Fly Away Simulation
SearchSearch 

Getting the most out of your hardware

Pro Member First Officer
Spoty101 First Officer

Does anybody with a very advanced brand new computer running this game maxed smoothly? Lots of people say that they have dual cores yet the game lags and others say they have the same thing and maxed graphics and doesnt have low frame rate, so does having a dual core processor, SLI GPU Graphics card, and 4GB of ram do any good on performance or is it the same as a single core processor, a 256MB graphics card, and 2GB Memory?

Pro Member Trainee
SAF Trainee

I will let you know next week. As I mentioned in an earlier post today, I am expecting a Dell workstation 690 equipped with some pretty good ammo! (see link below) I also made the leap to the GeForce 8800 GTX! And if that is not enough to get a decent frame rate, f*ck it, I'll throw in another 8800 GTX, but I will need a bigger power supply for that set up.

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/23528/new-pc-arriving-on-monday-11-27-lets-see-how-fsx-runs/

SAF



Last edited by SAF on Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total
Pro Member First Officer
Spoty101 First Officer

yeah i have a AMD atlon 3200+ 2.01GHZ processor 2.01GHz front side bus, 2GB of ram, ATI X800XL 256MB 16X pipeline graphics card, 16XDVD rom drive, 3GB/sec trasnfer rate in my hard drive and a 500Watt power supply and thats just enough to get me some descent frame rates on MEDIUM low- MEDIUM high!!!!! omg this game is so demanding I think im gonna need like a dual core processor and if thats not enough wait till the triple cores come out and I also need a Direct X10 dual GPU 512 MB graphics card and 2GB more of ram. ooopppss sry got carried away Embarassed

Pro Member Trainee
SAF Trainee

Spoty101 wrote:

yeah i have a AMD atlon 3200+ 2.01GHZ processor 2.01GHz front side bus, 2GB of ram, ATI X800XL 256MB 16X pipeline graphics card, 16XDVD rom drive, 3GB/sec trasnfer rate in my hard drive and a 500Watt power supply and thats just enough to get me some descent frame rates on MEDIUM low- MEDIUM high!!!!! omg this game is so demanding I think im gonna need like a dual core processor and if thats not enough wait till the triple cores come out and I also need a Direct X10 dual GPU 512 MB graphics card and 2GB more of ram. ooopppss sry got carried away Embarassed

Spoty,
I don't know much about AMD processors. Is the Athalon 64bit?

SAF

Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

Yes, it is 64 bit.

Pro Member First Officer
Spoty101 First Officer

i've always wondered about that, how can a processor be 64-bit?

Pro Member Chief Captain
RadarMan Chief Captain

Spoty101 wrote:

i've always wondered about that, how can a processor be 64-bit?

I don't know how old you are but this is just the next step in the evolution of the microchip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

Radar

Guest

64 bit processors are required to handle larger amounts of memory and will not improve the performance of games.

Guest

If you are looking for a good performance in FSX at max settings then you are going to need a video card with at least 512MB Ram but ideally you would require 1GB video memory.

Pro Member First Officer
Spoty101 First Officer

RadarMan wrote:

Spoty101 wrote:

i've always wondered about that, how can a processor be 64-bit?

I don't know how old you are but this is just the next step in the evolution of the microchip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

Radar

I'm 15 years old

prodoman Guest

Just put togethor:

Intel E6700
ASUS P5n32-SLI-Premium
SATA, 3GB sec
2 Gig Ram
8800 GTX

Now getting up to 30fps on Medium High
and would have to say, god damn beautiful. Frame rate drops to 25 when close to ground but has made landing sooooooo much easier.

No point Sli'ing another gtx as CPU at max anyway. Would have to go to Extreme series and if can afford that might as well buy real plane

physix Guest

I've got a Athlon64 4000+, 2x GeForce 6600 GT in SLI mode and 2GB of RAM.

The game runs ok... Interestingly I just upgraded my CPU from a Athlon64 3000+ and this boosted performance greatly. The Graphic cards seem to be a bit bored though, cause increasing resolution or even turning on FSAA does zero impact on the framerate. Moreover, activating the workload visualisation in the graphic cards' driver shows me 30-50% workload on the graphic cards maximum!
The bottleneck seems to be raw CPU power and above all, video memory. FSX seems to have a lot of problems handling the texture transport and loading effectively. So, generally, the computation of raw geometry data and above all the texture size (detail) seem to be the big problems. The more objects that need to be computed the lower the framerate, but changing image quality like FSAA, resolution or color depth does nothing to performance. single exception is the "bloom" effect which decreases FPS a lot (but looks awesome...)

Anyhow, with my above PC configuration I get 10-15 FPS at the most times. I have all graphical effects turned on (including the bloom effect) except ground car traffic (kills my performance) and the scenery details on 80-90%... Dropping in low flight over cities to unsatisfying 6-8 FPS.

