# New system advice on parts please.



## Alcpone (Jan 29, 2013)

Hi all, back on TPU for some much needed advice which is needed badly please. Basically I need advice on building a system from scratch, everything needed barring the OS. Would mainly basically use it for FSX as thats my passion, maybe future proof within budget. Looking to try and keep it within 1k, probably not possible? Would want it to run it flawlessly with all the addons I have taking extra oomph. If any FSX gurus are about that would be even better. So answers on a postcard  

PS I need a monitor also.

Thanks


----------



## SirKeldon (Jan 29, 2013)

Didn't see that you finally moved the thread, so forget my question there, i'm gonna redo it here. 

Are you planning to keep using MacOS (as your current iMac) in any way besides that Windows for FSX?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 29, 2013)

So all your worried about is being able to max out FSX? And you need a monitor? FSX isn't very demanding hardware wise. This will max out FSX with room to spare-

AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ 14MB Cache Retail B...

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-D3 Socket AM3+ 7.1 Channel HD A...

Crucial 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600Mhz Ballistix Tactica...

Sapphire HD 7950 3GB GDDR5 DVI HDMI Dual Mini.. | ...

Xfx Proseries 550w Power Supply Unit (core Edition...

Seagate 1TB Barracuda Internal Hard Drive

Antec All Black 302 Three Hundred Two Case | Ebuye...

HANNS-G HL272HPB LED TFT 27" HDMI Monitor | Ebuyer...

Cart total inc vat:

£768.46


----------



## McSteel (Jan 29, 2013)

Here's a rough ballpark estimate.

You could go cheaper by going for a smaller/cheaper SSD or omitting it completely. However, load times will decrease significantly for a game such as FSX should you opt to keep it. Perhaps you don't need a terabyte of "traditional" HDD storage... Maybe you have an external HDD or something similar - in which case chuck the extra HDD out for some penny-pinching.

FSX is really CPU intensive, especially when you dial "traffic" up to high (or beyond, with addons), thus i5 3570K. You could very well do with a cheaper variant, or perhaps an AMD system, so there's that opportunity to save a few pounds. 

GPU requirements are below what I suggest, but for maximum eyecandy, you probably don't want to go much lower (opting for, say, an HD7850 or a GTX660/650Ti). Chance to save some more money.

I'd say the motherboard is spot-on, since it gives the most for money spent. You could potentially pinch up to 20GBP there, but I'd recommend against it. A dedicated CPU heatsink is always welcome to keep noise and temps down. CM 212EVO is a classic, and does well for how cheap it is. I'd leave it, but it's not mandatory.

Case is a matter of taste, so I just suggested the one I like the most. Feel free to go cheaper, down to say Xigmatek Midgard or Antec 902 or Bitfenix Merc Alpha/Beta or something along those lines.

As for the monitor, the U2312HM is blazing-fast (for an IPS), has wide viewing angles, nice colors, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Perhaps you'd like a greater diagonal/resolution, but I believe 1080p is sufficient for now. You can always add some more to get a multi-display enjoyment, FSX sure knows how to make the best of it.

The PSU is a bit overkill as far as power requirements are concerned, but you can't go much lower in price without getting lesser quality, and much less power. You could go for a similarly priced Seasonic G 550 to gain a bit more efficiency, if you wanted.

Well, that's all from me, for now. Good luck with your build, and take your time choosing your components!


----------



## Alcpone (Jan 29, 2013)

SirKeldon said:


> Didn't see that you finally moved the thread, so forget my question there, i'm gonna redo it here.
> 
> Are you planning to keep using MacOS (as your current iMac) in any way besides that Windows for FSX?



The Mac is staying as is for the wife, I have a copy of win 7 so that will be going on the new system 



BarbaricSoul said:


> So all your worried about is being able to max out FSX? And you need a monitor? FSX isn't very demanding hardware wise. This will max out FSX with room to spare-
> 
> AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ 14MB Cache Retail B...
> 
> ...



