A spec question.. i5 vs i7

First of all this is the MICROSOFT FLIGHT FORUM NOT THE MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR X FORUM or THE HARDWARE FORUM.

Second of all I don't know about Dells but I have a HP, Pavilion dv5 and it runs FSX great .

i7 is stronger than i5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i5

Get a good video card, that counts for better FPS.

Carlin wrote:

First of all this is the MICROSOFT FLIGHT FORUM NOT THE MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR X FORUM.

Second of all I don't know about Dells but I have a HP, Pavilion dv5 and it runs FSX great with medium High Settings.

Second of all... even though Ben is concerned about running FSX, the topic is still a Hardware one and therefore belongs in the Hardware forum.

Ben it is possible that an i5 in a laptop runs FSX better than an i7... I have read some unbelievably weird articles and forum posts lately.

I doubt you'll find a new laptop with either an i5 or i7 being still shipped with Windows XP. So it'll be Vista or W7 (avoid Vista if you can). Both OSes require plenty of RAM compared to XP... now when you add FSX on top of that, 4GB of RAM (less in reality) just about takes up your processing resources.
If you add 3rd party aircraft, airports and scenery which is necessary if you want to derive any enjoyment from FSX, your 4GB(-) RAM won't be sufficient which means you have to make sure to get a 64Bit OS because it can accommodate more RAM.
Re: Video display, I (think) I read that nowadays you can get laptops with actual graphics cards instead of the integrated chip - check up on this because even the best on-board graphics chip won't do FSX justice.

What I can tell you with certainty is that you'll need plenty of RAM.

Hi. I do apologise. I should have given it more thought. I just assumed general would cover this area.

As for the laptops they are 64 bit windows 7. They are capable of up to 8GB ram. To be honest I would happy with with my FS2004 as long as I could get the graphics to a pretty good standard. Seen some unbelievably realistic footage in YouTube. I appreciate these youtube systems are of top quality but anything close and I would be over the moon. One has a 1GB 525m and the other a 2GB 540m Geforce.

Thanks

My criticism about posting in the wrong forum wasn't directed at you, seeing that you haven't posted much in almost five years but at the 'know-it-all' who was trying to lead you astray. 😀

W7 64Bit sounds good. If you could be happy with FS9 that would really simplify matters. With the specs you mention you should be able to get very decent graphics. If you compare the sizes of FS9 and FSX plus their respective 'must have' add-ons and consider the price difference between the payware add-ons and the fact that many FS9 freeware add-ons are of superior quality to many FSX paywares you might be making a wise choice.
Look at some of the FS9 screenies especially those by Welshflyer (I single him out because he has the most variety) and I pick one at random:

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/35313/few-carrier-shots/

You'll get a good idea just how good graphics can turn out in FS9. I don't think he's got 8GB of RAM... ask him, he's very approachable 🙂

One thing we've learned and in case you're not aware of it, you'd better keep it in mind. Apparently FS9 has to be run in XP compatibility mode so your W7 version has to be either Ultimate or Pro. Curiously though, support for Ultimate will end in 2015 - whereas Pro will be supported until 2020... that is if I am reading the chart correctly. You can look at it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions

Scroll down a bit and you'll arrive at the Comparison chart.

Whatever you decide on, I hope the ride will be a smooth one 🍻

Tailhook wrote:

My criticism about posting in the wrong forum wasn't directed at you, seeing that you haven't posted much in almost five years but at the 'know-it-all' who was trying to lead you astray. 😀

🙄 😂 I WAS Tying to be helpful.

(and I'm not the only one who gives people a hard time about posting in the wrong forums)

Tailhook wrote:

Guest wrote:

My son is an avid Virtual Flier - uses Microsoft FSX and is the Senior Captain for SWA Virtual...His Dell laptop has DIED! He is 14 and wants to be an Commercial Airline pilot..we are looking for an inexpensive computer that can be used for all he needs with the FSX, his gears, brakes, joystick...etc! As his parents we are at a lost as to wear to turn - he can use our family laptop for school work, etc...but would like to have a either a desktop or laptop for him... HELP!!! An in need mom! 😕

Post this in the Hardware Forum where it belongs and you might get a quicker reply

Tailhook wrote:

Go AFK kids, pick up a book and learn how to read...

This is the Combat Flight Simulator forum 😳

Braniacs...

Well to be fair I'm ways browsing forums so I should know better. I've also just start to get back into the sim. Think I will need to refresh my memory in terms of navigation. Ooops!!

I made a mistake. The i7 is the 2630m. I've compared them but it seems the i5 is 2.3 ghz and the i7 is 2.0 ghz however they both turbo to 2.9 ghz. The i7 has more cores. I believe 8 as opposed to the 4 of the i5. Does this make any sense to you guys. The i7 seems less powerful but is that because 8 cores are much better.

The only reason I would like to try fsx is because it hasn't been put the case. I had some great add ons with fs9. Looked good and that was only on a dual core 1.6 with a mediocre 8500gt. I take a 15.6" would be good enough to play it on.

