Jump to content

FSX limitations on utilizing PC resources


Sailor512

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

 

I know that stuff of this kind has already been discussed in the forums, but I would be grateful, if you could give me a summary or redirect me to an appropriate thread. My question is as follows:

 

I'm in the process of building myself a new PC. Not for flight siming only, but while I'm on it I would like to maximize performance for this as well. Obviously FSX is not really new and I vaguely remember of reading about some limitations to the resources it can utilize.

 

So:

Is it true FSX can use 4 GB RAM only, so more RAM is only necessary to keep your system and other applications running in the background. (Thinking of doing 16 GB)

 

How about the CPU usage and multithreading? Better to use e.g. QuadCore with higher frequency, than more cores with a bit lower frequency?

 

How about the GPU? Not intending to go for IGP, but wondering whether I should keep my old GPU with 2 GB DRAM?

 

How much of an impact does an SSD for running FSX have?

 

How well are FSX, PMDG 777 and Concorde X working under Windows 10?

 

Loads of questions I know, but many thanks in advance for some answers!! :-)

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old and can't use hardware so don't need to buy? Nonsense spread by *&%#! Ram is ok amount. Fastest i7 modern cpu, fastest videocard, fast ddr4 ram, good board that handles overclocking. Skimping won't get you same performance. On matter how much those *?&% wish it was so.

No shortcuts for reading. Be prepared to be reading about best hardware choices for a few months. Not here per se, on sites and forums dealing with hardware. And on manufacturers sites, comparing various parts and ALL their specs. After all, you must in the end be able to make YOUR OWN informed decision when spending between $1300 and $2300.

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

Here is my system as it is, its a HP laptop i3 quad core processor @ 1.9GHz. 8 Gb ram, on board intel hd video using shared memory and a 7200rpm hard drive @750gb space. I run Win 10 home 64 bit. I have both boxed FSX and FSX-se. I use the box mostly with AS16, ASCA. Most of my aircraft is freeware save for level-d 767 and 2 perfect flight sets. I normally get between 30-50 fps. Hope this helps you.... AD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, amberdog, if you would use a dedicated graphics card to get some decent details, and use a large monitor resolution of today, (and switch off Dx10 mode?), you would

be down to 5-10 fps if that.

(And with a nice modern plane like a PMDG 737-800 your fsx would come to a grinding halt.)

 

The point is: there's way too much that makes a difference on fps to even attempt listing

it all. From hardware to software, from all the details to the fsx settings and graphics card settings, etc. Just too much to even list/ let alone make a decent decision on it.

 

Best is. Decide on a budget. Then get the best processor you can afford.

You can always upgrade a graphics card later. You can't (won't) upgrade a processor. After spending $300++

on that, you won't buy another for at least 4 years, and by then newer processors don't fit in your old mainboard.

So no upgrade route.

Adding a better graphics card later is always an option though.

 

So best processor, basic good core ram and mainboard.

hard disks that will last you a few years.

And some sort of videocard. Whatever you do, not just HDgraphics.

 

That still leaves thousands of options for parts to consider. Don't rush into buying.

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

I fully agree with il88pp that your equipment and settings can make a big difference. With a 3.2 MHz i7 960, 12 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 970 and SSDs for C: and D: (D: is where I have FSX and P3D), I can't usually do much better than 30 fps (consistently, that is) on P3D, and worse on FSX. But I'm using a 1080p monitor and have my display settings low to med high, depending on where I'm flying (in big cities I'm almost down to a slideshow, even at low settings).

 

So as mentioned above, get the best processor you can and, if you go with P3D you'll also want a top graphics card (it makes a big difference with P3D), and SSDs will improve performance a lot when starting up and will reduce stutter tendencies when caused by discs loading scenery, etc. It'll help TrackIR run more smoothly, too.

 

Larry N.

As Skylab would say:

Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sailor512,

 

Whilst you will be using the rig for FSX, you do need to factor in what other uses you are going to use the rig for and adjust your 'build' accordingly. If you base your requirements solely on the limitations of FSX then you are likely to impact on other software that you may be intending to use. Base your build on the requirements of the most demanding app - most new apps require a higher spec than FSX anyway so FSX should run well on a rig built based on the most demanding product.

 

As il88pp has stated, you must base your rig on your own overall requirements. However, WRT the Qs you have asked.....

 

RAM - yes, because FSX is a 32-bit program it can only access a max of 4Gb. 8Gb should the minimum that you should consider (although 16Gb is a better choice) as it will allow FSX to use the full 4Gb even when other tasks are happening in the background and allows flexibility for the more demanding apps that you may run.

 

CPU - Generally FSX will only use one core, irrespective of how many are available. The higher speed may have relevance BUT, WRT the often seen comments about getting the 'fastest' available CPU, GPU etc, it is IMO is often overstated. As amberdog1 has pointed out at post #3 (and I have on several other such related threads) you don't necessary need the 'fastest' CPU available to run FSX.