That's a good price, I was expecting much more, I never thought about a AMD system as never had one. Will it clock well, not to the edge of it's life but something for me to fiddle with 



McSteel said:


> Here's a rough ballpark estimate.
> 
> You could go cheaper by going for a smaller/cheaper SSD or omitting it completely. However, load times will decrease significantly for a game such as FSX should you opt to keep it. Perhaps you don't need a terabyte of "traditional" HDD storage... Maybe you have an external HDD or something similar - in which case chuck the extra HDD out for some penny-pinching.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the indepth description. I would quite like a SSD so will definitely consider that, I have a few old skool HDD that are still chugging along for storage, 1 is 10 years old and is still kicking into life every time I stick it in my enclosure, it will probs die now haha. Does that i5 clock nicely? Again not to the edge of its life but a good bit more than stock. A nice nvidia will do nicely as I know they are a bit better for FSX. I will have a good look through what you suggest and thank you all, muchly appreciate the help


----------



## Altered (Jan 29, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> That's a good price, I was expecting much more, I never thought about a AMD system as never had one. Will it clock well, not to the edge of it's life but something for me to fiddle with



From what I have read Vishera processors do quite well. I have just ordered a 8320 myself based off the reading and from what I read a frequency of 4.5 to 4.7 has been pretty common. Here is a good thread to read up on as well. http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153443


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 29, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> That's a good price, I was expecting much more, I never thought about a AMD system as never had one. Will it clock well, not to the edge of it's life but something for me to fiddle with
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the indepth description. I would quite like a SSD so will definitely consider that, I have a few old skool HDD that are still chugging along for storage, 1 is 10 years old and is still kicking into life every time I stick it in my enclosure, it will probs die now haha. Does that i5 clock nicely? Again not to the edge of its life but a good bit more than stock. A nice nvidia will do nicely as I know they are a bit better for FSX. I will have a good look through what you suggest and thank you all, muchly appreciate the help



AMD newest CPUs are very good performers. Not quite equal to Intel, but not far off either. Definently worth considering. Add a SSD to the build and it'll be one sweet gaming rig. Also cosider that my build has a 27" monitor as compared to McSteel's build with a 24" monitor. Personally, between the two builds, I'd go with the AMD build with the 27" monitor. I built a system for my newphew using the FX6100, and during the 3 days I had it running before turning it over to my nephew, it impressed me. In everyday use, and some gaming, I couldn't tell a difference between it and my 2600k system.

Oh, and about your comment about AMD/Nvidia video cards. The 7950 is an excellent performing video card capable of equaling any Nvidia card save maybe the GTX680. And even then, with a good OC'ing 7950, it is possible to match a stock GTX680.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 29, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> AMD newest CPUs are very good performers. Not quite equal to Intel, but not far off either. Definently worth considering. Add a SSD to the build and it'll be one sweet gaming rig. Also cosider that my build has a 27" monitor as compared to McSteel's build with a 24" monitor. Personally, between the two builds, I'd go with the AMD build with the 27" monitor. I built a system for my newphew using the FX6100, and during the 3 days I had it running before turning it over to my nephew, it impressed me. In everyday use, and some gaming, I couldn't tell a difference between it and my 2600k system.
> 
> Oh, and about your comment about AMD/Nvidia video cards. The 7950 is an excellent performing video card capable of equaling any Nvidia card save maybe the GTX680. And even then, with a good OC'ing 7950, it is possible to match a stock GTX680.



This. Everything this.
See my system specs for the speed of AMD chips and gpus, they clock to kingdom come, and without crossfire you can hit a 7950 on the head at 1.3ghz core. Max FPS of something stupid like 212... probably on Sleeping Dogs though.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 3, 2013)

If I was to run the OS on a run of the mill 1Tb SATA HDD and FSX off a 256Gb SSD would that work out ok or would I have problems and if I was to go the AMD route would a AMD/ATi GFX card be a better performer than nVidia? Probably a stupid question but I am very much out of the loop when it comes to hardware. 

Cheers


----------



## Cotton_Cup (Feb 3, 2013)

side note: just curious what is FSX?


----------



## n0tiert (Feb 3, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> If I was to run the OS on a run of the mill 1Tb SATA HDD and FSX off a 256Gb SSD would that work out ok or would I have problems and if I was to go the AMD route would a AMD/ATi GFX card be a better performer than nVidia? Probably a stupid question but I am very much out of the loop when it comes to hardware.
> 
> Cheers



depends on how much u wanna spend , 

a nice AMD setup could look like :







(newegg)




well u could save a few bucks on different hardware pieces....... but if u want 3 years+ of fun that´s a setup i would recommended.......
my old rig is build 2008 and i still run latest games in good modes, without being updated with Hardware

close to your 1k budget:


----------



## drdeathx (Feb 3, 2013)

*What's the budget?*


----------



## Jetster (Feb 3, 2013)

FSX is MS Flight Sim. And no put your OS and FSX on the SSD


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 3, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> *what's the budget?*



Then read the OP again. He did say what his budget was. No need for caps either, we're not grilling the guy.



