SurClaro Flight Simulator Resources

[lortiawhak]

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology

or the

AMD® Athlon™ 64


thanks :D :D

[ViLdOr]

I'd go for the Athlon 64, but only the ones with socket 939. And check if the one your gtting supports Dual DDR. It will boost you a lot!

oh....and i do wear glasses :D

[lortiawhak]

thanks

[lortiawhak]

1.
Processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
520 with HT Technology

Operating System
Microsoft® Windows®
XP Home Edition

Memory
512MB Dual Channel DDR2
PC-4300 SDRAM 533MHz

Hard Drive
80GB Seagate® SATA
with 8MB Cache

Graphics Processor
ATI RADEON™ X300
PCI Express 128MB DDR

Sound Card
Creative Sound Blaster®
Audigy® 2 ZS 7.1 HD Audio


2.
Processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
with HT Technology 2.8GHz

Operating System
Microsoft® Windows®
XP Home Edition

Memory
512MB Dual Channel DDR
PC-3200 SDRAM 400MHz

Hard Drive
80GB Seagate® SATA
with 8MB Cache

Graphics Processor
ATI RADEON™
9550SE 128MB DDR

Sound Card
Creative Sound Blaster®
Audigy® 2 ZS 7.1 HD Audio


3.
Processor
Intel® Xeon™
Processor @ 3.4GHz


Operating System
Microsoft® Windows®
XP Professional Edition

Memory
1GB DDR PC-3200
Registered ECC

Hard Drive
148GB Western Digital®
10,000 RPM RAID 0

Graphics Processor
Dual NVIDIA GeForce™
6800 Ultra 256MB DDR3

Sound Card
Creative Sound Blaster®
Audigy®2 ZS High Definition


Sound Cards

Creative Sound Blaster®
Audigy® 2 ZS 7.1 HD Audio

Integrated 5.1 Surround
Sound With O p t i c a l Out

thanks

[pjholl]

Id say No:3, my mate has dual zeons and they are *beep* hot. Good system over all. I would'nt say no to it!!

Personally I'm running the following:

AMD Athlon 3000+
2 x 512Mb Crucial DDR PC2700
ATI Radeon 9600
Sound blaster 5.1
AZUS A7N8X-X motherboard
Saitek cyborg evo joystick

Not the best system, but I havnt had a problem running any game Ive tried.

[lortiawhak]

problem is that number 3 costs around $11,000.

so which would you prefer between 1 and 2

[w4p]

im just bored and not a techie...so u might just want to skip this :lol:

since fs9 is such a graphically demanding game there has been much discussion on fps and the best way to go.

my experience:
im running it on a two year old machine p4 2.27
i got a bump of 6-7 fps when upgraded from 64 mb gfx card to 128mb(radeon 9600 pro) on sale for $150. (allthough i dont think mobo supports 8X agp, so there might be a bottle neck there and im not getting the full benefit :( )
i got a bump of 12-14 fps when added 512 mb ddr ram (to existing 512 ddr) on sale for $70! (was half the price of other 512 sticks and salesman admitted it was slower, but that its not noticable...?)

these fps were on medium settings and have enabled me to increase most settings....3/4 maxxed and get 25-40 fps (except when lots of clouds----i usually dont have clouds anyway cause u cant see)

i have talked to quite a few people on various sites and have heard it more than once that fs9 is quite cpu dependant. Those with higher cpu speed and lowere gfx card and ram are getting better fps than those with a slower cpus, but 1 gig of ram and $400 vid cards. Cant verify this but my next uprgrade is a mobo that can support 8x agp and whatevers out there for a fast cpu and will let u know my fps jump.

personally i would go with the fastest cpu.
and is far as i know :roll: ....ht technology is more for multi tasking and really wont effect fps
ive only had 3 computers in my life and all have been pentium and have never had issues, but those with amd athlon absolutely swear by them. And from what ive seen they tend to have just a bit better fps with comparable pentium cpus.

and last thing, r u building this pc up? Or are these pre-built?

[ViLdOr]

what w4p said is quite right, but personally, i belive in Ram and more Ram, specially if working with lot's of textures and stuff(like fs9)...ok...faster CPU's do help a lot, but the investement(IMHO) should go to the Ram. SOmething with 400Mhz and a CL3 at least(i've seen some Kingston ones with CL4...). Oh...and pay the extra and get the quality Ram...it is worthy.

oh...and you do find a diference in the Ram's speeds.

Cumps

Sérgio Rasteiro(aka vildor)

[Exxman]

#3 Lortia. I have almost the exact system with tricks and toys but it didn't cost me $11G!!? It is worth it though.

ViLdOr wrote: what w4p said is quite right, but personally, i belive in Ram and more Ram, specially if working with lot's of textures and stuff(like fs9)...ok...faster CPU's do help a lot, but the investement(IMHO) should go to the Ram...
Sérgio Rasteiro(aka vildor)

Actually w4p is 100% on the $$ and you are almost there Vildor. FS will only load a dime's worth of textures into RAM. Core architecture of your vid card and it's ram takes care of that. FS uses the CPU to make tons of calculations, that is what FS needs not texture memory. Try an experiment if you can: if you have 1GB of ram, remove a stick and make notes to FS FPS. Take a 128 vid card and replace with 256 and note comparison. Swap your CPU for one that is just 'one step' below your current one and note difference...#3 will blow you away! That is the only true test and the reason I know it works is that is exactly what I did before I bought this sytem. I take a stick of ram out and FS doesn't even notice the change, but Photoshop CS does and CS needs waaaaaay more texture mem than FS!

Hope that helps.
Exxman

[ViLdOr]

I'm sorry I really didn't answered the original question, but #3 really is a great machine. If not that one, then #2.


Exxman wrote: #3 will blow you away! That is the only true test and the reason I know it works is that is exactly what I did before I bought this sytem. I take a stick of ram out and FS doesn't even notice the change, but Photoshop CS does and CS needs waaaaaay more texture mem than FS!

Hope that helps.
Exxman

Yes, but CS also takes full advantage of dual processors(not HT, real dual processors), which FS9 doesn't(I think, correct if wrong). It isn't designed to take advantage of it(ok...CS costs a LOT more than FS9, and is PRO-user oriented). So...based on what you guys said...I think that lortiawhak should get an Athlon 64(probably the next FS will have 64bits support as well as 32, but 64 DO give an advantage in speed(lot's of CPU usage right :wink: ))

happy flights


8)

[Exxman]

Excellent suggestion mate!

Yes, the AMD's are better for performance especially gaming. FS doesn't support HT but you can set the Affinity to one and get a huge boost in FPS.

Exx

[ViLdOr]

Exxman wrote: Excellent suggestion mate!

Yes, the AMD's are better for performance especially gaming. FS doesn't support HT but you can set the Affinity to one and get a huge boost in FPS.

Exx

[off-topic]yeah...the tweak thing in the other post right? and what about the questions raised about it? is it safe? doesn't cause system instability? troubles in multi-tasking?

[lortiawhak]

thanks for all of your opinions. keep 'em coming.

@Exxman: did you build your own computer?

[Mythrilfan]

Don't buy neither of them. Go with an athlon 64; geforce 6600gt and also get a better hdd. Should be at least around 120-160gb for optimal and if u don't wanna upgrade in 1-2 years. Well and my advice is to buy at least 1gb of ram...should be about 1000$, at least if you dont boost other, less needy specs. Oh, dont buy a cheap muthaboard, i bought one and i've been struggling with intolerable crashes and sound issues... turns out that the bios is buggy

[lortiawhak]

thanks for the tips :D