57 replies to this topic

[AirX]

Peter797, on Mar 10 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

AirX, on Mar 10 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

well yea if you are flying near the ocean away from big cities it would work fine. That setup looks ok you may run into problems in some parts.

http://www.bestbuy.c...d=1196470439043
You can buy an off the shelf system and get decent specs. What I would do with this computer is add ram and a good graphics card. Thats what i typically do, i don't have time to piece a computer together part by part.

EDIT:
After reading the responses, I just realized how childish this thread has tuned.

Are you dumb? it already has 4GB RAM...what it needs is a new CPU and a new Graphics card. 8800GT FTW

Who do you think you are calling someone dumb.. A its a shelf system with a decent possessor. Add one more 1gb ram stick and you have 4gb and the video card.

[tech-drummer]

well lets see...i don't normally fly in ultra high because sometimes it goes down to 15fps and keeps on going up and down.
Normaly, i fly in high because it will stay right at about 23fps.
But if i got down to medium high, and set the target fps at about 30, it stays there pritty well. Thats what i use with dual monitors. And just for the heck of it, i set it down to as low as it can go (the graphics) and set my target frame rate to unlimited, i was getting like 90fps going all over the place lol

And why does everyone think im lieing? i can make a new youtube video that shows all of those parts in my computer, me setting it to ultra high, and it running well...do you want me to do that???

Edited by tech-drummer, 10 March 2008 - 10:50 AM.

[tech-drummer]

IM Making A Video Right Now To Show All The Parts Inside, And the settings are on ultra high and it is running at 20fps

It will be on youtube in an hour

Edited by tech-drummer, 10 March 2008 - 11:20 AM.

[StavosWS6]

First off if you are getting 20fps (maybe) video doesn't prove it because you're not showing your fps "shift + Z". Second your over water most of the time which isn't that much of a hit on frames. And when you are over land i can see the gitters, and you're in rural areas. Try flying in a large city such as Vegas, Detroit, New York or even a small to medium city or suburb.

the 8600 is basically a paperweight. I know you're on a budget but you're better off with a 7900gt or gtx its cheaper and will run better then a 8600 series. I bring you the ever so popular Nvidia comparison list: http://www.hardwares...com/article/132

besides that not a bad system for the price but we need more proof like FPS and such before we all agree it's a cheap badass system.

-Cheers

Edited by StavosWS6, 10 March 2008 - 11:24 AM.

[tech-drummer]

StavosWS6, on Mar 10 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

First off if you are getting 20fps (maybe) video doesn't prove it because you're not showing your fps "shift + Z". Second your over water most of the time which isn't that much of a hit on frames. And when you are over land i can see the gitters, and you're in rural areas. Try flying in a large city such as Vegas, Detroit, New York or even a small to medium city or suburb.

the 8600 is basically a paperweight. I know you're on a budget but you're better off with a 7900gt or gtx its cheaper and will run better then a 8600 series. I bring you the ever so popular Nvidia comparison list: http://www.hardwares...com/article/132

besides that not a bad system for the price but we need more proof like FPS and such before we all agree it's a cheap badass system.

-Cheers

The video im making does show the fps, cause i did hit ctrl z....Just wait for me 2 put it up

[Granulf]

Yet another troll trying to prove something? Go, ahead, but trying to convince any of us that your 8600 gts and x2 5000+ will outperform 8800 gtx and a much higher clocked core 2 duo is simply utter bull. Lay down your weapons, most of us go by facts... However, I'm sure your computer is capable of running FSX.

Btw, how come every cocky newcomer goes by the name "tech"-something?

Edited by Granulf, 10 March 2008 - 01:27 PM.

[tech-drummer]

Granulf, on Mar 10 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

Yet another troll trying to prove something? Go, ahead, but trying to convince any of us that your 8600 gts and x2 5000+ will outperform 8800 gtx and a much higher clocked core 2 duo is simply utter bull. Lay down your weapons, most of us go by facts... However, I'm sure your computer is capable of running FSX.

Btw, how come every cocky newcomer goes by the name "tech"-something?

here is the video-



if i were you i would watch it soon, cause im gonna take it off in a while. This video does not have anthying to do with the 8800gtx, or the core 2 but it shows my 8600gts and me running flight sim at 20fps on ultra high. Yes i know my camera is crappy.
And i know that you guys are goning to try to find every little thing wrong with this video, cause thats just how you are, but save it for the water cooler, will ya ?

[JohnnyC]

i don't mean to bust your bubble bro.. but try flying a 747 (not an ultra) on lax with 100% traffic plus max sliders.. id love to see that video

edit: or at least no traffic is fine

Edited by PR011, 10 March 2008 - 02:05 PM.

