Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: FSX limitations on utilizing PC resources

  1. Default

    yes, you can run fsx on a less powerfull system, sure, it will run (welll, run..., walk).

    But the question, "does more powerful hardware have no use". No.

    Longbreak, I saw you say this a few times, but FSX can most certainly use more then one core.
    The main proces runs on one core. But any other cores you have will help with fast texture loading.
    (And that means no stutters, smooth flying, a Huge benifit!!)
    Why do you choose to start of that bit by saying the opposite?

    Also, the more processing speed, the better.
    Especially for an older application like FSX that leans heavy on processing speed, and less on cores.
    (How can you ever say the opposite like you did here???)

    old' GPU may not be compatible with the new motherboard.
    Huh?
    An old GPU will most definetely fit. The modern Gen3 PCIEx16 slots are backwards comatible with older Gen1 PCIEx16 slot cards.
    They fit right in, and work at top speed.
    Putting an brand new card (can accept data transfer at Gen3 speeds)
    In an old slot (Gen1 speed data transfer to card)
    Is a bit pointless. THe card could be fed data faster, and has the speed to procees that data, but the old mainboard can then never feed it that data at that speed.

    (Fit, as in does it fit in the slot, yes that works both ways. Both 'fit in the slot' and both ways the card will just work. Putting a new card in an old pc is just a waste of a good card.)

    The only way it does NOT fit in the slot is if you try to push som pre-2008 AGP card in there. AGP slots no longer come on mainboards.



    You mention Win10. But OS does not make any performance barrier at all.
    It's just a personal choice. Win 10 is definetely a good choice if you want security because you have more on the PC then just FSX. A good choice.
    You forgot to mention what does however make a difference for performance. Very important, is to get an x64 OS. Not a 32 bit OS, but a 64 bit OS.
    With a 32 bit OS, you can only install a maximum of 4GB Ram in the PC in total. Not good.


    You gave a lot of completely incorrect info there.
    And you seem to be someone saying that better harware makes no difference on FSX.
    Really, you couldn't be more wrong. The better hardware really helps.


    Of course you can buy a cheap pc and fsx will run. I had it running once on a Celeron3, 2.1 ghz, with a 256mb (yes, Mb) videocard.
    fps: 5-10
    planes: slow ones only
    views: nothing but 2D panel. (In VC the framerate was 1.)
    Fun, yes. But at the time I was not used to anything but "pong" and "Diablo3-v1".
    And i did not know this forum, and all the gadgets available. The payware addons. Etc.
    Now, if my pc broke down, I would never go for a Celeron 2.1 ghz again. Never.
    Last edited by il88pp; 09-12-2017 at 08:39 PM.

  2. Default

    Thanks a lot for all the answers and help!! :-)

    IMO you all have the truth there, you can run FSX on an older machine (I currently have it on a 5-year-old Vaio notebook, works quite fine, but could be better), but better hardware will always help....still resources are limited.

    I think I really should go for a somewhat high end CPU, because of the other uses I have in mind and also il88pp is fully right you usually won't change a CPU in your rig.

    However I'm thinking of maybe going for an AMD CPU & mainboard as they seem to offer quite a good Price/quality ratio at the moment (also good marks in some benchmark test I read). Are there any issues known with AMD, i.e. would you recommend sticking strictly with Intel?

    Likewise I think I will stick with my old GPU (I'll check about the mainboard, but think it shouldn't be to much of a problem it's not that old) being always able to change it.

    I'm somewhat relieved that there are no large compatibility problems with Win 10 as e.g. I just read some of the latest gen CPUs are not supported by Win 7.

    My current plans for memory are something like a 400 GB SSD and a 2 TB HDD (once again other uses in mind as well), I think I could generate a partition for FSX on any of them. Should I go for the SSD here? Or would you really recommend a dedicated drive only for FSX, not just a partition (which will obviously not get the full bandwidth of possible access speed)?