Alcpone said:


> Looking to try and keep it within 1k, probably not possible?



I suspect he means 1k in £ since he lives in the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong, Alcpone.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 3, 2013)

Yeah 1k = 1 thousand £.

I thought the best way to go with FSX was to have it on a separate HDD to the OS? 

£1200 is probably abit much to justify it to the one in charge haha.

I just want a system that will run FSX and all my addons at full eye candy with headroom for the future and so I can clock the CPU and GFX but not have to change the GFX cooler so will be very moderate clocking on that. 

Writing in CAPS is not needed as my eyesight is fairly good


----------



## JrRacinFan (Feb 3, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> So all your worried about is being able to max out FSX? And you need a monitor? FSX isn't very demanding hardware wise. This will max out FSX with room to spare-
> 
> AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ 14MB Cache Retail B...
> 
> ...



Got some room here to play with
Could go up to the 8320
AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ 16MB Cache Retail B...

Throw an SSD in there
Crucial 128GB M4 SSD - 2.5" SATA-III - Read.. | Eb...

Maybe look into a cooler.


----------



## Cotton_Cup (Feb 3, 2013)

just in case you are wondering on how to put a thermal paste here is a some what of a guide....

How to Apply Thermal Paste the Kentucky Way - YouT...


----------



## blibba (Feb 3, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> If I was to run the OS on a run of the mill 1Tb SATA HDD and FSX off a 256Gb SSD would that work out ok or would I have problems



It'd work, but I don't see why you wouldn't put both on the SSD. You can always relocate My Documents, My Music etc. to the HDD.



Alcpone said:


> and if I was to go the AMD route would a AMD/ATi GFX card be a better performer than nVidia? Probably a stupid question but I am very much out of the loop when it comes to hardware.
> 
> Cheers



That very much depends on the particular cards in question. What I will say is that current gen AMD cards are having some driver issues, which are not yet fully resolved in all games - see the last few articles at http://techreport.com/graphics/.

Anyway, he's my recommended build. It's a little overkill, as FSX is a fairly old game now, and your budget is £1000. You could play this game very comfortably for half that. I'm presuming here that you're into overclocking. I'm also presuming that you don't need an optical drive, what with it being 2013 and all.

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/Bh17


----------



## n0tiert (Feb 4, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> Yeah 1k = 1 thousand £.
> 
> I thought the best way to go with FSX was to have it on a separate HDD to the OS?
> 
> ...



hi,

i think you have been introduced to enough systems....
it´s up to you to pick one and make your choice
they all run FSX smooth..... take your gear

if u find some betta & cheaper let us know, we all gonna buy there then 





blibba said:


> It'd work, but I don't see why you wouldn't put both on the SSD. You can always relocate My Documents, My Music etc. to the HDD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if u count all mail & send fees u are over 1k


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 4, 2013)

Thanks for the replies. I will have to make a decision on what to get, most likely a AMD chip with a nVidia card. With FSX taking up a fair chunk of 200Gb on my current system I might need to get a chunk sized SSD : )


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 5, 2013)

What do you guys think of this setup? Anything that won't work together? 

Cheers


----------



## xenocide (Feb 5, 2013)

Not bad, but I'd consider the FX-8320, since it shouldn't cost much more and you get a fantastic CPU for heavily threaded applications.  Not sure how FSX is threaded, but I know most simulation-based games tend to go bananas when it comes to threading, so it may be in your best interest.  It also buys you a tiny bit more future-proofing.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 6, 2013)

Do you think a faster 1gb gfx card will be a better buy than a slightly slower 2gb? Cheers


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 6, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> Do you think a faster 1gb gfx card will be a better buy than a slightly slower 2gb? Cheers



No, invest in a 2Gb card, you will be glad you did long term. A powerful 1Gb card will work better until you run out of VRAM which hits your performance a lot harder than  a slightly slower card with more VRAM.


----------



## blibba (Feb 6, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> What do you guys think of this setup? Anything that won't work together?
> 
> Cheers



Why that particular case and PSU?

And what put you off an SSD?

Also, what are you going to use the optical drive for?


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 6, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> No, invest in a 2Gb card, you will be glad you did long term. A powerful 1Gb card will work better until you run out of VRAM which hits your performance a lot harder than  a slightly slower card with more VRAM.



