How would FSX run on the following...

elevate

elevate

elevate

Associate
Joined
23 Feb 2009
Posts
52
Location
Huddersfield
Hi Guys,

I think this is the right section to post this in, if not I apologize.

I was talking to a friend last night and he recommended the following for FSX, saying it would run very well.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU Overclocked To 3.0Ghz Per Core
1GB ATI HD 4870 PCI Express Graphics Card
4GB (4 x 1GB) Kingston HyperX PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2 Ram
750GB 7200rpm SATA II Hard Drive

What do you think?

Sam
:)
 
It will run but you'll need to seriously tweak some of the game settings to get it running at an acceptable level. I'd also be careful what add-ons you use as well as some of them can be very resource hungry.
 
That spec will run it fine for the most part providing you don't go crazy and have everything completely maxed out. As FSX even with current PC hardware can bring it to a crawl in certain circumstances, such as complex add ons and flying out of a heavy scenery area (big airport, city, etc). However, the sim is very configurable and you should be able to find a nice sweet spot.

There has been 2 patches released for it, SP1 and SP2. They help performance/fix things and should be the first thing you download after installing it.
 
Thanks Guys!

What's the best pre-built system for under 1K, to run FSX? :) (On any website)
 
Last edited:
OK, how's it going to run under Vista x64 on my Mac Pro bootcamped which has 2 x quad core 2.8GHz Xeons with 10Gb RAM and the 8800 video card?
 
I have a lower spec than you, and run everything on full, (Tweaked view distances, quite far). Runs acceptably enough!
 
elevate said:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU Overclocked To 3.0Ghz Per Core
1GB ATI HD 4870 PCI Express Graphics Card
4GB (4 x 1GB) Kingston HyperX PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2 Ram
750GB 7200rpm SATA II Hard Drive

What do you think?

Sam
:)
Click to expand...

no point getting pc8500 ram for a q6600, sure i've heard that fsx isnt very graphics card intensive, so depending on the monitor/res you run a 4870 512mb would be just as good.
 
Mine runs sweet with my spec (in sig) with almost everything maxed out. REX has killed it a little so I have to re-tweek the distances a bit but otherwise the OP rig will blitz it.
 
mp260767 said:
no point getting pc8500 ram for a q6600, sure i've heard that fsx isnt very graphics card intensive, so depending on the monitor/res you run a 4870 512mb would be just as good.
Click to expand...

It is when you wack autogen + high AA and AF on.

But yes its more CPU dependent than other games, but you still need decent GPUs!
 
elevate said:
Hi Guys,

I think this is the right section to post this in, if not I apologize.

I was talking to a friend last night and he recommended the following for FSX, saying it would run very well.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU Overclocked To 3.0Ghz Per Core
1GB ATI HD 4870 PCI Express Graphics Card
4GB (4 x 1GB) Kingston HyperX PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2 Ram
750GB 7200rpm SATA II Hard Drive

What do you think?

Sam
:)
Click to expand...

Avsim posted an article a while back where they tested a dual core against a quad, there was negligable difference. As core speed is what FSX needs you'd be much better off with a E8400 and clocking it to 4Ghz per core. The same article also said that frame rates using XP were 13% better than Vista, something you may want to consider when chosing your OS.

The last lot of graphics benchmarks I checked out on Toms Hardware that had FSX scores showed Nvidia cards were much better suited to FSX over their Ati alternatives so you may be better off with a GTX260 over the 4870.
 
PieEater said:
Avsim posted an article a while back where they tested a dual core against a quad, there was negligable difference. As core speed is what FSX needs you'd be much better off with a E8400 and clocking it to 4Ghz per core. The same article also said that frame rates using XP were 13% better than Vista, something you may want to consider when chosing your OS.

The last lot of graphics benchmarks I checked out on Toms Hardware that had FSX scores showed Nvidia cards were much better suited to FSX over their Ati alternatives so you may be better off with a GTX260 over the 4870.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that - I think it was the 8800GTS 640 that held top spot - seems quite strange to me (from an uneducated perspective). Not complaining - it's the card I have.
 
PieEater said:
Avsim posted an article a while back where they tested a dual core against a quad, there was negligable difference. As core speed is what FSX needs you'd be much better off with a E8400 and clocking it to 4Ghz per core. The same article also said that frame rates using XP were 13% better than Vista, something you may want to consider when chosing your OS.

The last lot of graphics benchmarks I checked out on Toms Hardware that had FSX scores showed Nvidia cards were much better suited to FSX over their Ati alternatives so you may be better off with a GTX260 over the 4870.
Click to expand...

Apparently the SP's means FSX now takes advantage of all cores, no?
 
Yes FSX takes advantage of multiple cores now. That came in SP2, so there shouldn't be any need to tweak the cfg anymore.

Don't forget that FSX is a simulator, not a game, and that sometimes things run contrary to how you would expect them to. For example, I actually get a smoother sim with max autogen than with nil autogen.

I recommend Needham's config tips over at Simforums

And just to re-iterate what he says, in FSX its about SMOOTH flight with CLEAR terrain. If you are seeing that on the screen it does not matter WHAT the frame rate number displays!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom