fsx /vista/ xp pro

[AchillesP]

Achilles, what do you think the kind of performance I'll get with the above hardware and and using a Q6700 it's a 2.66Ghz and I don't know how much I can overclock it.

Matt Olieman

Hi Matt,

My current pc is equipped with the qx6700 (2,66Ghz) overclocked at 3,2Ghz with asus striker extreme, 2Gb ram DDR2 800Mhz and a NVIDIA 8800 ULTRA.

I am not satisfied because the proccecor can not render fast due to cpu and motherboard bus speed.

If I fly near ground there are a lot of (starts and stops) at the screen. Not a problem of FPS because I have plenty of them. At ground more that 20 at big airports. At the air almost 100. But cpu is not capable to reach the speed that fsx gives for render to the cpu.

QX6700 has 1066 bus speed and QX9770 has 1600 bus speed. You see the difference? Alomost 60% more faster. That's why you need also ram with 1600 Mhz and more speed.

So whatever you do, wherever you overclock the qx6700 you will not be satisfied as a cockpit builder. At least, I AM NOT!!!!

[AchillesP]

Hi Bill,

You know, this is not very accurate. Microsoft ONLY says that DX10 is only with VISTA. I tell NO!!!!!!

Take a closer look. DX10 is avaliable for WP at least as a project. So, it is matter of time to have DX10 at Xp officially.

http://www.technospot.net/blogs/down...-alky-project/

Just to clarify. I DID NOT INSTALL DX10 FOR XP.

I just gave the information.

[Mr. Midnight]

so i guess i will have to make a decision on which to run, six here and a half dozen there.

it would seem and here is where i dont see it, so talk to me like a ten year old

when fsx came out , we knew that it needed a faster everything, but it has been out for awhile now and it seems that it still needs a faster and faster machine, cpu,vid card , motherboard etc.

it seems to never stop needing.

i like to stay up on tech, but it seems that the sim world does not have the benefit , of doing the things it use to do with fs9, there was so much more you could do with fs9.

fsx forces you to , let me see how can i put this, forces you to a desktop type of running than expanding like i could with fs9.

and here is a question for you , why was fsx geared for cpu power and not gpu power, what was added to fsx that they decided to do that.

im just trying to weigh my options , because i need to know if i should go fsx or stay with fs9.

and one other question what makes fsx better over fs9 other than eye candy , am i missing somthing here.

and the last question i have is this, i jst got my 8500 cpu and now im hearing that it may not be all that good.

meaning as soon as i use fsx and i start adding extra software , then im right back wher i started from a bogged down systen that wants to hog everything for it self.


thanks...................Robert

[AchillesP]

so i guess i will have to make a decision on which to run, six here and a half dozen there.

it would seem and here is where i dont see it, so talk to me like a ten year old

when fsx came out , we knew that it needed a faster everything, but it has been out for awhile now and it seems that it still needs a faster and faster machine, cpu,vid card , motherboard etc.

it seems to never stop needing.

i like to stay up on tech, but it seems that the sim world does not have the benefit , of doing the things it use to do with fs9, there was so much more you could do with fs9.

fsx forces you to , let me see how can i put this, forces you to a desktop type of running than expanding like i could with fs9.

and here is a question for you , why was fsx geared for cpu power and not gpu power, what was added to fsx that they decided to do that.

im just trying to weigh my options , because i need to know if i should go fsx or stay with fs9.

and one other question what makes fsx better over fs9 other than eye candy , am i missing somthing here.

and the last question i have is this, i jst got my 8500 cpu and now im hearing that it may not be all that good.

meaning as soon as i use fsx and i start adding extra software , then im right back wher i started from a bogged down systen that wants to hog everything for it self.


thanks...................Robert

The tecnhology did not changed from fs9 to fsx. Only the settings that can be more bigger's.

FS9 is also cpu demand program but you have already a cpu than can cover that demands. Imagine to run windows 3.1 at your current pc.

Hardware is changing to cover software demands.

Try give all setting of fsx to the left. It is like flying fs9. No problem. Same frames as fs9. But, all setting of FSX to low, means ultra setting to fs9. You see? You just begin from the other end. EYES EXPANSION. If you need to see better thinks you have to pay. That's life.

There are two ot three more parameters at flying dynamics between fsx and fs9. Also calculates in different way. Try to fly the same airplane at both fs9 and fsx. For me it seems that I can control it better. It is more smooth. But this is only my opinion. I am a simmer and not a real pilot.

I know nothing about AMD. Sorry.

[Mr. Midnight]

thanks for the reply, i just got my intel duo core 3.16ghz, 6mb l2 cache , 1333 front side bus.

im not going to be using amd anymore thought i try intel.

but as to what you wrote, are you saying that fsx is really not that differant as to fs9 , but it offers you more of what fs9 gave you at it max, so with fsx giving you more i need more horse power get it.

so let me ask you folks using fs9 , are you satisfied or are you using it because you can do more with it, than you can with fsx.

Thanks.......Robert

[Michael Carter]

I'm quite satisfied.

With all of the scenery & airport add-on's I have it looks and runs great.

Since buying a new FS9 computer back in November I couldn't be happier. The system is well more than adequate to run FS9 and additional upgrade hardware that used to be high-end stuff in it's day was dirt cheap.

[Rodney]

Well,


And the last that counts is the gpu. For one screen an gtx280 or ati4870x2 will be more than ok. For 3 screens you need tri-sli gtx280 or crossfire 2 x 4870x2.

To the best of my knowledge, SLI & Crossfire make no difference and are not supported in FSX. If you run this setup, you are wasting your money.

[AchillesP]

To the best of my knowledge, SLI & Crossfire make no difference and are not supported in FSX. If you run this setup, you are wasting your money.

Indeed. If you want a low screen resolution then the sli or crossfire is not useless. If you go to big analisys from example 5940 x 1020 then you need it.

SLI or crossfire is not game related. It is hardware related that makes two or three cards to work together.

The GPU card does not know what you play. It just tries to cooperate with the other one (or two) gpu card's in order to display the polygons in more frames.

So, bigger analisys = More polygons = Need more gpu power

[mlscotti]

Not to change the subject, but can someone tell me how to send a new thread topic? I still haven't figured out how, and I just puchased RJ Glass cockpit, how is everyone getting the EICS on the second monitor?

Oh, this topic will come in handy this xmas, when I upgrade from Pentium 4 to either quad or dual core pc.... Thanx

[Michael Carter]

Click the forum tab and find the forum for which you would like to start the thread.