignore the brand hooha. Choose a card based on its performance and its cost. All modern graphics cards are highly capable for gaming, and should simply be judged on performance versus cost rather than branding.

Please note- As a "rule of thumb" for FSX, the most commonly used setup is an Intel chip with an Nvidia card and an SSD drive for maximum performance. If you intend to run DX10 visuals, the Nvidia card is the only real choice as AMD drivers currently do not like FSX and DX10. Though it should be noted that AMD cards in DX9 are extremely capable with FSX.

Dear Mr. Rupert,

 

 

Would you be so kind as to further explain the GPU?

Follow up: I found the following: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gpu+processor&tbm=shop&spd=1128577419041814953 going for $145, which..again I'll have to ask for my allowance to afford.

 

As previously stated, FSX prefers Intel processors over AMD processors?

Ok, I don't know anything about that specific GPU. And the description wasn't as specific as I'd need to even think about giving advice. I suggest you go online to the Nvidia site and see various their listed various brands of GPUS. Go to Newegg and/or another big retailer and look at their GPU comparisons. Also consider how many output ports they (the cards) have. I'd want at least two or better yet three outputs be they DVI, HDMI, etc. Again go to those same various sites and look on their knowledge base into what HDMI, DVI, etc. mean. It'll make more sense including pictures than I can explain in prose only.

Remember MOST GPUS TODAY ARE AIMED AT THE NEWER GAMES. Unless you're going to use the games recently out, you'll probably never need more than 50% or less of what most currently marketed GPUS come with. Will you play bang-bang games? If so spend some bucks on your GPU. If not, I think some money would be better spent on CPU and CPU ram speed.

Yes, I certainly have had better experiences using Intel CPU chips for FSX than others. And I find I'm happier with an Intel that might not look as good in the specs than with other brands. REMEMBER, ONCE YOU GET PAST 4 CORES ON A CPU THEY ARE WASTED IN FSX. FSX was only written for a SINGLE (1) CORE very fast processor.

They didn't know processors would have multiple cores back then. Now FSX Acceleration has a patch to allow other cores to be used with FSX. But the biggest controller of your speed success is the speed of core 0,(which is the 1st core) (In electronics almost every numbering system starts out with the number 0 being the first digit. (0= what we would call 1, etc. So a 4 core processor has a 0,1,2, & 3 core.)

I think a native 4 core processor running at 4GHZ unclocked will do great. Buy that & a good or great cooler to go with it! You shouldn't even be thinking about overclocking for some time to come! You need to understand a lot more than you do now first!

If you choose not to do-it-yourself I really like the NZXT option. You won't be able to max the sliders in dense scenery with any machine but the specs on the NZXT will get you as close as anything. The 4790K will run at a steady 4.4Ghz (turbo mode) with no overclocking. I've run my 4790K at 4.8 and you'll never notice the difference between that and 4.4. The extra heat generated by the overclock just isn't worth it. And the 970 is more than enough GPU. The nice thing about the 970 is you can run obscene amounts of anti-aliasing with no FPS hit - the graphics are stunning.

Most all my flying is GA (general aviation) and I always leave all the sliders right (except water which I hate the way it looks). The FPS takes a hit in really dense scenery but anything outside the major cities is always 30+. For the sense scenery just knock down the autogen and water a bit and it's acceptable. If you plan on using complex aircraft like the PMDG 777 moving the sliders back to the left a bit is a must. No system can handle dense scenery with an aircraft like that. Everything in FSX if a trade-off.

Good luck no matter what the choice.....

Doug

Brian,

Ok so it didn't take long for someone to play the ole get a Intel CPU because AMD sucks card and I wont get caught in that type of tit for tat discussion here.

I have built countless PCs over the years and for the last 5 years since I took early retirement from Air NZ to pursue my own business interests have built a number of dedicated FSX systems using both Intel and AMD CPUs for paying customers, these have included of course AMD and Nvidia GPUs as well.

If your system will be mainly used for FSX and a bit of net surfing etc. then a AMD CPU should be a serious option for you to look at. If you will be doing a lot of video editing, photo rendering etc. as well as FSX then a Intel CPU will be more suitable.

My own dedicated FSX system you will notice has a AMD CPU. I made this change from the i7 4790 simply because of the better performance I got. I am pleased to say that it still out performs even the current gen of Intel CPUs in FSX.