Ok thanks


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 6, 2013)

blibba said:


> Why that particular case and PSU?
> 
> And what put you off an SSD?
> 
> Also, what are you going to use the optical drive for?



I am just trying to keep costs down, I have picked a different case now, 550 watts should be ample for me. A SSD from what I have read is good for bootup times but real world gaming wont make a massive difference so I can't justify the cost tbh.


----------



## McSteel (Feb 6, 2013)

A game that keeps dynamically loading the map and related textures (like FSX does) actually IS going to benefit from being run off an SSD... Maybe it won't be a whole world of difference, but you'd certainly notice. And having an overall agile system can't hurt either. Plus it helps with keeping the noise/vibrations down.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 6, 2013)

I hear what your saying, a SSD can be added easily at a later date so I will probably add one when prices get abit cheaper. I am trying to keep the wife happy so the less I have to pay the better.


----------



## McSteel (Feb 6, 2013)

Oh, I'm not trying to convince you or even presume to push you into a decision... Wouldn't want to incur the wife's wrath 

I was simply pointing out the logic (or perhaps justification) behind claiming that an SSD is a good investment on multiple levels. If not for you directly, then for those reading this thread, having a similar dilemma.


----------



## Irony (Feb 7, 2013)

that last setup you had a shot of looks pretty good. I can definitely vouch for Gigabyte windforce cards, if the 2 fan version is anything like the three fan on my 670 (which never has gone beyond 50c, even OC'ed to 1400mhz) You should never have cooling issues with the card.

What case did you pick?


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 7, 2013)

I'm going to go with this one, don't want something too flash http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/cooler-master-case-rc361kkn1


----------



## tokyoduong (Feb 7, 2013)

You can always just use a fast hard drive like velociraptor now and add an SSD later to use as cache. It'll work on z77 intel chipset and up. It'lll also work on mountain lion OSX for macs.


----------



## RCoon (Feb 7, 2013)

I recommend you try to buy everything from one place to save on postage. You may say certain shops have things cheaper, but you will likely find if you give them a call, they will do their best to price match everything you have referenced from other shops.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 7, 2013)

All my parts should be here tomorrow  Can't wait to get building again, has been along time since I last built a rig. 

Ended up getting a SSD 240Gb so that will do nicely for the OS and FSX and some room left over. I opted for the GTX 650ti OC 2 Gb GFX card aswel, that should work nicely and it was well priced, so fingers crossed I should have it all up and running tomorrow night.

Thanks all for the help.


----------



## tokyoduong (Feb 8, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> All my parts should be here tomorrow  Can't wait to get building again, has been along time since I last built a rig.
> 
> Ended up getting a SSD 240Gb so that will do nicely for the OS and FSX and some room left over. I opted for the GTX 650ti OC 2 Gb GFX card aswel, that should work nicely and it was well priced, so fingers crossed I should have it all up and running tomorrow night.
> 
> Thanks all for the help.



I'm puzzled why you picked 650ti 2GB. You could've saved money with the 1GB. That GPU is just too slow with res above 1080p for you to need 2 GB.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 8, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> I'm puzzled why you picked 650ti 2GB. You could've saved money with the 1GB. That GPU is just too slow with res above 1080p for you to need 2 GB.



No need to go above 1080p to use more than 1 GB of VRAM. Almost every new game overshoots 1 GB VRAM at max settings for textures.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 8, 2013)

I did ask the question if I should get a 1Gb card or a 2Gb and was told to go for the 2Gb, so that's what I did, too late now i'm building it as we speak  The whole system has cost me £700 so I am happy with that, as I have been out of the home built game for alot of years I am pretty much needing alot of input and I just went off what I was told.


----------



## tokyoduong (Feb 8, 2013)

BiggieShady said:


> No need to go above 1080p to use more than 1 GB of VRAM. Almost every new game overshoots 1 GB VRAM at max settings for textures.



Again, this is a 650. He won't be able to go ultra settings at 1080p. I play SC2 on ultra with my 7850 1 GB and it's smooth unless there's like 2000 units on screen battling each other.


