• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Flight Simulator

M

Mad_CatMk2

Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
712
Hey guys, if I were to build a computer to run 'mainly' Flight Simulator, should I focus more on a CPU or GPU?

Aim: Run the game @ max settings with a resolution of 1680x1050

Any info is appreciated,
Thanks.
 
CPU, I have an 8800GTX and the CPU usage is maxed during flight, video card is pretty much at idle temps. I am running an C2D at 3.2 GHz.
 
Go for the 9600 GT because it has more video memory, which means it plays better on bigger resolutions.
 
For fs, the CPU mhz is most important. As for the gpu, all you need is something decent. For example upgrading from an 8800gt to a 9800gx2 would show zero performance increase, the dev's have made fs soooo cpu dependant. A quad core cpu is also not necssary, but it will show a slight very minimal improvement, again its all about the clock speed. If you are using fsx I would also reccommend a 3870 or a 3870x2 if you want to play crysis also, because fsx has compatibility issues with nvidia cards, but it also depends on how seriously you use flight simulator, for the casual general aviation pilot an nvidia card wouldnt hurt, but for long haul airliner stuff go with ati, you dont want fs to encounter a fatal error after hours of planning and flying just as you turn final to land. ;)
 
Pilot53 - what kind of frame rates are you getting on FSX? I'm about to build a machine for someone solely for gaming.. and lots of FSX .. although i was positive i saw a benchmark on TomsHardware that showed that the Nvidia cards outperformed the ATI cards in FSX.
 
smileypaul, let me know if you have a link for that comparison between ati and nvidia. I tried to google it and didn't come up with anything.
 
what flight sim
MSFX would be more GPU were X-Plane would be more CPU
(imo X-Plane is the better sim any way)
 
Dont believe those benches on toms hardware, fsx can display such a variety of frame rates depending on the situation, but it is always cpu limited. Dont expect to get frames like you would in any other game, even crysis, in fsx. I get fps in the 40's at high altitude, but in the most demanding case, lets say at jfk at night facing the city in a complex addon with utx for night lighting, I would get about 20-22 fps. On average in aless demanding situation such as atlanta on a normal day in a complex addon I will get about 25-35 fps fluctuating, but hanging around 30 for the most part. This is with no light bloom and no cloud or autogen reflection on water. Light bloom, even dx10 bloom, is a no go for me, it drops the fps down into the high teens at night. Cloud reflections and autogen reflections are ok for light aircraft flying though, just not for complex heavies. My autogen is around dense, although moving it to extremely dense doesnt hurt much (1-2fps), and scenery complexity is at dense, moving that to extremely dense costs about 2-3 fps depending on the situation. Overclocking your cpu helps alot, I found that an e6850 at stock 3.0 doesnt provide enough punch to make the game playable at those settings, overclocking my e8400 to 4.4 did make a large difference, but its certainly not immune to fps woes by any means; with fsx, nothing is. Another thing to rember also is that in fsx, 20 fps feels more like 25-30 would in a fps game, and 25 fps is all you need to feel completely smooth.
 
Thanks for the input Pilot53.

This rig is for my brother so he doesn't play anything else other than FS (FSX?) :)

I'll prolly give the E8400 a slight OC, nothing extreme...maybe up to 3.6 or so.
As for the graphics card, does that mean I should get the 3870/3870x2 (even for a 20" widescreen?)
 
If you want to run a lot of AI traffic (especially thorugh one of the traffic mods) it'll really work the CPU to death, even a quad-core. I think it's going to be GPU limited no matter what you get, but the the CPU can make a big difference, especially in high-traffic areas. I had a lot of AI traffic turned on with my 4.0 E8400 and I was only getting 7 FPS on the ground at JFK.
 
Forceman said:
If you want to run a lot of AI traffic (especially thorugh one of the traffic mods) it'll really work the CPU to death, even a quad-core. I think it's going to be GPU limited no matter what you get, but the the CPU can make a big difference, especially in high-traffic areas. I had a lot of AI traffic turned on with my 4.0 E8400 and I was only getting 7 FPS on the ground at JFK.
Click to expand...