Its important to remember that my system is a dedicated FSX and add-ons system that other than connecting to the net does nothing else. Its once I would be expecting that system to do something other than what it does now that I would start to see a rather steep drop off in performance.

AMD has always offered the best bang for the buck where Intel offers the better all around performance in multi application performance.

Now I am not advocating one over another as I don't have any brand loyalty, I go for what I can get the best performance out of for the money I am spending.

The bottom line is that even before making a decision on a CPU and GPU you need a good idea on what the system will be expected to do if anything outside of FSX and associated software so that you can be assured that the money you spend on a CPU and GPU is maximised. It is of no use buying a GPU that wont ever have a workload over 50% of what its capable of doing and the same goes for the CPU.

Brian,

 

Ok so it didn't take long for someone to play the ole get a Intel CPU because AMD sucks card and I wont get caught in that type of tit for tat discussion here.

I have built countless PCs over the years and for the last 5 years since I took early retirement from Air NZ to pursue my own business interests have built a number of dedicated FSX systems using both Intel and AMD CPUs for paying customers, these have included of course AMD and Nvidia GPUs as well.

If your system will be mainly used for FSX and a bit of net surfing etc. then a AMD CPU should be a serious option for you to look at. If you will be doing a lot of video editing, photo rendering etc. as well as FSX then a Intel CPU will be more suitable.

My own dedicated FSX system you will notice has a AMD CPU. I made this change from the i7 4790 simply because of the better performance I got. I am pleased to say that it still out performs even the current gen of Intel CPUs in FSX.

Its important to remember that my system is a dedicated FSX and add-ons system that other than connecting to the net does nothing else. Its once I would be expecting that system to do something other than what it does now that I would start to see a rather steep drop off in performance.

AMD has always offered the best bang for the buck where Intel offers the better all around performance in multi application performance.

Now I am not advocating one over another as I don't have any brand loyalty, I go for what I can get the best performance out of for the money I am spending.

The bottom line is that even before making a decision on a CPU and GPU you need a good idea on what the system will be expected to do if anything outside of FSX and associated software so that you can be assured that the money you spend on a CPU and GPU is maximised. It is of no use buying a GPU that wont ever have a workload over 50% of what its capable of doing and the same goes for the CPU.

Dear Mr. Darryl,

Thank you for the insight and differences between Intel and AMD. Primarily, the new computer will be made to have FSX run as smooth, and efficiently as possible. Derivative effects would be for other games such as; Railroad Tycoon, SimCity, Close Combat, ect. I wish I had kids to identify as the primary playing individuals, however that is not the case, just someone who likes to take a brake from flying and rekindle the relationship by firing up another game. Additionally, the Boss...aka wife, has been adamant about having Office put on the machine to perform word processing and other programs. Side note: I think she might be part of a Scrapbook cult...More to follow on that.

With the primary game being played on the new machine I'll take a look at what AMD has to offer. Purchasing date is not for another month or so, with this and October being used to finalize the components and then look for deals. With the Holiday season coming up it shouldn't be too difficult to find components at bottom prices as retailers look to empty shelves.

What of the 32/64 bit? If I choose only 64 bit, will that hinder the ability to run older games?

Very Respectfully,

Brian

Dear Mr. Rupert,

Thank you again for the explanations and clarity.

From what I understand from your post, the 4 core will be fine, NO "Overclocking" necessary, and to be honest since I don't know that much about it I wouldn't have opted for it anyway.

A question about the cooling you mentioned. I understand a cool chip is a happy chip.

My main question, as since I have looked at cooling systems is liquid, vice fan.

I understand enough about electricity that liquids and electricity tend not to like each other much. I simplified the liquid cooling and look at it as a very small Air Conditioning unit for the computer, essentially is that the right way to look at it? I don't know if I will have to refill the system. Meaning does it run on tap water, distilled water, Purified water, Refrigerant? I certainly hope I wouldn't have to run plumbing to the machine! ;)

SIR,

Thank you for the input on the NXZT model. I'm liking that more and more, but with additional addons, such as additional cooling fans, ect.