----------



## tokyoduong (Feb 8, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> I did ask the question if I should get a 1Gb card or a 2Gb and was told to go for the 2Gb, so that's what I did, too late now i'm building it as we speak  The whole system has cost me £700 so I am happy with that, as I have been out of the home built game for alot of years I am pretty much needing alot of input and I just went off what I was told.



here is the general performance overview of differences between 1gb and 2gb.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Amp_Edition/28.html

The 2 GB version of this is actually and that explains most of the difference in performance numbers. The 2 GB advantage doesn't actually show itself until 1200p or higher. But since the GPU itself is too slow to take advantage of that then that difference is a mere 3-4%. I can't imagine you playing at that resolution with that card unless you're on low settings. If that's the case, you might as well play at 768p on high lol.

Is it possible to return it for a slightly hgher model with just 1 GB of VRAM? I would say 7850 1GB should cost about the same as a 650ti 2GB.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 8, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> Again, this is a 650. He won't be able to go ultra settings at 1080p. I play SC2 on ultra with my 7850 1 GB and it's smooth unless there's like 2000 units on screen battling each other.



He won't be able to max out everything at 1080p, but he will enjoy high resolution textures with medium shading and post processing settings.


----------



## tokyoduong (Feb 8, 2013)

BiggieShady said:


> He won't be able to max out everything at 1080p, but he will enjoy high resolution textures with medium shading and post processing settings.



Then he doesn't need anymore than 1 GB for that. Any game that requires more than 1 GB of VRAM on medium/high settings at 1080p, that GPU will not be able run the game smoothly. Look at the reviews and stop trying to prove something that's not there. 

He can play most new titles with that on medium to high at 1080p without 4xMSAA. You won't reach 1GB requirement. As stated in the tpu review, the performance drop at when you go past 1 GB for that GPU is not much of a difference because it's more bandwidth and gpu limited than memory limited. A quick analysis of the review data will tell you that.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 8, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> the performance drop at when you go past 1 GB for that GPU is not much of a difference because it's more bandwidth and gpu limited than memory limited.



So you argue that some games are not 1 GB VRAM limited? Good, nothing to add there.

Here are some that are: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18255161
Mind you these are all at least year and a half old games.


----------



## tokyoduong (Feb 8, 2013)

BiggieShady said:


> So you argue that some games are not 1 GB VRAM limited? Good, nothing to add there.
> 
> Here are some that are: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18255161
> Mind you these are all at least year and a half old games.



those guys are talking about games like metro 2033 and bf3 and they had trouble running with high end cards. The 650ti will run out of gpu horsepower and memory bandwidth before it runs out of VRAM. 

Take a look at the charts.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Amp_Edition/16.html
By the time you see a significant advantage of 2GB over 1GB, the performance is already in the gutter 2 settings before that.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Amp_Edition/8.html
same for BF3. And this is a NVIDIA advantage title


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 8, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> those guys are talking about games like metro 2033 and bf3 and they had trouble running with high end cards. The 650ti will run out of gpu horsepower and memory bandwidth before it runs out of VRAM.
> 
> Take a look at the charts.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Amp_Edition/16.html
> ...



I should be shocked that 650 Ti can't play Metro 2033 on 1080p with everything on very high?

No one sane would suggest anyone to buy 650 Ti for Metro 2033 no matter how much VRAM it has. But hey, if someone already owns one with 2 GB of VRAM, I hope they are aware that they can play Metro with maxed out textures, and other settings on medium. 

Low memory bandwidth is horrible for antialiasing and higher screen resolutions, but it has much lesser effect to performance when using high res. textures over medium res. textures. 

It's the open world games where I see VRAM limitations the most - stuttering after sudden change of view direction caused by RAM to VRAM transfer over PCI-E. It's the mother of all stutters. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I envy you


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 9, 2013)

Got it all up and running, don't know if I am going to regret going the AMD route, but I have got FSX installed and the FPS are rather sucky, the i5 in the mac was giving me better, I may have to fiddle on with the cfg file alot more to get it even playable, quite disappointed tbh


----------



## Irony (Feb 10, 2013)

Whats bottlenecking? CPU or graphics?


----------



## blibba (Feb 10, 2013)

Have you checked drivers, overheating, GPU load, etc.?


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 10, 2013)

Irony said:


> Whats bottlenecking? CPU or graphics?



To check that compare FPS you get with highest and lowest screen resolution. If there is not much change, it's CPU bottleneck.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 10, 2013)

Irony said:


> Whats bottlenecking? CPU or graphics?



I think it will be the CPU as it is a CPU orientated game.



blibba said:


> Have you checked drivers, overheating, GPU load, etc.?



