| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
flowdrip
Trainee
Joined: Jun 02, 2005
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: Do you need a Cray Supercomputer to run FSX??? |
 |
|
| If the final version of FSX is anything like the demo, I predict it will be a flop. It's doubtful all flight simmers are going to want to spend BIG bucks on a new computer just to make FSX run at decent framerates. My system: FX55, 2GB Geil PC3200 DDR400, (2) 7900 GT's in SLI, (2) WD Raptors in RAID 0, (1) Raptor game drive, the CPU, mobo chipset, both videocards, and HD's are all watercooled. Not exactly a low end computer. The FSX demo ran like S*#t on this rig. Stuttering along like an old Pentium 2 machine. I was seriously unimpressed with this demo. M$ has a lot of work to do yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 15480
Location: U.S.A
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You have 4 times the computer that I do and I ran it without a problem.
I found it easier on my machine than FS9.
Saying that I know the when FSX comes out it'll take a machine similar to yours to run it.
More ram (4 gigs) will be needed if you want to run Vista (and FSX) to get the full value of DirectX 10.
I think you better do some serious looking into getting your machine in shape if it can't run that simple beta demo.
Buy the way, nice card(s) but they won't be able to use DX 10 but will use DX 9 like always.
Good luck to you, I hope you whip that machine into shape before October 17 so you can enjoy the new experience.
_________________
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its all in the CPU.
Get a dual core Pentium and youre off with great frames. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 15480
Location: U.S.A
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: |
Its all in the CPU.
Get a dual core Pentium and youre off with great frames. |
One of the most important parts of today's computers has to be a powerful brand-name power supply.
The p/s that the computer makers (Dell) are small and not ready for additional USB and new more power demanding video cards.
A thermaltake or Antec are the best for the $.
http://www.thermaltake.com/
http://www.antec.com/InternationalWelcome.php
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4709
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do people keep bragging about their lack of computer skills. I can get the demo to run reasonably well on a 2.8 P4 with 512 MB RAM of which 128 is used by the on board GFX chip.
It isn't rocket science to get reasonable performance out of the demo on even a mediocre machine.
_________________
CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines
Last edited by CrashGordon on Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:13 pm Post subject: Re: Do you need a Cray Supercomputer to run FSX??? |
|
|
| flowdrip wrote: |
| If the final version of FSX is anything like the demo, I predict it will be a flop. It's doubtful all flight simmers are going to want to spend BIG bucks on a new computer just to make FSX run at decent framerates. My system: FX55, 2GB Geil PC3200 DDR400, (2) 7900 GT's in SLI, (2) WD Raptors in RAID 0, (1) Raptor game drive, the CPU, mobo chipset, both videocards, and HD's are all watercooled. Not exactly a low end computer. The FSX demo ran like S*#t on this rig. Stuttering along like an old Pentium 2 machine. I was seriously unimpressed with this demo. M$ has a lot of work to do yet. |
I think the final version of FSX will be much faster. One reason is because of DX10. Another, because Windows Vista. Vista is 64 bit, which helps alot for speed. And FSX will be optimized for it. 
Do you know why the demo is kinda slow? Because Microsoft just slapped it together quickly so the public could try it. So don't worry, the final version of FSX will be Tons Better . And guess what? Probably the people who are making FSX are reading some posts here are FAS. So maybe you can help by reporting bug!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4709
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: Do you need a Cray Supercomputer to run FSX??? |
|
|
| encarta2006 wrote: |
I think the final version of FSX will be much faster. One reason is because of DX10. Another, because Windows Vista. Vista is 64 bit, which helps alot for speed. And FSX will be optimized for it.
Do you know why the demo is kinda slow? Because Microsoft just slapped it together quickly so the public could try it. So don't worry, the final version of FSX will be Tons Better . And guess what? Probably the people who are making FSX are reading some posts here are FAS. So maybe you can help by reporting bug! |
Since you haven't tested DX10, how do you know? The only advantage to a 64 bit OS is that it can address more memory. It does squat for speed. When someone says, "don't worry", it is time to worry. Programmers almost never listen to the outside world. They live in their own universe and decide what is good and bad. So I wouldn't count on their reading anything here.
_________________
CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Do you need a Cray Supercomputer to run FSX??? |
|
|
| CrashGordon wrote: |
| encarta2006 wrote: |
I think the final version of FSX will be much faster. One reason is because of DX10. Another, because Windows Vista. Vista is 64 bit, which helps alot for speed. And FSX will be optimized for it.
Do you know why the demo is kinda slow? Because Microsoft just slapped it together quickly so the public could try it. So don't worry, the final version of FSX will be Tons Better . And guess what? Probably the people who are making FSX are reading some posts here are FAS. So maybe you can help by reporting bug! |
Since you haven't tested DX10, how do you know? The only advantage to a 64 bit OS is that it can address more memory. It does squat for speed. When someone says, "don't worry", it is time to worry. Programmers almost never listen to the outside world. They live in their own universe and decide what is good and bad. So I wouldn't count on their reading anything here. |
Hey you know I agree.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I will ad that I know how much better DX10 will be because I have read several different articles..... 
To tell you the truth, Microsoft really needed to make a better demo. Probably the final realease of FSX will be much better BECAUSE microsoft won't just slap everything together so that the public can try it. I am totaly conviced that Windows Vista will be 2x times faster (or more) with a dual core 64 bit procceser than on Windows (x86).
If DX10 is not very much faster than DX9 i'm gonna really be mad at.....(who made DX?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 15480
Location: U.S.A
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RadarMan wrote: |
I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
|
Wow now that is amazing! Thanks for the info!
So are you going to upgrade your PC? If so then what are you going to add?        |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 15480
Location: U.S.A
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| encarta2006 wrote: |
| RadarMan wrote: |
I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
|
Wow now that is amazing! Thanks for the info!
So are you going to upgrade your PC? If so then what are you going to add? |
My present machine is much too old to salvage anything so I'll just use my new monitor (24" LCD) and everything else will be brand new, home built I hope.
I want it to be first class hardware and you can't buy that only come close even for much more $.
Check out http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/ for some fairly good prices and I do believe that they have local not outsourced tech support.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RadarMan wrote: |
| encarta2006 wrote: |
| RadarMan wrote: |
I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
|
Wow now that is amazing! Thanks for the info!
So are you going to upgrade your PC? If so then what are you going to add? |
My present machine is much too old to salvage anything so I'll just use my new monitor (24" LCD) and everything else will be brand new, home built I hope.
I want it to be first class hardware and you can't buy that only come close even for much more $.
Check out http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/ for some fairly good prices and I do believe that they have local not outsourced tech support.
|
Oh wow!!! I should think of getting one of those!!!!! So which one do you want to get? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 15480
Location: U.S.A
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The core 2 customized without a monitor (and cheap card for now) comes to almost $3000 without shipping or tax.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cool! I can hardly WAIT for FSX!!!!
I think I will get a better grahpics card.........hmm... 
I think (since I have a 6100) I wil get a 7300, since it is all I can afford..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