A bit of clarity, and I will reply with this and make an official apology regarding the Max settings. With my research, I've realized that it would not be possible, as another member posted. If I may, ammend my initial position, I would like to fly in/out of New York City, ect, with traffic at 100%, scenery to as dense as I can get it, and have better than one frame per year.[Kidding, I realize thats not possible just my attempt at sim humor]

As it stands right now in order to fly into LGA or JFK, traffic must be at 10%, and Scenery Sparse, in order to get a smooth landing and flight. Which takes a lot away from the New York metro area, and the sheer amount of traffic at JFK alone.

I haven't made the transition to PMDG just yet, I realize some people live/die with PMDG..I'm more of a freeware, the only payware I have in my hangar is Wilco ERJ-190, Majestic Dash8, and a 757 that I got with their "freemium" the name is skipping my mind.

If I may ask, would a target frame rate of 15 be sufficient for smooth flight? Or is that too much? If it is to much what would be a realistic target frame rate?

Very Respectfully,

Brian Allen

SIR,

If I may ask do you have a cooling unit? If so fan, or liquid? What, in your opinion would be the better option?

Ok, I don't know anything about that specific GPU. And the description wasn't as specific as I'd need to even think about giving advice. I suggest you go online to the Nvidia site and see various their listed various brands of GPUS. Go to Newegg and/or another big retailer and look at their GPU comparisons. Also consider how many output ports they (the cards) have. I'd want at least two or better yet three outputs be they DVI, HDMI, etc. Again go to those same various sites and look on their knowledge base into what HDMI, DVI, etc. mean. It'll make more sense including pictures than I can explain in prose only.

 

Remember MOST GPUS TODAY ARE AIMED AT THE NEWER GAMES. Unless you're going to use the games recently out, you'll probably never need more than 50% or less of what most currently marketed GPUS come with. Will you play bang-bang games? If so spend some bucks on your GPU. If not, I think some money would be better spent on CPU and CPU ram speed.

 

Yes, I certainly have had better experiences using Intel CPU chips for FSX than others. And I find I'm happier with an Intel that might not look as good in the specs than with other brands. REMEMBER, ONCE YOU GET PAST 4 CORES ON A CPU THEY ARE WASTED IN FSX. FSX was only written for a SINGLE (1) CORE very fast processor.

 

They didn't know processors would have multiple cores back then. Now FSX Acceleration has a patch to allow other cores to be used with FSX. But the biggest controller of your speed success is the speed of core 0,(which is the 1st core) (In electronics almost every numbering system starts out with the number 0 being the first digit. (0= what we would call 1, etc. So a 4 core processor has a 0,1,2, & 3 core.)

 

I think a native 4 core processor running at 4GHZ unclocked will do great. Buy that & a good or great cooler to go with it! You shouldn't even be thinking about overclocking for some time to come! You need to understand a lot more than you do now first!

 

SIR,

 

Love the post. Perhaps most is due to the neutrality and straight forwardness. I think I will she away from overclocking, just as you directed, and simply because- Hey I don't know what I'm doing. I'm not afraid to admit when I don't know something, because that opens the door to learn and become knowledgeable. Something I strive to do each and everyday is to learn something new, and to become better at something I already know.

 

Very Respectfully,

Brian Allen

SIR,

 

If I may ask do you have a cooling unit? If so fan, or liquid? What, in your opinion would be the better option?

If you're running your chip at factory standard speed, which I strongly suggest, I'd be shocked if an air cooled unit isn't plenty for your needs.

Just for an example, I have a Cooler Master Hyper212EVO on one of my i7s and it works great. You can probably find that model or a similar unit for under $30 U.S. MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THE SOCKET NUMBER THAT YOUR CHIP USES (a LGA 2011 socket is what the i7 I referred to is mounted on ) BUY A COOLER THAT WORKS WITH YOUR CHIP# AND SOCKET#. The socket number will be shown on the specifications for you chip. If you're not sure what it is, you can always go online to the factory site, type in your chip's model number, & it will tell which socket your chip is designed for.

Water cooling like overclocking is above what you need to be doing for now.

BTW: I notice another guy suggested you consider the AMD chips. I agree they make good products & can often be bought cheaper. In fact I've built several computers using them. I prefer the Intel for FSX, and I've used both. But others have opinions that are different. That doesn't mean either one is wrong, it's a matter of personal choice. (Do you prefer a Ford car or a Chevy or maybe a Honda? Same deal with chip brands.) Get your basics right and either the AMD or Intel chip will probably work great for you.