I have all the latest drivers installed, the GFX card should be more than enough



BiggieShady said:


> To check that compare FPS you get with highest and lowest screen resolution. If there is not much change, it's CPU bottleneck.



I am going to have to clock it some what, I will need better cooling to start with before hand though. I am wishing I never went the AMD route, but hey ho, we live and learn.


----------



## blibba (Feb 10, 2013)

I ask about GPU load not because I think the GPU is insufficient, but in case it is not being loaded properly. Also, you never responded regarding temperatures - if anything's getting too hot, it will throttle, resulting in poor performance.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 10, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> I am going to have to clock it some what, I will need better cooling to start with before hand though. I am wishing I never went the AMD route, but hey ho, we live and learn.



How in the hell is that six core 3.5ghz cpu not handling FSX when FSX minimum requirements are-


```
Minimum System Requirements •Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 
•Processor: 1.0 Ghz 
•RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB 
•Hard Drive: 14GB 
•Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible 
•Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones
 •Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play
```

Min specs say a 1 ghz single core cpu is sufficent. Recommeneded is going to be well under what the FX 6300 is. That is why I recommended the FX 6300 originally. I've used a FX 6100 myself, and I didn't notice a hugh difference between it and my 2600k. But then again, I see you blew a hugh chunk of your budget on a 240 gb SSD and went with *a lot* lower performance video card (mistake IMHO, SSDs are nice, but not worth skimping on something like the video card for). Looking at TPU's review of the GTX650, I wouldn't even consider it a gaming card. The HD7770 by AMD, which sells for about $120 gives 20% more performance. I would look at the GTX650 before assuming the CPU is the bottleneck.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 10, 2013)

blibba said:


> I ask about GPU load not because I think the GPU is insufficient, but in case it is not being loaded properly. Also, you never responded regarding temperatures - if anything's getting too hot, it will throttle, resulting in poor performance.



How can I tell what kind of load the GPU is getting? Is their any programs I can use to see? It has a massive heatsink and 2 100mm fans that arn't spinning like mad so I dont think it is getting too hot.



BarbaricSoul said:


> How in the hell is that six core 3.5ghz cpu not handling FSX when FSX minimum requirements are-
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



Have you used a fx 6100 in fsx? Only 3 of the 6 cores are getting full load when running it, I have tried the fsx tweak tool aswel to get more cores going, if I could get 5 of the 6 running at full wack I think I might make head way on the FPS. As FSX is a cpu heavy game I dont think having the 650 will be a problem. I was running it better on a HD6750m 512mb gfx card in the imac, which is a much older card with less power than the gtx650, yes its not the best of cards for other newer games but for fsx it should be fine. The SSD was recommended for loading the terrain in quicker as that is what it has to do all the way through a flight, probably not a massive difference in load times but thats what I bought thinking it would make a difference. Hopefully I will find a sweet spot to run it with the hardware I have


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 10, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> How in the hell is that six core 3.5ghz cpu not handling FSX when FSX minimum requirements are-
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



Opps, I'm mistaken on the actual card you bought. I missed the ti in your specs. But even so, the GTX650ti isn't much better than the regular GTX650, with performance just over that of the $120 HD7770. Still not what I consider a "gaming" video card. There is a reason I recommended a HD7950. If you really wanted to go with Nvidia, you should have atleast got a GTX660ti IMHO.



> How can I tell what kind of load the GPU is getting? Is their any programs I can use to see? It has a massive heatsink and 2 100mm fans that arn't spinning like mad so I dont think it is getting too hot.



MSI Afterburner will show you the load on the the video card


----------



## blibba (Feb 10, 2013)

650TIs are fine, comparable to the 560TI that everyone was worshipping last gen.

They fall between the 7770 and 7850, both of which are perfectly viable cards for 1080p.

OP: You can use GPU-Z to monitor GPU load, HWmon to monitor temps.

When you say that only three cores are being loaded, are they being fully loaded?


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 10, 2013)

I have been doing some more tweaking and it is certainly running smoother, getting high 20's fps now. So I am fairly happy with the outcome. I have taken this screenshot for you to see, most I have seen the gfx card loaded to is 50ish % so that can definitly cope, I have played some hitman and it struggles to get over medium settings in that with adequate fps, it is a fun game though none the less and looks very nice. What would you say was the highest temps for the cpu I could safely run at? I am getting a new case fan to get some cooler air in next week and a definite aftermarket cpu cooler to do some clocking, should beable to clock it to 4.1ghz happily. If I do clock it will it clock down when it has not alot of load like it does now?


