Best cpu for FSX?

pieman109 · 15 Sep 2009 at 13:53

Having built a flight sim for the local air cadets to run FSX, I'm currently using the following:

E5200 @3.15ghz
4870 512mb
2 x 2gb Kingston pc8500
Win 7 (release candidate)
MSI Matx G31 chipset mobo.

Performance is a bit low so I'd like to improve it a fair bit if possible.

I reckon I need a better cpu/ mobo combination, so what do ppl here reckon would be a suitable cpu and mobo upgrade. I've read here that FSX loves high clocked cpus, but would a C2Quad give better performance than a C2D.
Cheers.

Cooper · 15 Sep 2009 at 14:00

Core I7 above all else....Quad core and 4ghz capable.

Its as good as you can get.....if you have the money.

pieman109 · 15 Sep 2009 at 14:15

Cooper said:
Core I7 above all else....Quad core and 4ghz capable.

Its as good as you can get.....if you have the money.

That would be a nice system to use but a bit on the pricey side unfortunately. How does this sound?, e6600 @ 3.2ghz-3.4ghz, P45 mobo, 260GTX, XP pro instead of Win 7 (heard that performance is better on XP rather than vista or win 7). Cost wise I reckon I (or rather the commitee) can handle that.

DJ_Switch · 15 Sep 2009 at 15:04

A new q9650 can be had for 200 now. You will get 4ghz, and more, easily with your current board and ram. That's what I use for FSX and have no problems running it along with REX and various other resource hungry add ons.

e_dewson · 16 Sep 2009 at 02:14

I use a QX9650 upgraded from an E8500 as FSX is very cpu hungry, more so than anything else. Also discovered that Nvidia are far better in FSX than ATI cards particularly in clouds/weather esp if you wan to use AA. sadly I was forced to turn down a cheap 4870X2 and opt for a GTX card, 2 reasons: the AA issue and the fact that FSX doesn't engage the 2nd gpu on an X2. FSX now plays great on my system with REX and Mytraffic addons running in any weather conditions.

My advice if spending on a good system for FSX:

Get a good quad-core/P45 based system
Get a yoke/ rudder pedals.
Consider the TrackIR head tracking, What a difference it makes.
And if your feeling rich consider a Triplehead2go setup.

86JR · 16 Sep 2009 at 07:25

q9450 or higher / i5/i7
4gb ram atleast
would be tempted to go SLI 275gtx (basically an asus mars) but two cards.

picnic · 16 Sep 2009 at 17:03

Make sure you have the FSX service packs installed to make use of the extra cores. My 2.5Ghz C2D laptop makes a pretty good stab at running FSX (20fps is the norm). New Win7 RC install (i.e no other junk) and GenX photo scenery plus a few smallish VFR style sceneries; ANO, Farm Strips and Oil Refineries.

Mul · 16 Sep 2009 at 17:13

pieman109 said:
Having built a flight sim for the local air cadets to run FSX, I'm currently using the following:

E5200 @3.15ghz
4870 512mb
2 x 2gb Kingston pc8500
Win 7 (release candidate)
MSI Matx G31 chipset mobo.

Performance is a bit low so I'd like to improve it a fair bit if possible.

I reckon I need a better cpu/ mobo combination, so what do ppl here reckon would be a suitable cpu and mobo upgrade. I've read here that FSX loves high clocked cpus, but would a C2Quad give better performance than a C2D.
Cheers.

The system in question shouldn't be a particularly poor FSX performer assuming a wide variety of payware addons aren't being used and Service Packs 1 and 2 for the game have been installed. The service packs are very important as mentioned above as it allows multiple cores to be utilised.

FSX again as mentioned is very CPU intensive application and 3.0GHz+ clockspeeds with a modern Core 2/Phenom II are paramount in order to achieve decent framerates. My observations are generally that the jump in framerates from single core to dual core with the game are far more substantial than from dual to tri core or dual to quad core however those extra cores do raise the minimum and subsequently the average framerates quite nicely, ousting those occasional stutters (when a large range of clouds or airport scenery comes into view for example) in the process.

All in all, if any improvements should be made to the system it's from a CPU perspective and even if you do opt for a Quad core, there's no replacement for high frequencies in this game. While I wouldn't suggest replacing the HD 4870, my general findings are that the game tends to be less finnicky with nVidia's equivalents (from an AA/AF perspective) but of course one's mileage may vary.