 

Remember, whilst the development of FSX has stood still, PC components have continuously developed. The specs of the highest spec 2007 era CPU that FSX was designed to run on is well below, in terms of both speed and capabilities, the specs of even an 'old' low end 'legacy'/4th generation i3, which again is, in comparison to a current 7th gen low end i3, slow. However, the 4th Gen i3 is capable of running FSX very well.

 

GPU - As with the CPU, it is not necessary to have a high end GPU. Your main problem here is that the 'old' GPU may not be compatible with the new motherboard.

 

SSD - whilst using a SSD will give faster OS and other program loading times it will have very little or no impact on the FPS rate of FSX and most other apps. Depending on your budget go for either the largest SSD you can afford OR a small SSD (say 128GB or 256Gb) for the OS and a separate large HDD for FSX and other apps

 

Win 10 - FSX and addons work fine on Win 10. There are a few things that may cause issues, especially in a fresh vanilla install but all have fixes available. Search the forum for Win 10 related problems and you will see that they all easily resolved if encountered. In fact most of them can be negated by some pre-FSX installation work - for example, FSX requires Visual C++ 2005 to run. W10 does not normally ship with it and the version included on the FSX install disk is woefully out of date and in a lot, so checking if it is installed into W10 before install FSX is a good ideal. If not, downloading and installing the 2005 Redistributable package will negate the risk of encountering problems relating to the lack of C++.

 

Finally FTR - I have two rigs running FSX (both laptops) running Win 10 Creators Update.

 

Rig 1 has a i5-450M 2.4Ghz CPU, 8Gb RAM with both an Onboard Intel HD GPU (2GB shared memory) and a dedicated ATI Mobility Radeon HD5650 GPU (2Gb dedicated).

 

Rig 2 has a i7-4702MQ 2.2Ghz (with 3.2Ghz Turbo Boost), 16Gb RAM with both an Onboard Intel HD GPU (2GB dedicated memory) and a dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT750M GPU (2Gb dedicated).

 

Both rigs run FSX well, FPS is locked at 30FPS on both and I have a mixture of scenery and aircraft addons that range from 'light to heavy' in terms of complexity, visuals and resource requirements. Both rigs have similar FSX settings, the exceptions being that on Rig 1 the scenery complexity slider is set at dense (very dense on rig 2) and the Mesh Complexity slider is set at 80 (100 on rig 2). Rig 1 will sometimes drop FPS (usually only by 3-4FPS) when loading very complex scenery but rig 2 has no such issues and I have never encountered scenery 'blurries' or 'stutters' on either rig.

Regards

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I was trying to say is you don't have to get the most powerful rig to enjoy FSX and still have a good flight. I'd love to have something better but I don't have the resources yet so I have to make do with what I have. For what it is I do very well.

Happy :pilot: Flyin yall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I was trying to say is you don't have to get the most powerful rig to enjoy FSX and still have a good flight. I'd love to have something better but I don't have the resources yet so I have to make do with what I have. For what it is I do very well.

Happy :pilot: Flyin yall

 

Me too! My computer is the equivalent of rubbing 2 sticks together;)

Still thinking about a new flightsim only computer!  ✈️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I was trying to say is you don't have to get the most powerful rig to enjoy FSX and still have a good flight. I'd love to have something better but I don't have the resources yet so I have to make do with what I have. For what it is I do very well.

Happy :pilot: Flyin yall

 

That's true, you don't have to have the most powerful (my system is 7 years old, too), but it helps. I'd gotten the impression you were saying "don't bother with more" but I guess I misunderstood -- sorry. Also, you were reporting frame rates that can't give a great deal of detail, which is fine, but should be acknowledged.

 

Larry N.

As Skylab would say:

Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,:D

il.

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

I would be interested in opinions - opinionated and otherwise - on what the honored forum participants consider a "Good Enoughâ„¢" 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings All,

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, kind Sir, that was exactly what I was looking for. I am going to upgrade my system in 3 steps, first a more powerful power supply, something like a 1.2 KW one, then the CPU from a i7 6700 that is fixed at 3.4 GHz to a i7 7700K, and then the graphics card comes in last.

 

Jorgen

 

There is NO home computer system in the world that needs a 1.2 KW power supply. You could power a small apartment with one of those.

http://www.air-source.us/images/sigs/000219_195_jimskorna.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very nifty tool!

 

It turns out that with my future configuration, even with a GTX 1080 TI video card, the calculator recommends a power supply rated at 549 W. And I found the 2-year old box for my power supply, and it states 700 W, so there should be room in that one.

 

Very interesting - and thank you a whole lot!

 

Jorgen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At present I have a 580 W power supply, which is 0.580 KW. What I am thinking of getting is a 1200W, which is 1.2 KW.

 

I have a 550W power supply, and I can't pull more than 200W from the wall. Given that it's 80% efficient, all of the equipment isn't pulling more than 160W.

 

The tool is interesting... it's claiming my setup will draw around 380W, which doesn't match the data.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

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...