What is best for Flight Sim?

[timholyoake]

I have been very lucky and find myself with the option of a huge upgrade for my computer.. I have been told that the Intel i7 is better than the AMD equiv , but would like to know if the huge difference in price is worth it in performance terms. Any thoughts on Nvidia vs ATI Equiv...? Also I always thought that the Nvidia series topped out with the 590 series. But now I find "Quadro" as well going all the way up to £2500.00p is this just a better series of card, or is it for a different use, and if it is better, why do we not hear about it (Cost probably)? And bearing in mind that FSX will not use SLI is this the way forward?
Thanks for helping to clear the mist a little..

[emfrat]

Hello Tim -
I am not qualified to advise you in the technical sense, but I have been keeping track of this discussion, in relation to replacing BigBeast with SuperBeast.
It seems the i5 processor will actually do better than the i7, as far as FS goes:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/171556/i ... ained.html

Hope this helps
MikeW

[DarrenL]

And this was posted here a little while ago, GFX card comparisons - http://www.hwcompare.com/

I would go for an AMD based system but only as I have one and it does what I want it to and I have not had to turn down any game settings so far, Napoleon TotalWar (max settings), Alien Vs Predator (max in DX11 too), Railworks (max), rFactor (max), Battlefield 2 (max), Call of Duty Black Ops & MW2 (max), F1 2010 (max) and NFS Shift 2 (max). All run smoothly.

I have an AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Series (3.4ghz not overclocked), 8GB DDR3 ram and a 1GB ATi Radeon 5870 HD card and run things very nicely thank you Everything pretty much maxxed out in FSX apart from ground object shadows, aircraft self shadowing and mesh resolution of 5m. Essential to run the config tuning website - http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html when everything is installed and after any major change.

I've had mine since December 2009, cost me a fraction under £1000 which included a 24" widescreen HD LCD monitor and other flashy bits in the package. Bought from Mesh, not a single problem, if you discount quickly running out of hard disc space It came with a 1TB Hdd and I have another 1TB disc in as well now, with faster PCs comes the desire to reload all your old games that didn't run in the best detail before and try them now. Then realising you can do the same with the latest releases, I try and keep 200GB free for swap files and such on the main disc, but I just don't know where all the space goes (granted I do have a backup image of my primary disc on the secondary taking up 576gb of space).

Tip........you can never have enough storage.

[SkippyBing]

The Quadro graphics cards are designed for graphics workstations and the like rather than gaming rigs. They do share components with the geForce series cards with some things allegedly being disabled in each range according to the target market's needs.
Certainly there's no advantage to be gained by buying one for a gaming rig unless you're allergic to money, in which case I may be able to help...

[ianhind]

The second post here refers to the previous i5 and i7 CPUs. We're now on to a whole new range of i3/i5/i7 CPUs (known as "Sandy Bridge", these have 4 digits as the identifier, eg i5-2400, i7-2600) which are supposed to completely outperform the previous ones.

I'm still trying to decide what one to go for but probably an i5

If anyone can relate which of these tests is relevant to FS, that would help answer the original question

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk ... s,112.html

[timholyoake]

Well , I've been searching, surfing and delving... I know of people who know computers, I know of people who know flight sim... But AS YET I have not had a good session with anyone who knows both.

There are people out there who build computers for flight sim, but every one appears to be contradicting each other,

I am running FSX with loads of extras (Horizon VFR,and most of the OrbX stuff, as well as A2A and Aerosoft Aircraft etc etc (You all know, you have been there too)) I want to run MS Flight when it is released and am assuming (First rule of life ... assume NOTHING) That it will take advantage of multi core processors and multiple graphics cards..

Here are my questions.

I believe that the CPU is the most important factor. So would like to go for an i7 - Extreme the 990 being the biggest and best I believe.

I believe that the RAM is next in line so it should be at least 6 gigs and as fast as poss. 2000Mhz DDR 3 (But is 6 gigs enough, or not really needed)?

I believe that a fast Hard drive is the next most influencial componant. BUT as SSDs are small and expensive Which part of the programs do I want to install on which HDD. I have been told that the operating System (Windows 7 64 bit ) should go on the SSD and also FSX + Accelaration> Is this correct and where should the add on scenery go (Horizon VFR ETC) I feel that this should go on a very fast access drive also. But am I right?

And a graphics card is less important (At the mo I am using 2 X Nvidia GTX 9800+ and they do a good job) But I am thinking of 2 X Nvidia GTX 590 in an effort to "Future proof" myself for MS Flight when it arrives.

I have 3 screens and would like to add a forth (Left front, Centre, Right front and one centre below , with the instrument panel displayed on it). the two cards would enable me to plug one screen into each of the Graphics cards out puts....

Would any one have any advice to support or alter this lot in any way. I THINK I have it about right but would like to know that I am going to get the best I can out of what is a VERY scary amount of money to throw at this...


Many thanks.
Tim H.

[DaveB]

Hi Tim..

This is way above my computing power but as I understand it, you don't really want FS to be on the same drive as your OS. This may well extend to the likes of GenX too although again, you don't want that on the same physical drive as FS.
To use the mentioned 6gb of ram, you have no option but to go for a 64-bit OS (whichever flavour) otherwise it will neither be seen or utilized. Having read bits and pieces on here over the years, the main drawback of FSX is that it is not (again, as I understand it) fully coded for multi-core processors and I wouldn't guarantee that it would be able to use all the available ram you throw at it. The best thing you can hope to do.. especially as you're planning for MS Flight.. is to go for the biggest and best equipment you can afford (not only CPU but graphics as well.. FSX is VERY graphics intensive and any successor will not be less so) and hope that it will run 'Flight' as you'd expect. Anything so big and butch as you describe should have no problem running FSX at a headbanging rate of knots too

SSD's are still a bit of a mystery to me. There were possible issues with longevity and a number of 'do's and don'ts' regarding what they should and shouldn't be used for. I'm sure a few of the guy's here are already using them so hang in there for a bit of useful advice

ATB
DaveB

[GHD]

Sandy Bridge mobos use dual channel ram, so 4 or 8GB would be appropriate.

I think the preferred cpu at present would be an I7 2600K running at 5GHz, but Intel has just announced tr-gate 22nm Ivy Bridge processors which should be available in January next year.

There is never an optimum time to upgrade, a new processor is always just around the corner.

[Chris Sykes]

the main drawback of FSX is that it is not (again, as I understand it) fully coded for multi-core processors and I wouldn't guarantee that it would be able to use all the available ram you throw at it.

Hi Dave your kinda incorrect in the first instance but correct on the second, FSX is multi core coded from SP1 or SP2 i cant remeber which, thats why there is the switch to allow it to use more than one core, the same with FSX and SLI it uses multi GFX cards... On the RAM side FSX is a 32bit program so wont all your RAM, IIRC its about 2+GB it will use, however having more RAM is always handy, for instance when in FSX you could be using other Programs at the same time such as REX etc...

With HDD vs SSD im stuck in the middle, i operate Veloci Raptors which you get a hell load more GB per £ than SSD's. The latest 600GB Veloci is at £180 where you can spend the same for a 120GB SSD... Kinda doesnt equate well for SSD's!

[DaveB]

Cheers Chris

ATB
DaveB