- Messages
- 163
What is the best setup for fsx. I would like 50 fps or more. A link would be good.
I have two GT 8800s in sli and hardly get 20 fps.
Thanks
Glenn
I have two GT 8800s in sli and hardly get 20 fps.
Thanks
Glenn
-
Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:
- Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
- Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
- Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
- Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
- Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
- Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.
Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.
By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.
Graphic Card
- Thread starter MoToCroSs986
- Start date
n4gix
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 11,674
- Country
FS has always been CPU bound. A faster video card isn't going to help you. Only a faster CPU and as much fast memory as you can afford will...
...well, that and reasonable tuning of the FSX configuration.
I suggest turning OFF the SLI completely for FSX because it may well be hurting rather than helping you. Your system can't send data fast enough as it is, and having the SLI enabled forces the video card to delay sending data to the screen until the buffers are filled...
...well, that and reasonable tuning of the FSX configuration.
I suggest turning OFF the SLI completely for FSX because it may well be hurting rather than helping you. Your system can't send data fast enough as it is, and having the SLI enabled forces the video card to delay sending data to the screen until the buffers are filled...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 163
Thanks n4gix. What fps do you get with your rig?
adr179
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 259
- Country
My expirience with FSX:
All that really matters as far as CPU is concerned is frequency. Number of cores is not really important, so your best bet would be fastest dual core you can afford, but not less than 3.0GHz, so E8500(3.13GHz) or E8600(3.3GHz) from Intel is something to look for.
Speed of RAM doesn't make a lot of difference, but size does - even on 32 bit systems it makes sense to buy a 4GB kit, since there's almost no price difference if you buy 2+1 or 2x2kit. DDRII at 1066 might be the best buy.
ATI smply doesn't perform with FSX, so look for something like GForce GTX 260 or higher from Nvidia.
SLI actually degrades performance of FS X.
I have E 8500 CPU and GTX 260 with 8GB of 1066MHz RAM on W7 and even on the densiest scenery FS X runs smoothly with FPS in range of 22-24 with almost everything maxed on the display settings.
All that really matters as far as CPU is concerned is frequency. Number of cores is not really important, so your best bet would be fastest dual core you can afford, but not less than 3.0GHz, so E8500(3.13GHz) or E8600(3.3GHz) from Intel is something to look for.
Speed of RAM doesn't make a lot of difference, but size does - even on 32 bit systems it makes sense to buy a 4GB kit, since there's almost no price difference if you buy 2+1 or 2x2kit. DDRII at 1066 might be the best buy.
ATI smply doesn't perform with FSX, so look for something like GForce GTX 260 or higher from Nvidia.
SLI actually degrades performance of FS X.
I have E 8500 CPU and GTX 260 with 8GB of 1066MHz RAM on W7 and even on the densiest scenery FS X runs smoothly with FPS in range of 22-24 with almost everything maxed on the display settings.
n4gix
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 11,674
- Country
First, understand that in FSX fps of 20 is roughly equivalent to 40 in FS9...
...mainly because at the same approximate slider settings, >2x as much data is being sent to the video card.
Now, that said, my machine's average fps is ~18-24 range. A Q6600 @2.6MHz is better than what I had, but is still not quite up to the task at hand.
It's adequate for my development/testing needs, but not quite good enough for anything more than light GA aviation.
- Messages
- 1,269
- Country
I am using an HP Pavilion dv4 that I got for Christmas and it runs great (for me anyways) I only have 2.0Ghz processor but I get good fps (>20) just flying and reasonable fps (about 5) with 100% airline traffic (MyTrafficX) at RDU. I have 3GB RAM but according to adr it doesnt make that much difference with RAM.
- Messages
- 366
- Country
I'm still in the early stages with my latest creation but I can give a bit of info. Keep in mind though that since I'm not made of money it's taken me literally two and a half years to come to this point... pressed the power button for the first time on Saturday.
I have an AMD Athlon X2 6000+ CPU, 8GB DDR2 PC8500 RAM (I know, I know... XP doesn't address more than 3GB... it's in prep for Win7 and FSX), two XFX 8600 GTS in SLi, and ALL settings in FS9 are at 100% max'd (with exception of Visual Distance @ 80NM) with Ultimate Traffic. I'm displaying this all at 1680 x 1050 x 32 on a Samsung LCD in "full screen" mode.
Flying over New York City I see between 23-34 FPS and I've found that at a few highly detailed add-on airports (like Aerosoft's London Heathrow 2008) I have between 35-42 FPS. Everywhere else I see about 52-78FPS...
And that's my two cents...
I have an AMD Athlon X2 6000+ CPU, 8GB DDR2 PC8500 RAM (I know, I know... XP doesn't address more than 3GB... it's in prep for Win7 and FSX), two XFX 8600 GTS in SLi, and ALL settings in FS9 are at 100% max'd (with exception of Visual Distance @ 80NM) with Ultimate Traffic. I'm displaying this all at 1680 x 1050 x 32 on a Samsung LCD in "full screen" mode.
Flying over New York City I see between 23-34 FPS and I've found that at a few highly detailed add-on airports (like Aerosoft's London Heathrow 2008) I have between 35-42 FPS. Everywhere else I see about 52-78FPS...
And that's my two cents...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,553
- Country
Ken
Boy, howdy. I know what you mean about not being made of money. Like you, it took me years to get to my current rig. I put it together last January, and it is out dated now. May I make a suggestion? When you move to FSX, you will find that your 8600s will hold you back. A single 9800gtx will do you far better. You have a great FS9 rig. But as Bill stated earlier, SLI does nothing for FSX. Come to think of it, guys with i7s and gtx 285s can't run FSX full out all the time.
Bob
Boy, howdy. I know what you mean about not being made of money. Like you, it took me years to get to my current rig. I put it together last January, and it is out dated now. May I make a suggestion? When you move to FSX, you will find that your 8600s will hold you back. A single 9800gtx will do you far better. You have a great FS9 rig. But as Bill stated earlier, SLI does nothing for FSX. Come to think of it, guys with i7s and gtx 285s can't run FSX full out all the time.
Bob
- Messages
- 875
- Country
Funny, that I have heard a few people say ATI is crap with FSX...which really sucks since I bought the top of the line ATI card for AGP. (yeah, my comp itself is almost 5 years old)... It had the best nVidia before I got this one.
nVidida stopped their support for AGP at my card...and ATI continued on to what I have now. (see my sig..)
The reason this sucks so much, is that ATI was much better at fs9 than nVidia was. EVERY single review I ever read on the 2 companies cards showed that for MSFS, you had to go with ATI if you wanted top performance. There was something about the nVidia cards that really hampered FS.
Now, you say it is the other way around for FSX.
Since it will be at least a year before I get a new system... I will most likely not see FSX run worth a crap (for me...no kidding, that would be anything above 7fps) for at least a year....and it could be 2 - 4 years in reality.
Oh well...I'll just build airports for others to enjoy.
- Greg
nVidida stopped their support for AGP at my card...and ATI continued on to what I have now. (see my sig..)
The reason this sucks so much, is that ATI was much better at fs9 than nVidia was. EVERY single review I ever read on the 2 companies cards showed that for MSFS, you had to go with ATI if you wanted top performance. There was something about the nVidia cards that really hampered FS.
Now, you say it is the other way around for FSX.
Since it will be at least a year before I get a new system... I will most likely not see FSX run worth a crap (for me...no kidding, that would be anything above 7fps) for at least a year....and it could be 2 - 4 years in reality.
Oh well...I'll just build airports for others to enjoy.
- Greg