Please read Phil Taylor's blog. He's discussed this ad infinitum. FSX is not GPU limited on modern GPU's (8600+). It's _DEFINITELY_ CPU-limited. Quad cores get the closest to being playable with all settings maxed out. If you have a dual quad core, then you can even better.

At the end of the day, you've got to remember that SMP support was a tack-on enhancement for FSX in SP1. FSX is by no means fully optimized for SMP. For that, we'll have to wait until FS11.
 
sorry to jack, but can someone link me to info as to why flight sims are so cpu intensive and lax on GPU whereas most games are the complete opposite
 
vsboxerboy said:
sorry to jack, but can someone link me to info as to why flight sims are so cpu intensive and lax on GPU whereas most games are the complete opposite
Click to expand...

because the graphics are relatively "simple." it just demands a rapid fill of vertices. the CPU intensive part comes from the complexity of the flight model and how quickly those calculations have to be made as well as all of the AI for the surrounding traffic (aircraft, boats, cars, etc.) -- if you're using AI traffic.

edit; I should probably elaborate that by "flight model" I'm including the loading of terrain, resources, and textures. technically, the flight model would just be calculation of the flow of air over the airfoils, but FS links all of the above together so closely that it's hard to separate them. it's also important to note that FS's flight model algorithm is very different from X-Planes and is why FSX sometimes comes across as less efficient and/or accurate than X-Plane's.
 
Ok,

This whole flight sim thing is a near and dear topic to me... I've been FSing since like 5.0 (yah... I know there are more experienced out there).

Despite my starting like I want to offer advice, I actually have concerns of my own about what to get for this fine piece of software. Seeing as we're in the Video Cards forum, I'll start with that.

First, I've heard that SLI is bunk for FS. With FS being so CPU intensive, even an "average" video card will suffice. For me, average would be no less than an 8800GT. Is the no SLI true? If yes to SLI, then I probably am planning a pair of 8800GTs at most for budget concerns... MAYBE 9600GTs, but there seems to be a hit in pipelines there that I'm concerned with (see below).

Second... considering the value aspect if we go with a single card, I see that TechReport.com has a wonderful price/performance value article for todays GPUs. It appears that, oddly enough, the 8800GT and 9600GT cards come out on top in the bang-for-the-buck caregory. Should I stick with that, or perhaps splurge another $100 or so on, say, a 9800GTX? As far as I was aware, the 9800 isn't all that special compared to an 8800.

Third... what about the whole damned pipeline vs clockspeed thing. I have asked around and around and I don't think I've ever really gotten a definitive answer on the relationship between clock speed and the pipelines in a GPU. Say I'm looking at one card with (totally random numbers) 100 pipes and a 50 clock. Then I look at one with 50 pipes and a 100 clock. Are these processors equivalent in performance at all? What's preferable in FS? How do I balance these considerations with other games (say wanting to play Crysis casually)?

Understand, I will be running all my applications at 1680x1050, the native res for my 22" LCD. I'm seeing more and more evidence that I would be throwing money away if I go "too powerful."

Ok... beyond the GPUs, there's the CPU side.

I kind of had my eye on the E8400 for a long time. $200 seems like a great deal for a killer little processor that I should be able to modestly OC to 3.6 GHz without too much of a problem. The question is, can I do better without really breaking the bank?

I've considered the Q6600, the Q6700, the Q9300, and the Q9450 based solely on the fact that they are quad cores, and that FS is programmed to take advantage of those cores (though to what extent, I would leave to the experts here). I won't hit the E8500 because I think it's a ludicrous jump in price for merely 160 MHz per core and a bit more multiplier.

Is quad core really worth it in FS? If it's so processor intensive and it can multi-thread, my original thought is yes, but is it worth the money. Don't get me wrong, I can wait it out for the quad core, just need an extra paycheck. I just want to know if I'm really doing myself any favors because, right now, I think FS is the only application that would make use of multi-core for me.

If Quad, between the Q9300 and Q9450, is the extra L2 worth it? Seems like quite the price jump. Does it make a visible difference in computer performance. Are the older Q6xxx's worth it now with the 45nm action going strong?

