Fsx best hardware 2013 for maximum performance with addons

[cdskgg1989 0]

Hello name is Chris and I have a few questions

 

Now I have read the software and hardware guide from avsim and I just have a few concerns. I want to buy a new system for fsx and money is no object. What is the best

 

CPU and overclock speed for maximum results

Motherboard

GPU only nvidia please

Ram

Storage set up. 2 devices. 1 for windows 1 for fsx

Psu

CPU cooler or water cooling

 

Please don't just google best hardware seance I have been googling this for quite some time.

 

Like I said money is not a problem for me.

 

Thank you

 

To be a little more specific towards CPU.

 

Better CPU with lower overclock. Or lower CPU with higher overclock.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Check this link for the PDF for the best hardware for FSX, its a complete guide that lists what is currently accepted as the best: http://forum.avsim.n...-guide-for-fsx/

 

You can also check the hardware forum here as well if you need to ask questions about the stuff mentioned in the link above. Your post will probably be moved to that forum as well in case you try looking for it later and its missing from the FSX forum.

[Noel 4,486]

Are you planning your build only for FSX? If you are also building something somewhat 'future-proof' for XPlane 64-bit for example, you might consider a 6-8 core processor, or even Ivy Bridge -E or -EP processors due out later this year which will sport 10-14 cores and hopefully will have improved heat dissipation than current IB processors. While you may lose a few hundred Ghz in overclockability (it's only as relevant as the percentage different, ie not very relevant), you will have a system poised to exploit software (XPlane 64-bit for example) designed to benefit from more memory, more cores, Direct X 11, etc. This is my plan current as I feel FSX, while being as great as it is, is truly a dead end and is very unlikely to run any better, ever, than it does currently on high end hardware. This belief is based on my belief that we will not see big increases in clock speed, only more efficient microarchitecture & more parallel processing, multithreading, multicore approaches to improved performance, and FSX will not take advantage of this very much. Since I'm on 4.5 y/o hardware now, I will see fabulously improved performance over what I have now, even though as I say, it will be a few Ghz lower, and therefore not perceptible, than building the 'best system for FSX [only] now'. I can say this w/ absolute certainty because even now, using a Core 2 Quad and a GTX280 GPU, I have performance that has me flying almost every day of the week, and enjoying it still immensely. I've got almost all sliders hard right, FTX scenery, FSPax, REX E+, and just have to be careful to fly the NGX out of smaller terminals, and yet I rarely see frame rates under 20, and typically up near 30 and smooth w/ very good image quality. Can I afford to sacrifice 200, 300, 500Ghz on an IB 10 core CPU? Why, certainly!

[cdskgg1989 0]

see thats what i was looking for now noel i have a quick question do u prefer x plane over fsx?? i love fsx because of all the addons for it like

 

REX + OVERDRIVE, PMDG AIRCRAFT, AIRBUS X EXTENDED, ECT as far as i know u cant use those in x plane? can u

 

and ive been using fsx for so long now i think it would take a long time before i got use to x plane 10. now u say there is a new x plane 10 64 bit?

 

will it be better then fsx? more realistic?

 

and i think im gonna wait a few more months and see if new Intel processors come out if they do then ill go with the best one i can find ,

[Noel 4,486]

see thats what i was looking for now noel i have a quick question do u prefer x plane over fsx?? i love fsx because of all the addons for it like

 

REX + OVERDRIVE, PMDG AIRCRAFT, AIRBUS X EXTENDED, ECT as far as i know u cant use those in x plane? can u

 

and ive been using fsx for so long now i think it would take a long time before i got use to x plane 10. now u say there is a new x plane 10 64 bit?

 

will it be better then fsx? more realistic?

 

and i think im gonna wait a few more months and see if new Intel processors come out if they do then ill go with the best one i can find ,

 

I don't really know if I like XPlane more than FSX because I haven't experienced XPlane 64-bit. But the sense I get from reading here is the most people who've tried both prefer FSX. I am just aware Xplane, and other simulators to come will likely be coded to better match the direction of hardware & software and that is towards 64-bit, multicore, etc, especially in the domain of software that grows and gets more complex over time, for example w/ add on sceneries, utilities, airplanes, etc. My sense is that pace of hardware development that will help FSX perform significantly better than it does now is quite slow--that is, clock speeds aren't increasing dramatically any more. I tend to keep systems for at least 4-5 years nowadays and I do believe a better sim will come, maybe XPlane is it, because already XPlane WILL be able to use your 10 core machine, highest end video card for DirectX 11, and so forth. The other thing to remember is even a IB -E 10 core machine will maybe o'clock to 4Ghz or so that would be great. If so, I'll experience a big upgrade in performance over my Core 2 Quad, and as I say be set if n when XPlane grabs center stage.

 

Haswell CPU will be due out around mid year so we'll see how that chip does. Who knows, maybe they went back to fluxless solder and the desktop models will perform and o'clock well. Won't see more than 4 cores though w/ Haswell for this year I believe, but you will for Ivy Bridge in their pricey E and EP processors.

[ryanbatc 12,798]

Yeah who would want to read that nice clear and concise guide?