    Many thanks for all the help!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    5 NM NE of EDXF
    Posts
    1,396

    Default

    I don't think there are any issues per se with AMD processors, but the general consensus that I'm reading out of the threads, and in the tweaking threads, is to go with Intel processors and nVidia GPUs as giving more bang for the buck, FSX-wise.

    But I have been known to be wrong before.

    Jorgen

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Pontefract, West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    877

    Default

    @ il88pp.....

    Why is the information I have given 'completely incorrect'.......?

    WRT the use of multiple cores - I stated that 'Generally, FSX will only use one core'. Yes, I could have provided further info about it using more cores for loading textures if the cores are available but at the end of the day the bulk of the FSX workload is carried out on a single core.

    WRT to CPU processing speed - I was simply making the point that it is not necessary to have a the fastest CPU to run FSX as is often stipulated.

    WRT the GPU - I made my comments because the OP had not given any details of the current rig/card. As you have highlighted (despite stating 'Huh? An old GPU will most definitely (sic) fit') some types of cards (i.e. AGP) are not supported by modern motherboards of today. WRT GPUs other factors that need to be considered is power requirements and the physical size of the card. Both motherboards (MB) and GPU cards come in a variety of sizes. If the MB is of a small 'form' factor and the GPU is a large size card then there may be problems fitting it as there maybe parts on the MB or GPU itself that may cause issues.

    WRT the mention of Win10 - it was in a direct response to the OP's Q about FSX and other products running in Win10. As with some of my other comments, they were assumptions made based on the info provide by the OP. The fact that he had mentioned that he was looking at 16Gb RAM suggest that the OP would be using the 64 bit version.

    Finally, WRT the comment 'And you seem to be someone saying that better harware (sic)makes no difference on FSX.' - That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I happily accept that, to some, my comments will appear to reflect that view. However, what I am trying to point out is that the often offered up opinion that only the best will run FSX to an acceptable level and is the only way forward is not valid and, depending on personal requirements, necessary.

    At the end of the day my comments are 'opinions' in response to a topic, just like yours and those made by others, and it is up to the individual reading these 'opinions' to decided what is useful/valid and what is not.
    Regards

    Brian

  5. Default

    Ok, in a better mood at the moment. I'll try aagain.

    When typing that I did know/assume you knew the things I said.
    But you hadn't explained them to the OP yourself.

    about cores you started by saying hat fsx makes use of only one core.
    That is catagorically untrue.
    If you had started by saying:
    "A fast quad core definetely helps."

    Maybe foolowed by:
    "Although it doesn't double the performance of a dual core for fsx unfortunately."

    And maybe next:
    "It does double the performance of a dual core for other programs. And of WIndows itself.
    Which in turn has some effect as well.
    So a Quad Core is well worth concidering"

    Well, then it would have been a very different matter. I would have said nothing about that but +1.

    By saying it the way you did you give the impression that a dual core is the best choice for performnance. Which it most definetely is not.
    I have seen you post the way you did here several times. And several times I, or others, have had to post right after to correct what you said.
    Maybe try post the info next time in a way that does away with the need for someone correcting you right after.


    ---
    About GPU's you gave the impression that if he wants to use the gpu from his previous computer he probably can't.

    But this is actually very unlikely. If someone has a previous pc that he's still using, this pc is usually no older then 5 to 8 years.
    And all pc's in that time had PCI-E cards. Wich fit in the slots all. And which are fully comatible all.
    Bettre still, they probably work betterin a Gen3 slot.
    (More constant pushing of data from th pc through it's en3 slot, so the data stream doesn't falter. And the card now is used fully.)
    (A usb-2 stick also works faster in a usb-3 port then in a usb-2 port. Same thing.)

    Starting off by saying: "It may well be incompatible" is not the best approach I think.
    Better start with something like: "If your pc is not too old, less then 10 years, you can probably use your old Graphics card. Older PCI-Express cards will work in the newer PCI-Express slots. Only if you have a really old AGP graphics card will it not fit, but you wouldn't want to use a card that old anyway."