Hi brian,

I agree with W2DR that if you're not going to build a computer yourself, the NXZT choice is a great place to start.

And darryl737 seems to know his way around AMD chips, so if you're considering going AMD, I'd pick his brain :cool:

I'm unsure of your level of knowledge when it comes to FSX, and this guide may assist you a bit when it comes to setting up a computer:

http://www.simforums.com/forums/the-fsx-computer-system-the-bible-by-nickn_topic46211.html

It's a couple of years old now, but most of it is still applicable.

I too have had a number of self-built computers running FSX with both AMD and Intel CPUs. As stated by other members, both will run a "vanilla" (no add-ons) FSX installation very well. It seems to be a pretty well known given that for FSX to run as smoothly as possible, the higher the number of CPU cycles (gigahertz = gHz) is the key.

When it comes to AMD vs Intel, there seems to be some evidence that Intel CPUs are a bit more efficient per clock cycle. This may be translated into: cycle for cycle, Intel CPUs may be able to get more data crunched than it's AMD counterpart. In other words, with an Intel and AMD chip running at the same gHz, the Intel CPU is more efficient, and possibly "faster."

Now, that's the rough explanation. However, with the correct setup, "tweaks," and expectations, it might be difficult to discern the difference when running FSX on either brand.

I love AMD chips and the ease of overclocking potential and relative cost vs Intel and I used them for years. I only recently switched to Intel because I had a little extra cash and the competing AMD chip needed more juice to run. In reality, I could've gone either way and would've been happy.

I really could care less about brands, my focus is on performance. Right now, it's Intel. In the future, it could be AMD.

I agree that you probably shouldn't consider overclocking at this point, but you might want to do a little (OK, a LOT) of reading and research before making that decision - overclocking is not for everyone and yes, there is a chance that you could kill the CPU and possibly take out some other components with it. A rather expensive and frustrating lesson...

As for video cards, I can only say that I'm still running an old Radeon 6950 with 2gb of ram with 3 screens and can regularly achieve framerates of up to 70+ and smoothness in certain areas and conditions. Also, try not to focus so much on the number when it comes to framerates or frames per second (FPS) - focus on the "smoothness" of the sim. Some say they achieve 15-20 FPS in FSX but it's butter-smooth and perfectly playable.

Now, for your expectations of NYC/JFK/LGA and surrounding areas:

That is a very difficult place to (at least for me) achieve high framerates and smoothness with any sort of add-on and "eye-candy." The only time I was able to fly in/out of that area with any reasonable smoothness is when I was running a vanilla install - no add-ons or anything extra. While I'm sure that there are ways to achieve a good consistent framerate in that area, I have not found it yet.

Hopefully others will chime in and let us know how to achieve that ;)

And I'm with you - I'd love to see JFK in all it's glory with aircraft filling gates, taxiing to and from gates/runways at 30 fps and smooth with all sliders to the right...

But I don't think it's possible yet with the current commercially available CPUs. CPUs seem to concentrating more on the number of cores rather than ultimate clock speed, and FSX originally was designed to take advantage of clock speed, not multiple cores. Yes, the Acceleration pack, and I think SP2, added support for FSX to be "multicore aware" but most of it's processing is still done by a single core. So, until a 7, 8, 9, or 10 gHz CPU comes out, or a kit is produced to enable existing CPUs to achieve a STABLE overclock that high, we need to make compromises. Or better yet, hope for a real successor to FSX that will take true advantage of multicore environments and is a 64 bit program.

So for now, it really is all about expectations and compromise. You will have decide what you're willing to compromise on in FSX when you do finally pull the trigger on a new computer build. Only you know what is important to you and what you're willing to live with.

Me, I'm an eye-candy junkie, with a need for smoothness - and both of these things conflict with one another most of the time... :p

I hope this rambling helps and good luck with your new computer, whatever you end up choosing.

E-Buzz :pilot:

You linked to a card in post 6 or so.

the: nvidia tesla m2090 gddr5

That is not a card you should get.

-It has no video display connectors.

-It is not a graphics card, it is a graphics accellerator card.

-It has no active cooling (built in cooling fan).

(At least, as far as I can see. I never saw the card before, and I'm not 100% sure what it does. Maybe it is to be used together with a separate Normal videocard.

