• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

System specs

whitehawk_2009

whitehawk_2009

Charter Member 2016
I'm looking at getting a new computer and am wondering if I could run FSX with these specs.

Intel Celeron Dual Core E1400 2.00GHz
4GB DDR2 667 memory
320GB SATA II HDD at 7200RPM
Intergrated NVIDIA GeForce 7050 with 895MB Shared Memory.

On a scale of one to ten how high do you think my eye candy could be with these specs and still get decent FR's?

Thanks

WH
 
Must be a laptop...

The bottleneck will be the 2.0 Gh CPU for sure...

On your scale.....

I would have to say you will be unhappy with that and FSX to be honest....
 
Scale of 1 to 10?.............1....at a push.
The Intel Celeron chip is woeful and I doubt that you'll get FSX to run on an integrated graphics chip.


I'd suggest saving a few $ more for a higher spec system if you plan on doing any PC gaming.
 
whitehawk_2009 said:
Does FSX not like multi-core CPU's?

And I thought a dual-core 2GHz would run like a 4GHz single core.

WH
Click to expand...



Well FSX does like multi core CPU's....

But it needs to be in the range of 3.0 - 3.6

And that onboard vid card will be robbing that CPU in the process....

sorry to say...
 
Give us your price range and lets see what we can come up with Whitehawk....
 
Well truth be told, I don't have a price range. The spec's above were from a referb that I was going to try to scrimp and save for.

Maybe I should try a different tactic, what should I be looking for to run FSX at about a 7 on a 1-10 scale?

WH
 
whitehawk_2009 said:
Well truth be told, I don't have a price range. The spec's above were from a referb that I was going to try to scrimp and save for.

Maybe I should try a different tactic, what should I be looking for to run FSX at about a 7 on a 1-10 scale?

WH
Click to expand...

Any Quad running @ 3.2 or better, 3+ gig of ram, any DX10 video card with 1 gig of Memory.
 
Have a look at my Intel 775 socket..... Its a home built..It runs FSX locked at 40 and holds that pretty well in weather and midrange airports.....

It will drop into the low 20's to high 20's at big airports but holds stable and smooth....I built this for 2 grand....

But I put extra in HDDs and vid card too.....



Case: Thermaltake VH8000BWS BK
Power: Corsair 850W 12V Single rail 70Amps
MoBo: GIGABYTE GA-X48-DQ6 775 X48
CPU: INTEL|C2D E8600 3.33G 775 6M
CPU Cooler: Artic Pro 7
GPU: VISIONTEK Radion 900250 HD4870X2 2G
Mem: OCZ 2X2 @ 1066
HD1: 300 Gig VelociRaptor @ 10,000
HD2: 150 Raptor @ 10,000
HD3: 650 Gig Seagate @7,200 32Mb Cache
OS: XP Pro SP 3







A quad is a good thing to...Loke the Q9550@2.83 OCed up some



The think about quads is they need an OC to be strong...A duo on the other hand is all set to go....Like my E8600@3.33
 
Major_Spittle said:
Any Quad running @ 3.2 or better, 3+ gig of ram, any DX10 video card with 1 gig of Memory.
Click to expand...
That might be a great system for a 10/10 rating but I am happily running FSX on a Core2Duo 3 Ghz (E8400) CPU and a 8800GT GFX card with 512 Mb RAM and I have 2 Gb of main RAM. I can get locked 25 or 30 FPS with most true FSX AC and a little lower with port overs. Operation is smooth and 'jitter' free except around large cities, but I usually have my auto-gen cranked up and prefer to fly away from cities anyway so that is a non-issue for me. Scenery is mostly stock with just a few freeware add-ons for specific areas and the only big visual add-on I have is REX which runs very nicely on this system.

I would certainly rate this system as 7/10 and I am happy with it.
 
The W8400 is a nice chip too you have...very money friendly too these days :applause:
 
Yeah you don't want that system from the original post. That integrated graphics chip is no good at all. I checked benchmarks on it, which were from June 2007, and it's about 1/6 the speed of a Geforce 6600GT, and the 6600GT is not even considered acceptable for FSX.

As to the question above, FSX does use dual and quad core but the extra cores do not improve framerate, they only help with loading terrain textures and with reducing stutters. What determines your framerate is basically the clock speed of the CPU, though the CPU's architecture and cache amount also effects it. For exampled the Core 2 chips with 6MB of L2 cache run FSX about 10% faster at equal clocks speeds than those with 4MB. So when shopping for Core 2 dual or quads look to the clock speed and L2 cache as your performance indicators, with 6MB being the prefered amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top