A word on "dual core processors:

I see a LOT of people addressing this and whining about their brand new dual core processor not "supported" by FSX. In fact the whole multi-core thing is almost just a big marketing hype. Those "multiply your processor power" catchers are just nonsense.
The advantage of a dual core processor is that it really can execute 2 tasks simultaneously. But with 2 tasks, I mean 2 tasks. A game resembles ONE SINGLE TASK for the processor (at least the current games). There are, of course, LIMITED possibilities to "split" games into multiple tasks that can run at the same time, but this has to be done on code and compiling level. There is no way to change that afterwards. In addition it is important to note that it is just not possible in most cases, even if you want to. Every time the execution of one program element needs some kind of "result" from a previous one, there will be no difference in execution time on a single or a multi-core processor, since the second core would have to wait for the first core to finish the step as well.

Of course there is not a single disadvantage of multi-core processors (aprt from higher costs maybe). They greatly enhance your system behavior on operating system level cause there are always multiple programs running. And in some cases software can be easily rewritten to greatly benefit from multicore processors (as seen with the whole SLI graphic card thing where the raw geometry data is just divided into 2 parts and then computed on the 2 cards simultaneously, or imagine numerical integration in mathematical software for example...), but not in all.

But once and for all: today's games are not written or developed for multicore processors and there is no way to enhance performance of those games by spending money on a shiny new and so cool multicore processor.

Guest

physix, I agree with your points....FSX is a likes to 'munch' on lot's of memory (both system and video). CPU and GPU processing power isn't much of a bottleneck.

I have two 6600GT's (128MB and 256MB), the 256MB card increases FPS in FSX by as much as 40% with much smoother frames. So I guess a 512MB video card would increases performance even more.

With Autogen disabled, FSX runs excellent on both cards, so it looks like all those Highres textures are using all of the video memory and leaving no room for the Autogen objects which are probably being pushed into slower system memory.

Running Guest

Some more on multi cores....
Programmers need to make use of this hardware and incorperate this into their design from the very start or/and it will be very hard to implement.
If they don't (which is the case for most software currently available) the multi cores won't speed up the program itself.

The best you can do is move the high performance demanding application to one core, and all the other stuff to other cores. For instance the PC I run FSX on is also our print server. 😕 If the wife wan't to print something while I'm in the midle of an approach that doesn't have much of an effect on my frame rate as another core is handeling that interrupt.

There can be a downside to all of this that when stuff is spread over multiple cores due to bad programming (Which doesn't have to be the program you are running, but could be the videocard drivers for example) crashes can occur. Thats why FSX by default sticks to one core.
If you search the internet you can find lots of people in different forums and lots of manufactures on their web sites tell you to assign a program to a single core to prevent crashes.

Pro Member Trainee
philipjes Trainee

@ physix

What's your FPS? I have an 4400+ X2, 7900gtx 512ram, 2gb dual channel.

9 fps? Huh.. wtf! :S

physix Guest

As I said. 10-15 mostly, but it drops in low flight. Disabling the bloom effects increses FPS by 30% though....

GENERAL REMARK: Please watch your "foul" language. Things like "wtf" shatter the weak souls of some of our fellow forum-users (refer to my thread about the IFR test flight...)

You have to be really careful, cause that bunch of self-righteous, preaching morons then hides behind "guest" accounts and calls for a forum ban!!

}SkOrPn--7 Guest

AMD 4000+
2 gig RAM
7950GT
1920X1200 res
24" monitor
Raptor
580 watt juice

And with the above I have everything maxed out and its as smooth as a babies ass running just fine.

Pro Member Trainee
Borzoi Trainee

Im running at mostly ultra high settings with an average FPS of 22-28 FPS right now. THinking of trying the disable autogen stuff though since it dont do it for me really as far as the FS eye candy. This is what the sim looks like on approach to Ft. Huachuca Arizona from the Northwest right now for me in game.

System specs right now are as follows;

CPU: Intel X6800 extrewme duel core (conroe) 3.51GHZ OC
PS: 1100W Toughpower Powersupply
MOBO: ASUS Premium
RAM: 2GHZ DDR2 duel channel Corsair extreme memory
GPU: x2 7950GX2 (1GB) Cards (SLI)
HDD: 2 750GB SATA II Drives (western Digital)
Colloing: Custom nonconductive liquid cooling system.

Pic of the simmulations rig.

Pro Member Trainee
trailnut Trainee

That is one sweet rig. Nice job on the build. And thanks for the screenshot.

😀

Pro Member Trainee
trecool999 Trainee

Intel Pentium 4 Processor 516 2.93GHz
1GB of DDR SDR
Nvidia GeForce FX5500 PCI

Average frame rate: 5 fps, beat that! 😛

:'(

Pro Member Trainee
sgtrwmartin Trainee

SAF wrote:

I will let you know next week. As I mentioned in an earlier post today, I am expecting a Dell workstation 690 equipped with some pretty good ammo! (see link below) I also made the leap to the GeForce 8800 GTX! And if that is not enough to get a decent frame rate, f*ck it, I'll throw in another 8800 GTX, but I will need a bigger power supply for that set up.

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/23528/new-pc-arriving-on-monday-11-27-lets-see-how-fsx-runs/

SAF

I got the same card adn I cant run on max graphics (even when O/C) and I have a dual core proc too.

Pro Member First Officer
Matt (airbourne) First Officer

i got geforce 7600gt gcard , i get 8 fps xD

All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

Related Questions