I notice it is meant for Servers, not pc's. Servers often have no display attached at all.)

See more info here:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-servers.html

released in 2011 - now end of life.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/1537/tesla-m2090.html

http://forums.techgage.com/showthread.php?t=8957

Instead look for a NVidia card with active cooling, preferably one from the GTX series.

Make sure it has the connectors you need.

If you want to choose parts, and maybe build your pc yourself, you will have to look up all parts and their exact specifications. You will need to read background info, in tech forums and other forums. You will need to imagine how these parts will fit together on your mainboard. And check that everything matches together.

Start with a Processor. (that 4790K if you want the best available)

Then a mainboard the processor fits in, and that has all the connectors you want.

Then Ram to go with it.

A videocard. Think about how many screens you want to attach eventually.

And then the smaller stuff, like harddisks, DVD player.

And finally a Power Supply Unit that gives you adaquate power and a bit extra. Because you may add more hardware later. And because power supply's get weaker over time.

A processor cooler, again, look at the specifications. Can't really go wrong with one from Noctua.

Cooler depends on what CPU you have chosen. If you coose a slow processor, you won't need as much cooling. But if you have a faster one you want a good cooler.

Btw. A processor like the i7-4790k can be overclocked, but you do not HAVE to overclock it of course. You can run it at normal speed as well.

But it does give the option to do it, if in 4 years or so you would like to boost the pc a bit, you could try it. Plenty time to learn about overclocking before you ever try. ((And do learn/read first. Overclocking to much can kill the processor. There is no predicting how far you can go, each chip is slightly different.))

Finally, look for a nice case to fit it all in.

All this research takes time. When I built this pc I did not have all that much previous experience. I done things like installing a videocard, adding a harddisk and dvd player, and I had even swapped ot a processor once. But not with modern parts.

I spent a good few months on it before I was 100% sure it would all work together well. That may seem like a lot, but it meant that once the parts had arrived I had the system built and a day, and Windows was installed the next day. Also it meant I know exactly what's inside. No hidden surprises.

With prebuilt systems you are forever 'getting to know your computer', and you are never sure what nasty surprise is around the corner.

If you want a good pc, you will have to put in time and effort. No way around that.

Better to do that in advance, than finding out things when it is to late.

If you're running your chip at factory standard speed, which I strongly suggest, I'd be shocked if an air cooled unit isn't plenty for your needs.

 

Just for an example, I have a Cooler Master Hyper212EVO on one of my i7s and it works great. You can probably find that model or a similar unit for under $30 U.S. MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THE SOCKET NUMBER THAT YOUR CHIP USES (a LGA 2011 socket is what the i7 I referred to is mounted on ) BUY A COOLER THAT WORKS WITH YOUR CHIP# AND SOCKET#. The socket number will be shown on the specifications for you chip. If you're not sure what it is, you can always go online to the factory site, type in your chip's model number, & it will tell which socket your chip is designed for.

 

Water cooling like overclocking is above what you need to be doing for now.

 

BTW: I notice another guy suggested you consider the AMD chips. I agree they make good products & can often be bought cheaper. In fact I've built several computers using them. I prefer the Intel for FSX, and I've used both. But others have opinions that are different. That doesn't mean either one is wrong, it's a matter of personal choice. (Do you prefer a Ford car or a Chevy or maybe a Honda? Same deal with chip brands.) Get your basics right and either the AMD or Intel chip will probably work great for you.

Dear Mr. Rupert,

Again, thank you for the continued input. The cooler I was looking into is here: and from what I've gathered, as well as reading your input it should be able to handle the job. However, prior to purchase I will verify the chip and socket #, and then install this post purchase.

Noctua NH-D14 120mm & 140mm SSO CPU Cooler

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018&Tpk=35-608-018&cm_sp=Cat-Fans-PC-Cooling_1-_-Pillars-_-Noctua-NH-D14_2

Its going for under 100, which appeals to me however you do get what you pay for.

I may be nuking this however I noticed with the duel fans wondering how easy it is to clean the inner fan? Additionally do you have a PMS (Pre-Planned Maintenance) schedule for your PC maintenance? For example: Every three months, remove fan blades to clean and inspect....Once a quarter overall inspection of internal components, ect?

Hi brian,

 

I agree with W2DR that if you're not going to build a computer yourself, the NXZT choice is a great place to start.

