will these specs run fsx with efficient enjoyable fps?

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/20803/will-my-pc-run-fsx/

you should buy 2 of these and bridge them together

640MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS Direct X 10

get this processor instead

Intel Core 2 Quad processor QX6800

there is a write up on this processor somewhere, it says this processor is really good with FSX.

thanks ill prob do the sli later on but the processor and extra graphics card are out of my budget for now

scratch that

one is dual core

the other is 2 dual cores combined. i.e. 4 cores !

yea i know hence i said difference of ghz and technologies - technologies being ones dual core and one is quad core. i cant afford that upgrade though so it dont matter im already at the top end of my budget for this thing.

The Vista Ultimate is a rip-off unless you paln on doing bussiness networking and things like that. Save money and get home premium. Plus if you are spending that much you don't have to get dual 640's but at least get a 756mb.

yea i know vista ultimate is not worth it but it was free so i got it for the 64 bit and the 640 mb was the highest option i was kinda suprised they didnt have 768's though idc as long as i can fly with decent graphics

millertime wrote:

yea i know hence i said difference of ghz and technologies - technologies being ones dual core and one is quad core. i cant afford that upgrade though so it dont matter im already at the top end of my budget for this thing.

Thats like saying... "A Ferrari Enzo and a Ford Probe are the same thing, except the speed, style, performance, handling characteristcs, fuel efficiency, insurance rates, rim size, etc......."

You get it? One has double the thread capability, one does not. 4MBx2 cache vs 2MB x 2, etc... The Quad Core does use more watts, but with the proper power supply, who cares.

n/m that just came out wrong im assuming i can run fsx just not with super fps

I am getting over 54fps in urban areas with all sliders for scenery maxed out, and water at 2.x medium. I hit over 80 fps in rural or forest area ...

I am using E6300 Core 2 Duo overclocked to 3.43ghz. Video card is Nvidia 7600GTKO at factory clock, 2gig of DDR2-800mhz oc'd to 1ghz, on Windows Vista Home Premium. Moral? A Core2Duo of any 6 series will perform very well. I would stay away from 4000 series versions.

JLangevin wrote:

I am getting over 54fps in urban areas with all sliders for scenery maxed out, and water at 2.x medium. I hit over 80 fps in rural or forest area ...

I am using E6300 Core 2 Duo overclocked to 3.43ghz. Video card is Nvidia 7600GTKO at factory clock, 2gig of DDR2-800mhz oc'd to 1ghz, on Windows Vista Home Premium.

How can that be possible... Overclocking your processor doesn't compare to a QX6700 and for me there was minimal difference, and all the sliders in scenery were maxed out for me or nearly, except water like yours. I ran it just today on my new comp, QX6700, 2gigs 800Mhz, xp pro, 8800gtx and a 1kilowatt psu... So... wtf? That just can't be possible..

you need 2x 8800gtx

Anonymous wrote:

you need 2x 8800gtx

And you need to see a shrink ...or get your mom to buy you a new Playstation game 😁

I have posted screenshots as well as video... its possible and proven. My system is so tuned, i dont dare touch it. I will be adding 2gig more ram, but its running awesome...

After SP1 you should get that performance as well... some tests show that quad cores perform less than expected.

Trust me, from when i first ran fsx at 8fps, i set out on a mission. And succeeded.

PS, no tweaks have been implemented, all factory configuration and textures.

Anonymous wrote:

you need 2x 8800gtx

Incorrect I'm afraid. SLi has no effect on FSX what-so-ever. It wasn't designed to take advantage of dual graphics cards as far as I know. I've tried it, and I experienced no performance increase at all.

I havent even heard if SP1 is supposed to fix that... will be interesting to see.