    See what I mean?
    I think what you meant is to say the things I wrote above first. And then after nuanced things with for example "If strached for cash a dual core would be a possible alternative, the fsx program can run on a dual core as well (still, don't write 'very' well, like you did here.), and other nuances.

    You however forgot to first answer the question, which was: "will better specs help?"
    And only posted the "nuances". (which then just become incorrect claims/statements.)

    I re-rread your post just now. (Pretending I'm a noob shopping for hardware.) No matter how I look at it, it screams:
    "don't buy an expensive pc. You don't need one.". Maybe it's not what you meant, but that's what it pretty much says.
    It's almost as if you are recomending a pc with FS2004 in mind.

    Cheers,
    Dictated but not read,
    il.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by il88pp View Post
    Putting an brand new card (can accept data transfer at Gen3 speeds)
    In an old slot (Gen1 speed data transfer to card)
    Is a bit pointless.
    It might seem that this is the case but it's not so. A new PCIe Gen 3.0 card should perform very well in an older generation slot. See: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._review,1.html for a good comparison. Even using a PCIe Gen 1.1 slot does not slow down the card down massively. As the article says on the final page:

    "If you use a single high-end graphics card then really, even the PCIe Gen 1.1 slot would be sufficient. Gen 2.0 is preferred and Gen 3.0 only brings in a marginal improvement... a modest 2 to 3% percent on average."

    If you have an older system and you play games where your GPU is holding you back (probably not FSX), then an upgrade to a modern graphics card is not a bad option. Plus, you'll have a good card to use in any future system update. The danger, of course is that you could then end up with your older CPU being the system bottleneck.
    Last edited by lesh; 09-14-2017 at 09:58 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    5 NM NE of EDXF
    Posts
    1,396

    Default

    I would be interested in opinions - opinionated and otherwise - on what the honored forum participants consider a "Good Enough™" graphics card.

    The one I have right now is a nVidia GTX 960.

    Also, when speaking of graphics cards, I have seen somewhere that nVidia would be releasing new cards this fall. Anyone know anything about that?

    Jorgen

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    300 mtrs S.W. Of ID85, Elk River ID
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Greetings All,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor512 View Post
    However I'm thinking of maybe going for an AMD CPU & mainboard as they seem to offer quite a good Price/quality ratio at the moment (also good marks in some benchmark test I read). Are there any issues known with AMD, i.e. would you recommend sticking strictly with Intel?
    Remembering that your mileage may vary, I would go with the Intel CPU vs AMD. I had a couple AMDs, the last a Phenom II 970 Black. The AMDs worked, but the my Intel was much smoother running and allowed me to push the sliders further to the right at the same CPU speed in both FSX and Prepar3D.

    Respectfully,
    Brian
    Last edited by krasen; 09-14-2017 at 12:50 PM. Reason: Darned aouto-correct!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krasen View Post
    Greetings All,


    Remembering that your mileage may vary, I would go with the Intel CPU vs AMD. I had a couple AMDs, the last a Phenom II 970 Black. The AMDs worked, but the my Intel was much smoother running and allowed me to push the sliders further to the right at the same CPU speed in both FSX and Prepar3D.

    Respectfully,
    Brian
    Agreed. AMD is very good in current benchmarks, what with their many cores and general architecture. For a system running current games an AMD is a very good choice.
    But IMHO they are still cr*p in the department that counts for FSX: single core FLOP performance. If you are looking at benchmarks, look for the FLOPS values if you want to get an idea about how "good" the CPU is for FSX (=how many arithmetic calculations can it do per second on a single core).

  10. Default

    Once again many thanks for all the input!! :-)

    Maybe I will post the components of my rig, once I have decided on them.

    Cheers!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FS2004 PC resources
    By gchiham in forum FS2004
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-08-2014, 11:08 PM
  2. Planes, cars and Pc resources.
    By lefu in forum FSX
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-2013, 03:11 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 05:35 AM
  4. Utilizing All Runways
    By rcancian in forum FSX
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 08:57 AM
  5. Releasing PC Resources
    By gatwickuk in forum FSX
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 03:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •