Jump to content

What Hardware To Buy (aerosoft's Suggestion)


Recommended Posts

  • Aerosoft

New in September: I see no reason to change the current advised system, but the PSU is upgraded to 550 watts. As some people pointed out, the 350 I advised last month really is not strong enough for the more strong systems.

------------------------

From this month on we'll publish what we call 'the standard system'. This is what we use in the office (or what some people whould like to have in the office, lol), and is always something around 750 euro. It is designed for FSX and will work great even under demanding conditions. You will see I don't really care a lot about brands or specs and that I try to keep things as simple as possible. It's priced in Euro (with tax) and you might need to shop around to get these prices. In US dollar you can use the same numbers but you probably pay a bit less.

Want to hear something extraordinary? When FS2004 launched there was NO WAY you could get acceptable framerates for this money...

CPU (250 / 150 euro)

The brand and sockel is easy. It got to be a Intel chip in a 775 sockel. But after that things depend on what you got to spend and what sim you use. A Core 2 Quad Q9550 has 4 cores running at 2833 Mhz and will make mince meat of even the most demanding modern application. If you got a bit less to spend or only use FS2004 (keep in mind that sim will only use one core) you could go for a Core 2 Duo E8500 that has two cores running at 3166 Mhz and will be great for FS2004. Get the boxed version with the cooler if you just want to fly or get a better cooler if you want to over clock. These chips can handle at least another 300 Mh without any problem.

Graphics card (150 Euro)

It does not happen often but for once it is easy to recommend a graphics card. Anything with a ATI Radeon HD4850 is smashing value for money. There are versions from many vendors but it's all more or less the same card and as long as you get 512 Mb memory you got something hot. Buy anything else at this moment and you are either not paying attention or are looking for the last few fps more and are willing to spend a small fortune for that. For FS2004 even this card to total overkill, anything costing 50 Euro will do and spending more money will not make it any faster. Keep in mind, the CPU determines how many frames, the GPU determines how they look. Ignore people who say they got double the FPS with a new graphics card, they are trying to justify spending a fortune!

Memory (60 Euro)

Stop whining and get 4 Gb (in the form of 2 stick of 2Gb). Even though your 32 bit OS might only use 3.something of that. So you wasted 8 euro ... the additional 1.2 Gb will make your OS happy. And you want the OS happy. DDR-2 800 is most likely what you want, don't waste money on memory with coolers or very high specs... unless you overclock very seriously it doesn't matter one little bit.

Harddisk (2x 70 Euro)

Get two 500 Gb SATA disks, it's cheaper and a bit more secure then getting one Tb disk. If you feel like a bit of tweaking set them up in RAID configuration, otherwise just dont bother, use one for your OS and applications and one for your games. Defrag often, before and after installing big stuff. The brand doesn't matter a lot, having a backup does.

Mainboard (100 euro)

Get one with onboard sound and G-lan (though it will be hard to find something without). There are loads of brands and in speed they are all roughly the same but some offer more connections etc. I like my 70 Euro Asus P5N. Does all I want but I would take an Asrock or Abit just as well.

OS (100 euro)

Officially you don't have an option anymore as Windows XP is not sold any more. But you can still get it and if FS is REAL important it should be your choice. Vista is fine though (with 4 Gb of mem) but under conditions you could have some problems. Vista 64 bits, sure why not, you get more usable memory. Forget about using scanners from 1996 though. Vista Home/Business/Ultimate? Most of the time you won't even care. The Home edition is fine.

Box/PSU (75 euro)

Though you might have one, your old box and Power Supply Unit might be old and tired. If you get new goodies get them a nice new box. Try to stick to a brand and get a 550 watt PSU, not less. Forget about those small cases, they are nice if you never have to open them.

Optical Burner (25 euro)

I suggest getting a SATA one so you don;t have to mess with those flat cables anymore. Brand and speed... whatever, how long you normally wait for a DVD to be done? You care?

Monitors (2 x 170 Euro)

Getting two 19 inch monitors will give you 2880x1024 pixels, that's a lot of room to put panels on. Get models with thin edges and don't stare too long at the specs, go to a shop where they got a lot and see what screen you like, then check if it is roughly on middle settings (not full contrast etc). Get two of the same series.

Now this will come to something just over 1000 Euro. But it assumes you start from nothing and most people will have monitors, cases, Windows versions they can use. So for most users it will costs something like 700 to 800 Euro's. For this you get a box that will run FSX great, with framerates over 20 fps in even the most demanding locations. For FS2004 it will be overkill but as there is almost no progress in single core CPU speed you will waste at least half the CPU no matter what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Aerosoft

Some people asked me if there are graphics cards around $100 we could advise. Most certainly we can as the amount of power you get for that is truly amazing these days. The Radeon HD 3850, Geforce 8800 GS, 9800 GSO, GeForce 9600 GT, and GeForce 8800 GT 512MB all are more than powerful enough to run FSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not waste your money on the 4850.

Any clouds or weather and it CHOKES.

The 4870 is MUCH better handling clouds but still no better than the 8800GT.

Both these cards KILL the 8800gt in every game I own BUT FSX.

The 4870 requires 2 power connectors but IMO and after trial and error, the 4850 is not a good choice.

If FS9 or FSX are your only games and your highest priority,stick to Nvidia 8 series.

If you want a good card for them and one that really run the latest games weell, go with the Ati 4870.

Just my opinion and a month of running all 3 cards in various settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

That's a very surprising comment. I have been looking at loads on the GPU processor and on the memory on the card and I have never seen either being stressed in any way. I find it hard to accept the 4850 will be choked on FSX. The 4870 is faster for sure, but as the GPU is so under-used in FSX it should not matter a lot. And there is a of course a rather serious difference in price.

You sure got an impressive setup if you got all three cards running on comparable setups! That's a small fortune on hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice Thread! I plan to buy a new system this fall. Thank you! I read an article about recent graphic cards in FSX SP2: click me. Perhaps nVidia is better for FS? Seems to me a 8800GTS or 9600GT could be a good choice then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You sure got an impressive setup if you got all three cards running on comparable setups! That's a small fortune on hardware."

Its called Best Buy. :lol:

They have a 30 day no questions ask return policy.

When people make claims "like me" and "like you" I prefer to see for myself.

I do a good bit of web surfing and from what I have seen falls in line with my observations.

The 8800gt series overall, on xp and vista seems to be the sweetspot.

The few hardware sites like Toms which I put zero faith in, also put the card well ahead of the 4 series.

But again, do not take my word for it,buy from a seller that offers returns.

In 2 days my return expires on my HD4870.

I run XP,SP2,FEX,GEX,UTX,X-Graphics,MyTrafficX med-high settings at 1920x1080 om a 32 inch Sharp Aquos.

My BFG 8800gt is as fast overall and smoother in clouds than the 4870. "On my setup"

The ATI looks better,subjective, but also suffers from aa/af issues like the Nvidia.

BUT....

On Crysis,Halflife series,Bioshock,other new titles, the ATI kicks the 8800gt in the a**.

So I have decided to keep it rather than be stuck with a specific setup just to satisfy ONE old game.

FSX "Is what it is" and seeing the endless combinations of hardware,software,opinions, all I can say is, its nice to have a return policy! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And are you still sure that the Q9550 has a better performance in the FS X then the E8600 ? Because i'm thinking about those both CPUs and the E8600 is currently my favourite. Or should i wait for the Q9550 with E0 Stepping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
And are you still sure that the Q9550 has a better performance in the FS X then the E8600 ? Because i'm thinking about those both CPUs and the E8600 is currently my favourite. Or should i wait for the Q9550 with E0 Stepping?

It's certainly a very interesting CPU but prices are not very nice at this moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a small question: I am going to buy a very fast rig (close to your specs, with the fastest quadcore I can get and 8GB Ram). I am unsure about the graphics card, though. I need a card that can handle a 3360x1050 screen setup with excellent texture quality and shader 2.0, 4xAA and 16xAF. Will my "old" 8800 (768MB) GTX keep up with the faster processor? I wouldn't mind spending some more money on a new card, if this helps me keeping a steady 26fps through all situations (with my current setup, airports are the big problem - outside an airport area it is very fast and displays everything beautifully with anisotropic filtering, 4xAA and 16xAF).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Just a small question: I am going to buy a very fast rig (close to your specs, with the fastest quadcore I can get and 8GB Ram). I am unsure about the graphics card, though. I need a card that can handle a 3360x1050 screen setup with excellent texture quality and shader 2.0, 4xAA and 16xAF. Will my "old" 8800 (768MB) GTX keep up with the faster processor? I wouldn't mind spending some more money on a new card, if this helps me keeping a steady 26fps through all situations (with my current setup, airports are the big problem - outside an airport area it is very fast and displays everything beautifully with anisotropic filtering, 4xAA and 16xAF).