And darryl737 seems to know his way around AMD chips, so if you're considering going AMD, I'd pick his brain :cool:

 

I'm unsure of your level of knowledge when it comes to FSX, and this guide may assist you a bit when it comes to setting up a computer:

 

http://www.simforums.com/forums/the-fsx-computer-system-the-bible-by-nickn_topic46211.html

 

It's a couple of years old now, but most of it is still applicable.

 

I too have had a number of self-built computers running FSX with both AMD and Intel CPUs. As stated by other members, both will run a "vanilla" (no add-ons) FSX installation very well. It seems to be a pretty well known given that for FSX to run as smoothly as possible, the higher the number of CPU cycles (gigahertz = gHz) is the key.

When it comes to AMD vs Intel, there seems to be some evidence that Intel CPUs are a bit more efficient per clock cycle. This may be translated into: cycle for cycle, Intel CPUs may be able to get more data crunched than it's AMD counterpart. In other words, with an Intel and AMD chip running at the same gHz, the Intel CPU is more efficient, and possibly "faster."

 

Now, that's the rough explanation. However, with the correct setup, "tweaks," and expectations, it might be difficult to discern the difference when running FSX on either brand.

 

I love AMD chips and the ease of overclocking potential and relative cost vs Intel and I used them for years. I only recently switched to Intel because I had a little extra cash and the competing AMD chip needed more juice to run. In reality, I could've gone either way and would've been happy.

 

I really could care less about brands, my focus is on performance. Right now, it's Intel. In the future, it could be AMD.

 

I agree that you probably shouldn't consider overclocking at this point, but you might want to do a little (OK, a LOT) of reading and research before making that decision - overclocking is not for everyone and yes, there is a chance that you could kill the CPU and possibly take out some other components with it. A rather expensive and frustrating lesson...

 

As for video cards, I can only say that I'm still running an old Radeon 6950 with 2gb of ram with 3 screens and can regularly achieve framerates of up to 70+ and smoothness in certain areas and conditions. Also, try not to focus so much on the number when it comes to framerates or frames per second (FPS) - focus on the "smoothness" of the sim. Some say they achieve 15-20 FPS in FSX but it's butter-smooth and perfectly playable.

 

Now, for your expectations of NYC/JFK/LGA and surrounding areas:

That is a very difficult place to (at least for me) achieve high framerates and smoothness with any sort of add-on and "eye-candy." The only time I was able to fly in/out of that area with any reasonable smoothness is when I was running a vanilla install - no add-ons or anything extra. While I'm sure that there are ways to achieve a good consistent framerate in that area, I have not found it yet.

 

Hopefully others will chime in and let us know how to achieve that ;)

 

And I'm with you - I'd love to see JFK in all it's glory with aircraft filling gates, taxiing to and from gates/runways at 30 fps and smooth with all sliders to the right...

But I don't think it's possible yet with the current commercially available CPUs. CPUs seem to concentrating more on the number of cores rather than ultimate clock speed, and FSX originally was designed to take advantage of clock speed, not multiple cores. Yes, the Acceleration pack, and I think SP2, added support for FSX to be "multicore aware" but most of it's processing is still done by a single core. So, until a 7, 8, 9, or 10 gHz CPU comes out, or a kit is produced to enable existing CPUs to achieve a STABLE overclock that high, we need to make compromises. Or better yet, hope for a real successor to FSX that will take true advantage of multicore environments and is a 64 bit program.

So for now, it really is all about expectations and compromise. You will have decide what you're willing to compromise on in FSX when you do finally pull the trigger on a new computer build. Only you know what is important to you and what you're willing to live with.

Me, I'm an eye-candy junkie, with a need for smoothness - and both of these things conflict with one another most of the time... :p

 

I hope this rambling helps and good luck with your new computer, whatever you end up choosing.

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

Sir,

Agreed just as with flight itself, is a series of compromised, so is FSX. I appreciate your input regarding the difference between Intel and AMD chips.

Stupid question, it seems that 4.0 GHZ is the top speed at the moment, without the overclocking. Or has someone managed to successfully surpass that without overclocking?

Sir,

Thank you for the input. and I do agree, start at the basics and build a solid foundation otherwise I'm building a house of cards. I especially agree with your last part.