[AirX]

PR011, on Mar 10 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

i don't mean to bust your bubble bro.. but try flying a 747 (not an ultra) on lax with 100% traffic plus max sliders.. id love to see that video

edit: or at least no traffic is fine

That would be interesting.

[Granulf]

tech-drummer, on Mar 10 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

here is the video-



if i were you i would watch it soon, cause im gonna take it off in a while. This video does not have anthying to do with the 8800gtx, or the core 2 but it shows my 8600gts and me running flight sim at 20fps on ultra high. Yes i know my camera is crappy.
And i know that you guys are goning to try to find every little thing wrong with this video, cause thats just how you are, but save it for the water cooler, will ya ?

Wow, I can't believe I bothered watching it. You call flying over friday harbor with the ultra light airplane thingy ultra high? I can easily get 60 fps++ stable over that area with the ultra light airplane...

I'm not going to argue with you, as everyone here knows 8600 gts and x2 5000+ aren't the perfect components for FSX.

[Mul.]

First off, welcome to the forums.

I'd like to apologise for the slightly cold welcome you've received here. We aren't an awful bunch, just a bit closed minded in some cases.

$680 isn't an awful lot of money to play with in terms of parts alone for a whole machine so on the whole, what you've done is quite good. At least if your intention is to build a machine for the best performance possible you weren't too far off the mark. With the amount of money you had to play with, there isn't all that much in it between buying an AMD or Intel setup, although an Intel setup would have offered much better flexibility in terms of overclocking and future upgrades to some seriously quick processors.
Personally I probably would've spent the money a bit differently. For example, I would've opted for 2GB RAM instead of 4GB due to the tight budget and invest the money spent in something like a Radeon HD 3850 512mb which has quite a bit more to offer over the 8600GTS in terms of raw power. I would've also opted for a more modest case considering the budget and using the money saved to get a faster LGA775 Core 2 Duo based setup. This would've given you a better performer overall in my opinion but fair play if you're happy with what your system is acheiving.

I will however have to join the rest of the guys in that the 8800GTX is clearly faster than the 8600GTS and I know this purely by having a go with such machines. The only place I've seen the 8600GTS document a higher framerate over the 8800's is Tom's Hardware and let's face it, something was clearly wrong with this test.
I'm also going to agree with the rest that the Core 2 Duo is faster than the Athlon 64 X2 in near enough all price brackets. I've owned both AMD and Intel setups and recently invested in Socket AM2 equipment to compare directly against my Core 2 Duo and the results were very clear.

Regardless, I commend you for a successful PC build and not opting for an Aspire, Xion, Xclio style case or cheaping out on the power supply unit.

Mul

[tech-drummer]

Mul., on Mar 10 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

First off, welcome to the forums.

I'd like to apologise for the slightly cold welcome you've received here. We aren't an awful bunch, just a bit closed minded in some cases.

$680 isn't an awful lot of money to play with in terms of parts alone for a whole machine so on the whole, what you've done is quite good. At least if your intention is to build a machine for the best performance possible you weren't too far off the mark. With the amount of money you had to play with, there isn't all that much in it between buying an AMD or Intel setup, although an Intel setup would have offered much better flexibility in terms of overclocking and future upgrades to some seriously quick processors.
Personally I probably would've spent the money a bit differently. For example, I would've opted for 2GB RAM instead of 4GB due to the tight budget and invest the money spent in something like a Radeon HD 3850 512mb which has quite a bit more to offer over the 8600GTS in terms of raw power. I would've also opted for a more modest case considering the budget and using the money saved to get a faster LGA775 Core 2 Duo based setup. This would've given you a better performer overall in my opinion but fair play if you're happy with what your system is acheiving.

I will however have to join the rest of the guys in that the 8800GTX is clearly faster than the 8600GTS and I know this purely by having a go with such machines. The only place I've seen the 8600GTS document a higher framerate over the 8800's is Tom's Hardware and let's face it, something was clearly wrong with this test.
I'm also going to agree with the rest that the Core 2 Duo is faster than the Athlon 64 X2 in near enough all price brackets. I've owned both AMD and Intel setups and recently invested in Socket AM2 equipment to compare directly against my Core 2 Duo and the results were very clear.

Regardless, I commend you for a successful PC build and not opting for an Aspire, Xion, Xclio style case or cheaping out on the power supply unit.

Mul

Yes i agree with you 100%, but this pc is not only for gaming. I got the 4gb because i use linux as well with windows (and linux will reconize the 4gb). And even tho i know the core 2 duo is better, i would not say its better in terms of overclocking. If you look at the specs, you can see that i got a amd black edetion, witch has an unlocked multiplier, so its good for over clocking.

Im not "the best" at hardware , so i would also like to know...should i overclock my cpu??
i know how to do it and all that but i don't know if i want to take the risk...i have no warrenty or anthying.