You did not specify FSX or FS2004, but for FS2004 it will be overkill and for FSX it will certainly work well. There are several tests that show it to be the fastest card for FSX (though these test, for example on Tom's Hardware, are not overly qualified for serious FSX benchmarking.

As always in FS, the CPU determines the amount of frames and the GPU how good the frames look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not specify FSX or FS2004, but for FS2004 it will be overkill and for FSX it will certainly work well. There are several tests that show it to be the fastest card for FSX (though these test, for example on Tom's Hardware, are not overly qualified for serious FSX benchmarking.

As always in FS, the CPU determines the amount of frames and the GPU how good the frames look.

Thanks, Mathijs. Yes, I am talking about FSX. With the E6700 and Vista 32 I am using now, I do feel that I am processor limited under most circumstances. I have been tweaking FSX by trial and error for a month now, and I finally think I have found the best settings for my setup (although, one is never happy with what he has got *g*).

Yes, the factory overclocked 8800GTX is a beast - but it has its limitations with bloom effects and ground shadows. Both settings have to be off on my system - they would half my framerates each. However, even with 3360x1050, I can happily choose every AA and AF setting and set the texture quality as high as I want - and I see no impact on framerates whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think that the Q9550 is not worth buying?

In my opinion the Quads are all currently not worth buying when you compare them to the Duos. The Duos have a better price-performance ratio, but perhaps the reason for that is the few optimised software ... but perhaps when it is optimised, the Quads are worth buying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Thanks, Mathijs. Yes, I am talking about FSX. With the E6700 and Vista 32 I am using now, I do feel that I am processor limited under most circumstances. I have been tweaking FSX by trial and error for a month now, and I finally think I have found the best settings for my setup (although, one is never happy with what he has got *g*).

Yes, the factory overclocked 8800GTX is a beast - but it has its limitations with bloom effects and ground shadows. Both settings have to be off on my system - they would half my framerates each. However, even with 3360x1050, I can happily choose every AA and AF setting and set the texture quality as high as I want - and I see no impact on framerates whatsoever.

No graphics card is able to handle bloom in FSX (at least I never seen it), there seems to a weird way of handling it as it really should not be too hard for a modern DX9 card. Ground shadows are as far as I know almost completely CPU bound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
In my opinion the Quads are all currently not worth buying when you compare them to the Duos. The Duos have a better price-performance ratio, but perhaps the reason for that is the few optimised software ... but perhaps when it is optimised, the Quads are worth buying...

But we are discussing hardware for FS2004 and FSX here and FSX certainly IS able to handle multiple cores. This morning I saw FSX run on a 8 core machine used in a professional simulator. Using Vista 64 it was smooth as butter. FSX scales up with hardware, FS2004 is locked in 2003 top of the line hardware.

There is a lot of software out these days that can handle multiple cores, if only by the OS that sends application to a core that is not doing a lot. From my zipper program (7zip) to my viewer (IrfanView) to my main applications (Microsoft Office 2007, Photoshop, compilers) it is all multiple core capable now. In fact I would be pressed to name any application besides FS2004 on my system that would NOT be able to use the advantages of a multy core machine in some way. So unless you stopped buying software 4 years ago, I think the argument that multicore machines make little sense because there is no software that uses it really is outdated.

I am sorry to say this but really, telling people a quad core is not worth buying is advise that makes no sense. Certainly not with FSX, certainly not with 2008 software standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Mid month update... it seems ATI gets some serious competition from NVIDIA after a few months of total ATI domination... The GTX 260 Core 216 really seems to be a very good GPU. I seem prices also being very competitive so things are sure interesting these days!

ATI owns the single-card leadership position with the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and has a killer value-priced product in the Radeon HD 4850, while NVIDIA holds the single-GPU leadership position with the GeForce GTX 280 and now surpasses the Radeon HD 4870 in the performance segment with the GeForce GTX 260 Core 216.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid month update... it seems ATI gets some serious competition from NVIDIA after a few months of total ATI domination... The GTX 260 Core 216 really seems to be a very good GPU. I seem prices also being very competitive so things are sure interesting these days!