Anyway... I know, lots and lots of questions here, especially for post #1, but, I am building a rig right now slowly but surely, and want to get it right the first time. I appreciate all the insight.

~Nate
 
A quad will only help fsx with faster texture loading, it will give a few extra fps, but fsx is in no way a quad core optomized app. FSX would be alot better if the developers would take advantage of modern technology.
 
Pilot53 said:
A quad will only help fsx with faster texture loading, it will give a few extra fps, but fsx is in no way a quad core optomized app. FSX would be alot better if the developers would take advantage of modern technology.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, E8400 it is for me :p.

As for a graphics card, (if I were to go AMD/ATI), then would a 3850/3870 suffice? Again, this computer isn't gonna play Crysis or other games.
 
svet-am said:
Please read Phil Taylor's blog. He's discussed this ad infinitum. FSX is not GPU limited on modern GPU's (8600+). It's _DEFINITELY_ CPU-limited. Quad cores get the closest to being playable with all settings maxed out. If you have a dual quad core, then you can even better.

At the end of the day, you've got to remember that SMP support was a tack-on enhancement for FSX in SP1. FSX is by no means fully optimized for SMP. For that, we'll have to wait until FS11.
Click to expand...

FSX is not GPU limited, even a 8600 is plenty for it, going quad core gives it a bigger performance boost than using a 8800GTS.
 
Mad_CatMk2 said:
Sounds good, E8400 it is for me :p.

As for a graphics card, (if I were to go AMD/ATI), then would a 3850/3870 suffice? Again, this computer isn't gonna play Crysis or other games.
Click to expand...

I'd go for a 9600GT can't beat its price/performance
 
Mad_CatMk2 said:
I thought Nvidia didn't play well with it? :p I might just be paranoid...

But you're damn right, 9600GT can't be beat.

Thanks for the help guys.
Click to expand...

Nvidia doesnt play well, if the pc is going to be flight sim only go with a 3870, for fs only there is no reason to go with anything else.
 
I'm running a Q6600 and 3870 for FSX. Very CPU bound over GPU. There's so many objects to such a great draw distance that kills things. Heck, you can run out of addressable memory on a 32 bit system with default settings! (different from running out of memory- it's an address space issue, but there are tweaks to get around it)

OR run a 64 bit OS. I run Vista 64 :)

Get teh fastest CPU you can afford. Period. I chose bang/buck with the Q6600 (for $200)
 
greyt_Autumn said:
I'm running a Q6600 and 3870 for FSX. Very CPU bound over GPU. There's so many objects to such a great draw distance that kills things. Heck, you can run out of addressable memory on a 32 bit system with default settings! (different from running out of memory- it's an address space issue, but there are tweaks to get around it)

OR run a 64 bit OS. I run Vista 64 :)

Get teh fastest CPU you can afford. Period. I chose bang/buck with the Q6600 (for $200)
Click to expand...

I'd love to run Vista64 but its not on my computer :p...I don't know if my brother will like it since he wouldn't want to meddle with compatibility problems?
 
Agree with what most said. Go with a quad (Q6600 @ <$200 = best bang for the buck, especially if you OC it), and a 8800GT 512 can be had at some places for $140 after rebate).
 
Mad_CatMk2 said:
I'd love to run Vista64 but its not on my computer :p...I don't know if my brother will like it since he wouldn't want to meddle with compatibility problems?
Click to expand...

Vista 64 has been excellent for me. Driver support is up to speed now, so there should be minimal issues with current hardware.

I use a Thrustmaster Cougar for my flight controls and they finally have Vista 64 drivers.

It's been flawless with SP1 overall, but I've only been running it for a few weeks (MS feedback program freebie).

I highly recommend it, but check for the controller compatibility first, mainstream hardware should just fall in line. WHQL means both 32 and 64 bit drivers now.
 
Hmm, Q6600 isn't that bad then, I shall consider that. Though not looking for an insane OC but I definitely hope I can get a G0 SLACR.

Is 3.0 @ stock volts a good goal to achieve?
 
greyt_Autumn said:
Vista 64 has been excellent for me. Driver support is up to speed now, so there should be minimal issues with current hardware.

I use a Thrustmaster Cougar for my flight controls and they finally have Vista 64 drivers.