Thanks

IMO invest in a 22/24" screen, it'll make your gaming experience better in my opinion, and provides for sharper screenshots believe it or not as you have to resize which then condenses the pixels into more per square inch, making them sharper.

Just my two cents, I've got a 22" and I love it.

"Cores" are like individual processors within the CPU; a dual core will be about twice as powerful as a single core. The i5 has 2 physical cores and the i7 has 4, but intel uses something called hyperthreading to make each one look like 2 cores.

When it comes to RAM, I currently run on 4 gigs and it's fine. Get 8 gigs if it's not that much money, but don't think for a second that you HAVE to get 8 gigs or you'll be watching a slideshow instead of flying airplanes.

FSX is hugely CPU dependent, you'll see improvement from the i7. That said, you need powerful graphics to take full advantage of that, and laptop graphics cards are not known for being powerful. Don't make assumptions. Can you link the computers you're looking at?

Anyway don't apologize for posting in the wrong place. Carlin was being impolite.

Cheeks wrote:

IMO invest in a 22/24" screen, it'll make your gaming experience better in my opinion, and provides for sharper screenshots believe it or not as you have to resize which then condenses the pixels into more per square inch, making them sharper.

Just my two cents, I've got a 22" and I love it.

I certainly agree with the improved gaming experience, regarding the sharper screenshots however I am still struggling with that. I'm pretty sure that's due to my own incompetence though. Perhaps you could give a couple of pointers to one lost in the wilderness yet again 😞

I've always been with PhotoBucket which lets you choose the size (resolution?) prior to the actual upload of the image so, whether to re-size or not has up until now that you mention it never entered my mind. I'm open to suggestions though... if you happen to use a particular tool perhaps you could let us in on the secret.

Now to complicate matters, but this is just meant as a 'by the way' sort of thing, I was running XP Pro at the time and went from a 17" CRT straight to a 24" LCD which frankly I found a bit overwhelming. Oh, and yes, I had nVidea cards in SLI formation like good little soldiers.
So here I was stranded with a very confusing nVidea control panel PLUS some other Dell proprietary graphics display panel (what for?) and of course the graphic settings inside the sim itself... to top it up, nHancer appeared on the scene 😳 ...some smarta**e at nVidia must have figured out that consumers were having problems - but at this stage my settings were so screwed up that I simply quit and joined a reclusive brotherhood for a spell 😛

...and so comes to an end another chapter of the Trials and Tribulations of one Tailhook aka 'The Genius'.

Before we start going around in circles I must ask you: Do you currently have FS9 installed? Thanks.

PS: Check your PM Inbox. 🍻

Ok dell have been mucking me about for the last couple of days so I've just cancelled it all together. Going to go shopping tomorrow and I've found another 2 which I know aren't as good as the dell systems but I can't leave it much longer. Therefore I will be sticking with my fs9 but I'm really hoping I can still get some good FPS with my add ons. It's an i5 2.66 which can turbo to 2.99. Graphics card is an ATI 5470 512mb. Also has 4 gigs of Ram so as mentioned above hopefully that should be ok.

What do you guys reckon,

Cheers

b_kennedy wrote:

Ok dell have been mucking me about for the last couple of days so I've just cancelled it all together. Going to go shopping tomorrow and I've found another 2 which I know aren't as good as the dell systems but I can't leave it much longer. Therefore I will be sticking with my fs9 but I'm really hoping I can still get some good FPS with my add ons. It's an i5 2.66 which can turbo to 2.99. Graphics card is an ATI 5470 512mb. Also has 4 gigs of Ram so as mentioned above hopefully that should be ok.

What do you guys reckon,

Cheers

If you want me to be honest, I'll say ditch the Laptop platforms and build a desktop for FSX. Use the laptop for bigger and better things. With a desktop, at least you can get what you really want and the sky is the limit if you looking into making FSX run efficiently.

I appreciate that the desktops are the way to go but it's just not practical. I already have a desktop which is going to go. Takes up too much room. It has an E2140 1.6 dual core which runs fs2004 great on high with a gt 8500 graphics card. How would that compare to the last laptop above?

Just searching for the processor make and I read some people have clicked them up to 3.2 ghz! Is that safe? For the e2140 I mean.

Thanks

b_kennedy wrote:

I appreciate that the desktops are the way to go but it's just not practical. I already have a desktop which is going to go. Takes up too much room. It has an E2140 1.6 dual core which runs fs2004 great on high with a gt 8500 graphics card. How would that compare to the last laptop above?

Just searching for the processor make and I read some people have clicked them up to 3.2 ghz! Is that safe? For the e2140 I mean.

Thanks

It's safe, as long as you know what you are doing. However, it shortens the life of the processor considerably.

Now my desktop is a different story:

3 465 GTX videocards, 24 gigs of RAM, and i7 Processor... I can run FSX flat out not only max settings, but with the high-end add on packages. Keep in mind that all manufactured laptops has bottlenecks, just like manufacturers of desktops; they do not look at the optimal sub-components to prevent bottlenecks, only cost-effective sub-components to help offset the cost of a computer.