ATI owns the single-card leadership position with the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and has a killer value-priced product in the Radeon HD 4850, while NVIDIA holds the single-GPU leadership position with the GeForce GTX 280 and now surpasses the Radeon HD 4870 in the performance segment with the GeForce GTX 260 Core 216.

Would you drop an overclocked 8800GTX for any of these cards or would you say: nah, ain't worth the gain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Box/PSU (75 euro)

Though you might have one, your old box and Power Supply Unit might be old and tired. If you get new goodies get them a nice new box. Try to stick to a brand and get a 550 watt PSU, not less. Forget about those small cases, they are nice if you never have to open them.

In fact, the number of Watts isn't the most important.

For example, an LC Power 550W priced at 35-40€ (one of the most selled PSU in France) is just junk, and dangerous: http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8

For the same price, you can have an Antec EarthWatt 380, wich is incredibly better: http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8 ;)

Brands like LC Power, Heden, Advance, Aikuo... are just dangerous junk.

http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8

http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we are discussing hardware for FS2004 and FSX here and FSX certainly IS able to handle multiple cores. This morning I saw FSX run on a 8 core machine used in a professional simulator. Using Vista 64 it was smooth as butter. FSX scales up with hardware, FS2004 is locked in 2003 top of the line hardware.

There is a lot of software out these days that can handle multiple cores, if only by the OS that sends application to a core that is not doing a lot. From my zipper program (7zip) to my viewer (IrfanView) to my main applications (Microsoft Office 2007, Photoshop, compilers) it is all multiple core capable now. In fact I would be pressed to name any application besides FS2004 on my system that would NOT be able to use the advantages of a multy core machine in some way. So unless you stopped buying software 4 years ago, I think the argument that multicore machines make little sense because there is no software that uses it really is outdated.

I am sorry to say this but really, telling people a quad core is not worth buying is advise that makes no sense. Certainly not with FSX, certainly not with 2008 software standards.

This was no advice, this was my opinion. And i read a lot of times that the FS X only really can use 2 cores, so with a Quad u don't have more frames but better textures. And what do mean with 2008 software standards? Games like Crysis are officialy Multicore optimized but if u take a look at the benchmarks u see that a Duo (which is cheaper) is as fast as a Quad or sometimes even faster. So i think everyone has to choose on his own, and for me, currently a Quad isn't worth buying because i'm using it for gaming (FS X is no game ;) ) . But of course a Quad is better for the future....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

well, if FSX is not using 2 of the 4 cores I got they seem to be pretty busy doing nothing. If I disable them I get about 35% less FPS. Depends a bit on location though, the tougher the challenge, the better it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what's best, I can only say that my Quad Q6600 (@2.4Ghz) with the 8800GTX Extreme works pretty well. I always have DX10 preview, light bloom and all the other 'candy' enabled running with FEX (Super HD) clouds and pretty much max sliders (apart from AI which is around 25%). I lock my Frames at 20 and they stayed glued to 20fps unless flying a non-default complex model over a heavily urban area, in which case it fluctuates around 15fps, occassionally dropping to around 12fps. I find this perfectly flyable. The only thing that really drops it below this are the PMDG 747, which for me only seems flyable in the middle of the desert!

Aircraft that work well (i.e. good fps) = Aerosoft F-16 (BETA), Level D 767, CS C-130, all RealAir a/c

Aircraft that work horribly (i.e. bad fps) = PMDG 747, Flight Replicas Me.109 & Me.262, Wilco ERJ-145

As I say, these are just personal observations/opinions, I have no technical data to support this.

Colin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, if FSX is not using 2 of the 4 cores I got they seem to be pretty busy doing nothing. If I disable them I get about 35% less FPS. Depends a bit on location though, the tougher the challenge, the better it works.

This is really new to me, it seems that there are a lot of people who havn't got much sawy.... So thanks for that information! And what Quad do u own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
This is really new to me, it seems that there are a lot of people who havn't got much sawy.... So thanks for that information! And what Quad do u own?

Q9550, around $250 by now and around 260 Euro in Europe. The next one up (the 9650) is double as expensive so the 9550 or the 9450 are at the sweet spot by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use