So which is better? FSX SE or P3D performance and resource usage?

Hey guys. So Sadly, my Seagate 4TB drive failed on me suddenly and i lost all my steam games, FS9, FSX, and P3D pretty much, not to mention videos and photos....

 

Anyways, onto my question. My system specs are in my signature and i want to know which game uses my system resources the most for the best FPS.

 

FS9: Same as FSX but not as power hungry for CPU usage

 

FSX: Horrible multi-core support = bad FPS even on a Intel I7....

 

P3D: ok support, really havent tested it so unsure.

 

Graphics are not a problem since i have a very high end card and soon upgrading for newer Triple A titles...

 

I want to try and get FSX or P3D up and running by the end of July so any help would be very much appreciated.

If you are going to get at least a Titan, 980ti or 1080, then P3D because of DX11 (it does many things that previously had to be done by the CPU). Below that GPU range, FSX:SE.

 

"Multicore support" is basically still the same in FSX and P3D. Btw. IMHO there seems to be a misconception there. Software cannot just "support" multiple cores, it has to be written specifically for parallel processing. If this is even possible or not depends on the task that your software has to fulfill. A flight simulator does not lend itself too well to high performance parallel processing, too many calculations depend on each other's results (so you cannot calculate them in parallel obviously) and too many things have to be perfectly in sync.

 

But a second consideration should be cost for the simulator and addons. P3D is more expensive than FSX:SE, and addons are too. Plus, if you buy P3D addons now, you get a "snapshot" built for the current P3D version. Every new P3D version might render them inoperative, and you have to rely on the developer to provide an update. He/she may decide not to do that, as there is no legal obligation to support future versions of a platform.

If you are going to get at least a Titan, 980ti or 1080, then P3D because of DX11 (it does many things that previously had to be done by the CPU). Below that GPU range, FSX:SE.

 

"Multicore support" is basically still the same in FSX and P3D. Btw. IMHO there seems to be a misconception there. Software cannot just "support" multiple cores, it has to be written specifically for parallel processing. If this is even possible or not depends on the task that your software has to fulfill. A flight simulator does not lend itself too well to high performance parallel processing, too many calculations depend on each other's results (so you cannot calculate them in parallel obviously) and too many things have to be perfectly in sync.

 

But a second consideration should be cost for the simulator and addons. P3D is more expensive than FSX:SE, and addons are too. Plus, if you buy P3D addons now, you get a "snapshot" built for the current P3D version. Every new P3D version might render them inoperative, and you have to rely on the developer to provide an update. He/she may decide not to do that, as there is no legal obligation to support future versions of a platform.

Thanks. Il probably stick with FSX-SE then. Thanks for the insight.

 

Sent from my T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk

If you are going to get at least a Titan, 980ti or 1080, then P3D because of DX11 (it does many things that previously had to be done by the CPU). Below that GPU range, FSX:SE.

 

"Multicore support" is basically still the same in FSX and P3D. Btw. IMHO there seems to be a misconception there. Software cannot just "support" multiple cores, it has to be written specifically for parallel processing. If this is even possible or not depends on the task that your software has to fulfill. A flight simulator does not lend itself too well to high performance parallel processing, too many calculations depend on each other's results (so you cannot calculate them in parallel obviously) and too many things have to be perfectly in sync.

 

But a second consideration should be cost for the simulator and addons. P3D is more expensive than FSX:SE, and addons are too. Plus, if you buy P3D addons now, you get a "snapshot" built for the current P3D version. Every new P3D version might render them inoperative, and you have to rely on the developer to provide an update. He/she may decide not to do that, as there is no legal obligation to support future versions of a platform.

 

Very well put, thanks for this input.

 

I have FSX and P3D, and my P3D is v3+. The issue of addons support is so true.

One thing that limits my moving totally to P3D is that many of my paid addons need to be repurchased just so I can use it in P3D...and many times its more expensive.

 

Flightsimming is like golfing and skiing...its a hobby for the wealthy or middle class at least or those who can set aside or afford to commit a bunch of money. IE it ain't cheap.

I also have FSX and P3D. But one way I look at P3d is that, although it is very similar to FSX, it is very different in the way it runs. You can just feel the difference. So with that said, I am very particular in what I download in it. Some planes I have downloaded into P3D are duplicates of planes that I have in FSX. Planes are the only add-ons I have for P3D. The only difference is that they are designed for P3D. I have the frame rate set at 20 and it never moves. Now FSX I have bogged down with everything you can think of. The frame rates are up and down. I am not trying to compare the two, but just pointing out my experience. I like both. I also have X-plane in which I enjoy just as much.

I have both FSX & P3D. Is there a difference? Sure, the FSX looks like Kodacolor or Kodachrome and the P3d looks more like Ekctacolor or Ektachrome. Do you prefer the red tints of FSX or the blue tints of P3D? IMHO Operationally both are FSX and P3D are so far outdated that neither can claim a true advantage in that regard.

 

Let's face it, simmers are a tiny niche market compared to all the bang bang, shoot em up, rape the girl/guy games. So understandably we haven't had anyone willing to spend significant money to even bring us into the early 21st century. Unless and until that happens, enjoy what you enjoy.

 

I don't see it getting better for some time to come. For one thing no one who is programming is interested in doing anything today, or even understands anything today that they can't instantly share with millions of others who are also instantly sharing at the same time.

 

Flight Simmers were not the target audience or even understood audience of software writers last decade. We're even further from the 8-22 year old kids who are the targeted base now!;)