Well, this weekend my dad is buying a new computer. One of the reasons is because this one is going to my sisters and the other I want to a good computer to be able to run FSX and/or FS9.

Well, I'm going with my dad to chose one, since I specailise in computer specs. 
I've got my eye on one. The only thing I need to know, would these specs be good enough to get really good FPS & allow FSX or FS9 to run smoothly with AI traffic on like 100% with Active Sky, FE, GE and so on.

AMD Phenom X3 8550 Triple-Core
(2.20GHz, 2MB Cache)
Genuine Windows® Vista Home Premium
3GB DDR2 memory
320GB SATA hard drive
NVIDIA® GeForce 8200 graphics
Dual Layer DVD Rewriter
Media card reader
9x USB ports
10/100 network LAN port

Anyone who could give me an answer, I would be most grateful 

Thanks

first of all, the 8200 is a toy... at least a 9800 for good/regular performance on FSX (great on FS9)

AMD won't do scrap in FSX (especially at 2.2ghz) but will do great in FS9

and 3gb memory is ok but I'd go for 4gb

Can you build your own system? it'd be much cheapter, and better!

Ok scrap that. How bout this one. My dad has been looking seriously at it.


Intel Quad Core Q8300(2.50Ghz)
4GB DDR2 RAM
640GB Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9600GT(512MB).

757200ba wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 8:36pm:

...

That would be just fine for FSX, just don't expect too much out of it. Medium settings it will do just fine. If you could find one with an Intel Quad Core cpu and a 9800 for a video card, you'd be set

You might also want to overclock the cpu, so get a good cooler and some good thermal paste (OCZ Freeze is perfect). Believe me, that will make a world of difference

757200ba wrote on Aug 17^th, 2009 at 11:18pm:

Where did you get that info from?...

Ever since SP1, FSX has made FULL use of EVERY core available to it.

Which make it, if you use one core it will use it 100%.

But maybe i went to far saying that will not use it. The fact is SP1 made FSX to DETECT the quad core.Now use it?diferent thing.
I will not put my hand on the fire, but i think Nick said that.
Ofcourse we can have the poor man way of thinking.

Quad core costs what $300? (i really dont know), so FSX will use a small percentage of each.Lets follow it leterary (once again i say i dont have experience with quads) so a dual it will use 50% in each core?Or it will use 90% on zero and the other 10%spread over the second? Is this a patern? 0 uses always 90% independently of the core number?
IF we think on keeping some processor workload, we say a good dual will do the job, or even a 3 core, all goes around money you have.Now that all cores will be used to improve FSX hmmmmm.

According to forums, well processor is important, but is more flexible than RAM and GPU.WE know FSX LOVES RAM and GPU SPEED.You might find more aplications for your money if you could keep $100 from the cost of your processor, and apply it in RAM or GPU.

Its like they say, FS9 with a video card with 256 its not good, but over 512 its a waste.

Any way, i think its funny what you read in the magazines, they try all new MB and processors and GPU in games like Crisis and things like that, then get all those readings on benchmarks.For a change, it would be fun they tested those $5000 pc on FSX.Then i would love to see the results.

Another thing that i dont understand, is why ATI\AMD are not good for FS.I remember when 9700 Pro came out everybody was saying the best GPU for FS9.I know times change but i still dont understand that "cut" on ATI\Amd.

757200ba...

You are confused...  

FSX likes CPU and RAM more than GPU.

You can get away with lower end model CPUs with other games, as long as you have a good video card. Even in such a case, the video card won't be using all its power due to the bottleneck on the CPU

FSX doesn't let you get away with that. You need a strong and fast CPU, the more cores the better, a good amount of FAST memory, as well as a strong GPU.

Get the bottom one, the one with the Intel Quad core

But  you will need to add an actual video card to that machine...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130468

That GT220 shouldn't really be considered a video card... all it does is allows you to see what's on the screen, but it gives no gaming performance whatsoever.

SubZer0 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:
SubZerO,Icannotresistadare.IseeinyourscreenthatyourFPSrateissetatunlimitedandyouaregettingabout28FPS.IthinkImentionedsometimeearlierthatIwasrunningbothmydualcorePCaswellasmynewi7920andcomparingtheirperformance.Theysharemymonitor,keyboard,mouse,printer,andflightcontrols.BothPCsrunFSXwiththesamesettings-maxedoutexceptforwater,LightBloom,andgroundvehicletraffic.AsforyourTaskManager,I'mnotknowledgeableenoughtointerpretit.HoweverIdidreadsomewherethatFSXSP1didnotsplituptheprocessingequallyamongthefourcoresratherabout90%tocore0withtheremainingdividedupbetweentheremaining3cores.Ireallywouldliketoknowthetruthaboutthis.Nowabouttakingyouuponyourdare.ThefirsttwoscreensbelowweretakenfrommytwocorePC.MyFPSinthelondonarearunsbetween15and35.Thelasttwoscreensweretakenfrommyi74corePC.ForbothscreenstheFPSexceeds40.BothPCshavetheirFPScountersetatunlimited.AsamatterofinterestifIturnedofftheFPScounterinboth,itwouldbehardtotellanydifferenceinflyingaircraftaroundtheLondonarea.TwoCoreCPU-3GHzwithGTX8800172FlightoverLondonat21.5FPS[IMG]http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj430/signalcorps/fsscr057.jpg