I forgot to mention, at the current time, I run FSX on one monitor. I know I know, thats almost blasphemy...Currently, I simply don't have the required space to run multiple monitors, nor would I think the wife would authorize the purchase of multiple monitors haha

This is the video card that comes with the bundle I'm looking into purchasing:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121899&ignorebbr=1

As suggested numerous times, I'm not tied to one brand or another, Nvidia has been mentioned in other posts, and I see it frequently on people's specs, so I imagine there is a reason its popular?

The most mentioned videocard reason:

Intel combines well with NVidia.

While AMD processors you could pair better with a AMD videocard.

And most people here think the Intel chips are best for FSX. So most also use NVidia cards.

If you will stick with one screen, than you can get a simpeler videocard. But do get one with active cooling. Playing FSX is very CPU and GPU intensive. And you usually run FSX for hours at a time, so your card will heat up a lot if it is not actively cooled.

I would make sure the base system (CPU, Mainboard, and Ram) are top notch. Those are not easy to upgrade later.

It would also get expensive. Why buy a 200 dollar processor now, if you are planning to upgrade later and buy a 300 dollar CPU to replace it. That's 200 dollar wasted.

So do not skimp on those three parts.

That's why I got a i5-3570k myself 2years ago. at the time it was pretty much the best available. A high speed processor, the best i5 available.

Ok, it's not a i7. But I read on the site here the i7 does only add hyperthreading, and that is not usefull in FSX. To save a bit I chose the i5. It was just slightly slower then the i7 available then.

I still am very happy with that choice.

(Newer processors are getting significantly faster now, my i5-3570k is 3.4 Ghz, with turbo boosting that to 3.8 Ghz. I could overclock it as well if I want.)

Here there is talk of Processors that are 4.0Ghz.

For exact parts to recommend, don't ask me. I built my pc two years ago. So my knowledge of what's available is pretty outdated.

Videocard, and other parts.

Well there you can select something not to expensive now, and buy something else later if your needs change.

So if you later decide to get three screens, you can upgrade the card.

(Remember, running more screens will also take a beefy CPU. So that is why I recommend definitely getting a good CPU right away. You can build the system around that.)

I myself am still using one screen as well. And I have not bought a new card when building. I just popped in my old NVidia GT430 card. That works fine still.

Putting that together.

I got myself a i5-3570k, chose a mainboard (picking took a long time, many available), and 8 Gb ram that would work with the mainboard according to the mainboard specifications.

Then I got a copy of Windows (7)

And finally chose a 25 dollar DVD writer pretty much at random.

Complete cost was around 550-600 dollar. (which was pretty much my budget for it.)

Screwed all that in my old PC case, connected also my old videocard, and old 1000Gb harddisk.

Installed Windows.

done.

(Picking the parts and making sure they would work together took a few months though.

I took the extra effort of googling things like "partX plus part Y problem" to find threads of people reporting issues. That took long but was really helpfull.)

Basically choose a good core sysem, CPU, Ram, Mainboard. From there everything is within your reach.

You can always add something later.

Good to know, if you get a OEM version of wWindows, it gets tied to the mainboard. You can only use that copy with that mainboard. Meaning if you replace the mainboard with another one you will have to buy a new Windows copy to install on it.

So that's another reason not to skimp on the CPU. A new CPU later may mean a new socket, that means a new mainboard, a new windows, and probably new Ram as well.

If you Google: how to build a pc

You find many guides like these. Good explanations, step by step, with pictures.

http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Computer

Reading that back I see it's a bit confusing.

Reasn is I don't want to recomend specific parts. I'm just not up to date with those. I don't want to have recomended something, and later you are not happy with your purchase.

A lot depends on your budget too.

So I just tried to give some general guidelines.

Whatever you decide, enjoy!

il88pp

Wow! That ASUS GTX 970 looks amazing! It's way more than I can imagine myself needing for FSX. But it sure gives you a good card if you decide to try other programs too.

As to the one screen setup, that's probably fairly common. However if you have a tablet or a similar device you might want to use that for example to display your instruments. I haven't done that myself but a lot of people say it works great for them. There are lots of options out there & more to come every day.

I agree with il88pp. We all have our likes and dislikes of specific equipment and software. Read a lot, Re-read a lot. Then make your choices and please keep us all updated on how things work out for you.

We're all still learning too.;);)