And everyone is saying things like i think the core 2 is better...but i havent even said anthying about that...all i said is the the 8600gts works better with my pc, in terms of flight sim.

-tech-drummer

[Mul.]

In regards to the 4GB RAM, that's fair enough if you have a use for it.

In response to the overclocking, I'm afraid the unlocked multiplier isn't everything. Despite this handy little feature, an X2 5000+ Black Edition will generally cap at around 3.2-3.3GHz and up to around 3.5GHz with a bump in voltage. Similarly priced Core 2 Duo's however will hit these speeds without any problem despite having a lower clockspeed to start off with and they'd be faster in terms of work per clock cycle. Overall, AMD is genuinely losing in terms of performance per clock and overclockability. They're still hanging in there thanks to their pricing strategy.

Personally yes I would overclock the CPU. Then again it's something I do to any system that has the options to do so regardless of whether it's required or not. FSX is highly dependant on the CPU and I'd say it'd help a lot. Warranty wise, you shouldn't be worried as CPU's degrade slowly regardless of whether it's overclocked or not, so long as you're not pushing high volts through the chip.

I agree, the 8600GTS is fairly suited to the system. Anything faster would probably be held back by the CPU.

[iKettles]

Mul., on Mar 10 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

Personally yes I would overclock the CPU. Then again it's something I do to any system that has the options to do so regardless of whether it's required or not. FSX is highly dependant on the CPU and I'd say it'd help a lot. Warranty wise, you shouldn't be worried as CPU's degrade slowly regardless of whether it's overclocked or not, so long as you're not pushing high volts through the chip.

Can I also add that Intel have near no way of telling that a chip has been overclocked other than visual damage.

[Mul.]

iKettles, on Mar 10 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

Mul., on Mar 10 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

Personally yes I would overclock the CPU. Then again it's something I do to any system that has the options to do so regardless of whether it's required or not. FSX is highly dependant on the CPU and I'd say it'd help a lot. Warranty wise, you shouldn't be worried as CPU's degrade slowly regardless of whether it's overclocked or not, so long as you're not pushing high volts through the chip.

Can I also add that Intel have near no way of telling that a chip has been overclocked other than visual damage.

Same goes for AMD as well. They could if they wanted to but the inspection process would simply be too costly to implement for every CPU that's RMA'd. But seriously, the failure rate of CPU's overclocked or ran at stock is incredibly low.

[StavosWS6]

tech-drummer, on Mar 10 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

The video im making does show the fps, cause i did hit ctrl z....Just wait for me 2 put it up

This video has been removed by the user.  

[BlueVanGogh]

i'd like to add as well that when u move all the sliders on the main settings page to "ultra high", it does not move every single slider in each tab to the right as well. for instance, "ultra high" under the graphics tab caps the fps at 20, unchecks AA, filtering is set to bilinear, no light bloom....under the scenery tab, "ultra high" settings don't max out the sliders, 1/2 of them are midway, only 2 are maxed..."ultra high" sets the cloud draw distance to minimum, traffic sliders are medium to low....so "ultra high" does not mean every single slider is to the right in each tab!

[learjet45dream]

tech-drummer, on Mar 9 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

well its offical...we both hate eachother

but i have proof in that video right there in my original post- my running flight sim on that vary same computer at about 20fps...if you havent looked at it i would

im new here, but according to your rating, everyone else hates you to

Once again, you go off assuming things about people you don't know.
The rating system does not tell you how many ratings the person has, so that could be only 1 or 2 votes. Stop your complaining. Everyone here is telling you that that computer cannot run FSX on ultra high in most of FS (pretty much everything that isnt a huge body of water), and that there is no way an X2 5000+ is better than a C2D or C2Q with an 8800.

[tech-drummer]

learjet45 aka JK, on Mar 10 2008, 08:55 PM, said:

tech-drummer, on Mar 9 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

well its offical...we both hate eachother

but i have proof in that video right there in my original post- my running flight sim on that vary same computer at about 20fps...if you havent looked at it i would

im new here, but according to your rating, everyone else hates you to

Once again, you go off assuming things about people you don't know.
The rating system does not tell you how many ratings the person has, so that could be only 1 or 2 votes. Stop your complaining. Everyone here is telling you that that computer cannot run FSX on ultra high in most of FS (pretty much everything that isnt a huge body of water), and that there is no way an X2 5000+ is better than a C2D or C2Q with an 8800.

ONce again, i never said anthying about X2 5000+ being than a C2D or C2Q , or that the 8600gts was better than the 8800gtx ultra. All i said is that the 8600gts works better with my systemwhen using fs.

[tech-drummer]

X2 5000+ being Better* than a C2D or C2Q

sry typing issues