172 flight over Big Ben at 31.3 FPS




i7 920 Four Core over-clocked to 3.72 GHz with GTX 285

172 Flight over London at 41.4 FPS


Twin Beech Flight over London at 45.2 FPS

I dont think im confused.YOU ARE.
See the graph on the first core and compare it with others.
I know, you might not see, that the first one is stable and the others go to a high and then down.
Your photos dont mean anything.They just show that one of the cores works more than the others like it was said by one of the posts.Try on Heathrow with full traffic.Not over London at 2000ft where autogen had made all the work.Thats why you have 41 fps and then they go down to 31 and 21fps as you fly low.And i believe that sometimes you have like 70 to 80 fps, at 20000 ft or something like that.And could you give me a reason why to set fps to unlimited?When your eyes only see 24, and you want your pc to go in highs and lows?And if you use 30 limit, why it goes to 41 and 45???.
There are not CONFUSED people here.Just "poor curious" trying to help.WITH AVERAGE MACHINES
TC 

PLEASE BE CAREFULL WITH WORDS YOU USE.
ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG.AND YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CANT READ.YOU STATE YOUR POINT AND DEFEND IT.WICH I THINK ITS CORRECT.I RESPECT THAT I DONT THINK I HAVE OFFENDED NOBODY.AND IF YOU READ THE POSTS YOU COULD SEE THAT ON THAT POST and i said that my "know how" on multi cores is limited.I just stated what i read.Never i wanted to offend nobody.Or being agressive with " WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA FROM"And when you talk (and this you can take to the bank) DONT GENERALISE.Talk for your self and dont try to speak for anyone, after all we all want to learn.
My statement about eye fps was..movies are at 24 fps and they look good if you could have your sim like that you would be happy, so you would not need more. If miss understood, sorry.The human eye is not only limited to those 24, i just used as an reference (if miss understood, IM SORRY)

And let me tell you this.You have a WONDERFUL machine, and its very good material, some very expensive.To the point that some of us cant reach (but that is MY problem), but believe me in what I TELL you, after spending the money I would feel a bit frustrated having Heathrow (default) with 25fps at a 1000ft.And i will tell you why.From where i stand i see its the default Airport ,and i can count 3 airlines (BA, Virgin, BMI),and if at a 1000 ft you get 25fps, how many you get at the gates ( this is a question, not being ironic).Once again, I tell you.I dont know much about multi core, but i can also can tell you, that there are many guys saying that its not worthy. Now to a person that have MONEY, that doesnt matter they buy what THEY read, and they work their way up to get good configurations.I never said that your cores would not work on FSX, what i said and Flight ace said the same.FSX will USE 90% one of them and 10% the others, and I ASKED if that was a patern, if it was always like that.And i think everybody that read that could think: Ok if in a quad core, only one core is used 90% and the other 10% are used on the other cores ( this is not my statement, but i find it very interesting, because i want to learn) what is the advantage ( FOR FS not other aplications).
So that leves the questions:
Should i buy a quad core for FSX? Even knowing that the other 3 cores will only use 3.3333 ( yes i used the calculator)of the work load?
Or there is something else that is going on?

Sub Zero if i ever offended you in anyway, or ANYBODY here, IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION, AND IM SORRY ALL IF I OFFENDED ANYBODY.

LEt me even tell you this my fs machine is a dual core at 2.8 i dont even know what is the true speed on that. Is it 2.8+2.8=5.6 (no calculator used  ) or its 2.8/2=1.4.

Once again Im sorry if i offended anybody.And please keep posting i have learned with you many things.


I dont know how to take pictures and post them. So i could show you, what my average machine do.I have 20 fps with Heathrow Pro and 80% with AI traffic, and dynamic at 80% to.And for me that works, but i can also tell you when i use a certain 757 my fps drop to 4,5 when loading the virtual cockpit, i solve the problem on not using the VC.

The reason i use 20fps is, that i used unlimited before.Sometimes i had them like 80 to 90 fps in some parts or views.But as soon i changed the views, the fps would drop to 29 to 45.When caming from those values, i could see those stops.Now (this is my experience) when set to 25 evenwith those drops, believe it or not i cant see the diference.
So on a 28GHz dual there are 2, 2.8 working?Ok that i can understand.I will dig deeper anyway.
Once again many thanks.

By the way have you tried this, well this is for duals, but anyway i discover this in a forum, try on yours i will try on mine.

"I've read this from a free download this morning, so I thought I'd post it on here for those that dont know.

Dual core processors: FS9 allegedly doesn’t take advantage of the second processor.
But here is a neat trick how to force FS9 make use of both processors on a dual-core
system: Start Flight Simulator, load your flight in windowed mode, then press
Ctrl+Alt+Del to open the Windows Task Manager. Click the "Performance Tab" and
observe that FS9 is only using one processor. Unless you have tons of other programs
running, the left window will show a heavy load, the right graph a very low load. Click on
"Processes" and look for "fs9.exe" (if you click on "Mem Usage" it should be the first or
last item). Right-click "fs9.exe" and select "Set Affinity". Remove the check mark from
one CPU. Close the window, then repeat the process and select both CPUs again. FS9 will
now spread the workload over 2 processors. You should notice
a marked difference in performance. If this does not work on your PC, contact Microsoft
Support for the optional "dual-core hot fix".

http://flyawaysimulation.com/postt21628.html