Flight sim pc specs?

Can't see that :P

I've built quite a few PCs for FSX and X-Plane, so happy to give it a once-over if you like? :) (And yes, an i5 will be just as good as an i7 for FSX, regardless of the overclock, FSX doesn't use HT)
 
wassupdoc said:
I've Come Up with a build that should meet his requirements: https://secure.scan.co.uk/aspnet/Sh...9c4-71b7-4c4e-9d4a-cce50f12a269#BasketDetails
I was told that an i5 at 4.3 Ghz would almost match an I7 at 4.0Ghz so figured may as well save a few quid :p
Click to expand...
I can't see you basket there (best to take a screenshot and link it from imgur).

Soz that I didn't get around to doing the tests yesterday, I was finally putting the watercooling on my pc and an hour after doing so my SSD died (unrelated). So back on a WD raptor for the mo. Anyway - I've got the demos for both FSX and xplane on the go. Will report back to add to the stuff that's already been put up!

M&P
 
So I did some stuff with the FSX demo. Firstly I tried one of the missions (Caribbean Landing):

The important bits of my rig:
3570K @ 4.8GHz
1x 7950 @ stock (game didn't utilise XF)
Sh*t lots of 1600 RAM (32GB )

All the settings were set to Ultra-high presets and I set the FPS target to unlimited:
FPS chart:
QUJSR.jpg

From the FPS chart it still looks like there is a 60FPS cap (I couldn't find a vsync option but this may explain it). From these results you could say it would look pretty laggy and that my hardware was struggling but it's a sim so I think they design it to run at 15-20fps anyway which might explain the next graph.

Hardware use:
vRXXk.jpg

As you can see the demo only used 1 core thread and not to full capacity. The GPU was barely being used at all. So I don't really know why the game was running at such a low FPS. It certainly wasn't hardware related.

System Memory use:
HlgTg.jpg

I had Fraps, Chrome and I was logging these stats in a HW monitor too. 8GB looks plenty in any case since I was seeing 3-3.5GB of RAM being used.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't bother with a 680 tbh, i'd go for the KFA2/Galaxy EX 670 4GB (if you need that extra 2GB VRAM) or a 7970 such as the Powercolor PCS+ and overclock it to the same or higher clocks than the GHz edition models. Also, an Ivy Bridge won't work with a Z68 mobo straight out of the box, you'd need a Sandy Bridge CPU to perform a bios update to make it IB compatible (i'm not 100% sure on that as i can't remember fully, but i think that's right)
 
I agree with PH, plus you might as well get a z77 mobo since they are all so good and get native pcie-3 and usb3 support. The MSI z77 g45 (I seem to be forever recommending this board!) is also cheaper than that board to boot.
 
Master&Puppet said:
I agree with PH, plus you might as well get a z77 mobo since they are all so good and get native pcie-3 and usb3 support. The MSI z77 g45 (I seem to be forever recommending this board!) is also cheaper than that board to boot.
Click to expand...

Yup, might as well go for an IB chipset along with the IB 3570K. MSI boards from the G45 right up to the GD80 are stuffed full of features at great prices. Wouldn't go any higher than the 65 though, the 65 and the 80 are practically identical apart from the Thunderbolt support on the 80.

Out of them all i'd also recommend the 45 in this case, it can handle high overclocks easily, looks great and supports SLI and Crossfire setups too
 
Then I ran a free flight for fun but I put the settings up beyond Ultra-high. Literally everything was maxed to the max.

FPS:
QRo2d.jpg

Again, dodgy FPS...

Hardware log:
ZlxfU.jpg

With only a slightly higher component use which is still well under capacity.

RAM:
aKOh5.jpg

Same RAM capacity but no surprise there.

I'll do x-plane in the morning, it has just finished downloading but I want to catch up with some of the Olympics!
 
wow, thanks guys - saved me some problems there with the cpu/mb combination :P I'll have a look at what you've all suggested
 
Here's the xplane log:
W4CA3.jpg

Every setting maxed and I was getting ~15fps which I don't understand because clearly my hardware wasn't being stressed...

I had ago at FSX with the edited cgf but it didn't make a difference to my core usage. I didn't try too hard though since the game wasn't demanding much cpu power.

From these demos I can't see why you'd need more than an i5 and a mid-range GPU. 670 for 3 screens would be more than enough based on what I've seen.

I just think that these sims have not been well coded tbh. You can throw hardware at it but if it isn't written right it then it isn't going to make a difference.
 
Last edited:
FSX and X-Plane are pretty crap when it comes to optimisation and working well with decent hardware. An i5, 8GB RAM, 4GB 670 is plenty sufficient for flight sim.

However, there are plenty of modifications you can make to config files and Nvidia users can use Nvidia Inspector to increase their graphics way beyond the useless settings in FSX itself.

If anyone is interested in them, let me know... :)
 
Will upload the .nip file later this evening :) It's designed with a GTX560Ti in mind, but I don't think any higher settings will make a difference!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AlienALX
The Fairchild Ghost subwoofer project
2
Replies
35
Views
640
AlienALX
AlienALX
AlienALX
Building my dream N64. More in depth than you would think (and me !)
Replies
11
Views
1K
AlienALX
AlienALX
P
Do some people never learn from the past?
Replies
2
Views
855
Pugsport
P
AlienALX
Orange Crush, a revisit...
Replies
5
Views
4K
AlienALX
AlienALX
R
Corsair iCue-Link 5000X upgrade
Replies
3
Views
7K
robert3892
R
Back
Top