It's been flawless with SP1 overall, but I've only been running it for a few weeks (MS feedback program freebie).

I highly recommend it, but check for the controller compatibility first, mainstream hardware should just fall in line. WHQL means both 32 and 64 bit drivers now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help, really appreciate it.
I want this rig to kickass and see the look on my brother's face.
EDIT: Saw the post below; that makes me even happier :D Thanks!
 
I ran FS on a quad QX6700 at 2.9GHz with 8800 Ultra and managed about 25fps in the air over islands (the island landing quick flight) and about 12fps on the water at the marina. That was at 1280x1024 with full AA and AF, all effects on max except realism (I suck I'm afraid).

You need a very, very powerful system on both fronts if you want everything on max. Even then, honestly it doesn't look that good. Not bad, but things like cities especially always seem to be bad in FS games.
 
The bottom line is that realistic FS games are CPU bound because of the massive physics calculations that need to made, and that is only further pushed by any AI calculations of computer controlled aircraft.
 
I can never achieve anything higher than 10fps, unless im at 30k feet. I only really see my cpu usage go to 90+% when im loading (takes a minute tops). The rest of the time its maxing out one core, and using half of another. I really want to play it, but im thinking about going back to fs2004. I could get 60 fps no problem :/

Specs below, seems to be on par with what everybody is suggesting here. Any other ideas?
 
smphoto said:
I can never achieve anything higher than 10fps, unless im at 30k feet. I only really see my cpu usage go to 90+% when im loading (takes a minute tops). The rest of the time its maxing out one core, and using half of another. I really want to play it, but im thinking about going back to fs2004. I could get 60 fps no problem :/

Specs below, seems to be on par with what everybody is suggesting here. Any other ideas?
Click to expand...

how are you setting your cloud and water rendering? Lowering the complexity of these can go a long way toward helping without dramatically affecting immersion or realism.

Also, are you flying in a major metro area with loads of autogen buildings? For what it's worth, what are your autogen settings at?
 
Scale back the autogen, traffic (especially road traffic) and water.

Water should be no higher than 2.x mid and that's subject to your PC. My 3870 seems fine on any water setting.

Complex areas- NYC, LA, London, Paris are killers. Try flying at a place like KMWH or PGUM. Traffic scaling helps here. I admit that I love my traffic but it can kill your framerates.

Staying off the beaten path on my old single core X64 was pleasant even in teh PMDG 744. I did not go near LA or NYC- at least to takeoff or land.
 
I have everything max. I dont think autogen is really a problem, because it gives me a very small (2-3) fps boost.
 
I guess it all depends what you want. If you want it to look pretty, or if you want it to be ultra realistic with loads of traffic.

Either way, even a top end CPU isn't enough, so just get the best one you can. Assuming you want realism and traffic, graphics card is less important.
 
Soo...

Anyone read the little CPU vs Graphics Card charts over at Tom's?

They have a fairly thorough review of performance of FSX SP2 in that grouping, however, the kind of frame rates they get seem ludicrously high.

How easy is it to get the Q6600 to 3.2 GHz? What about 3.6? Seems like that's a really great bang-for-buck value for FS in particular right now if overclocking to at least 3.2 is fairly easy. 3.6 seems like it would only be gravy.

I did notice though that even just the Dual Core CPUs do pretty well. Anyone have a handle on whether FS really takes advantage of all 4 cores to the max? Or would a nicely clocked, say, E8400 do the trick just fine?

~Nate
 
DairyCreamer said:
Soo...

I did notice though that even just the Dual Core CPUs do pretty well. Anyone have a handle on whether FS really takes advantage of all 4 cores to the max? Or would a nicely clocked, say, E8400 do the trick just fine?

~Nate
Click to expand...

It seemed to be using the 4 cores more than other programs did, but it's hard to say for sure. Mine would max out one core, run the second at about 70%, and the final 2 would run about 20-40% (around cities). By comparison my E8400 has both cores pretty much maxed out. I didn't do any apples to apples comparisons, but the frame rates seem pretty comparable between the two. The Q6600 was at 3.4, the E8400 is at 4.0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top