----------



## blibba (Feb 10, 2013)

Alcpone said:


> I have been doing some more tweaking and it is certainly running smoother, getting high 20's fps now. So I am fairly happy with the outcome. I have taken this screenshot for you to see, most I have seen the gfx card loaded to is 50ish % so that can definitly cope, I have played some hitman and it struggles to get over medium settings in that with adequate fps, it is a fun game though none the less and looks very nice. What would you say was the highest temps for the cpu I could safely run at? I am getting a new case fan to get some cooler air in next week and a definite aftermarket cpu cooler to do some clocking, should beable to clock it to 4.1ghz happily. If I do clock it will it clock down when it has not alot of load like it does now?



Looks like it really is the CPU holding you back. Possibly FSX is just compiled with Intel in mind. You could look into the option of returning it and switching to a 3570K, but that'd probably be pretty expensive at this point, if they let you at all.

You might be able to do quite a lot better than 4.1GHZ. Remember to disable turbo before you start overclocking. Your maximum temperature is about 60 degrees for modern AMD CPUs. If you go above that, you won't damage the CPU, but it will throttle and lose performance (temporarily). The only way you're going to damage anything is with excessive voltage - just read some reviews and guides for AMD Piledriver (FX-*3**), to see what kind of voltages to be considering.

The downclock you mention is a set of power-saving features which can be enabled and disabled in the BIOS. I've had no issues overclocking with them left enabled on numerous Intel and AMD chips in the past. I've never tried an FX, but I don't see why it should be any different.

EDIT: I forgot to mention - have you downloaded the Windows 7 hotfixes for AMD FX performance? They're not huge but they might help a bit.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 10, 2013)

blibba said:


> Looks like it really is the CPU holding you back. Possibly FSX is just compiled with Intel in mind. You could look into the option of returning it and switching to a 3570K, but that'd probably be pretty expensive at this point, if they let you at all.
> 
> You might be able to do quite a lot better than 4.1GHZ. Remember to disable turbo before you start overclocking. Your maximum temperature is about 60 degrees for modern AMD CPUs. If you go above that, you won't damage the CPU, but it will throttle and lose performance (temporarily). The only way you're going to damage anything is with excessive voltage - just read some reviews and guides for AMD Piledriver (FX-*3**), to see what kind of voltages to be considering.
> 
> The downclock you mention is a set of power-saving features which can be enabled and disabled in the BIOS. I've had no issues overclocking with them left enabled on numerous Intel and AMD chips in the past. I've never tried an FX, but I don't see why it should be any different.



I could ask but I doubt it as it isn't faulty. The 3570k chip alone would of cost me the same as this chip and the mobo cost, so I would have another chunk of cash to splash out on the intel mobo, I will probably settle for this, I may beable to get another core pumping at full wack leaving one for other stuff and a nice oc to get some more fps. FSX is one mother of a cpu drain.

I will do a google on them and see if it makes a difference, cheers for the help


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 10, 2013)

It really surprises me that the FX6300 can't handle FSX. By that, even the best Core2Quad couldn't handle FSX as the FX6300 has more performance than the Q9650 core for core. How a game with minimum specs for a 1 ghz single core could bottleneck on a modern 3.5ghz 6-core, or even a quad core for that matter, just baffles me. If the FX6300 can't handle FSX, how in the hell is a 1ghz single core going to


----------



## McSteel (Feb 10, 2013)

Minimum requirements are for minimum settings. Once you increase the traffic setting to maximum, even a modern Ivy Bridge will sweat blood. Compared to FSX, GTA IV is a timid little mouse when it comes to CPU hogging...


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 10, 2013)

McSteel said:


> Minimum requirements are for minimum settings. Once you increase the traffic setting to maximum, even a modern Ivy Bridge will sweat blood. Compared to FSX, GTA IV is a timid little mouse when it comes to CPU hogging...



What he said, although world of ai works the best of all the traffic programs ive used and takes the least power to run it. Win win situation


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 10, 2013)

Apparently.

Funny, never really had any interest in playing FSX until now. Hmmm, a game that will actually push my system. Too bad it'll only use 4 threads.


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 11, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Apparently.
> 
> Funny, never really had any interest in playing FSX until now. Hmmm, a game that will actually push my system. Too bad it'll only use 4 threads.



I've had it using all 6 cores, alot of tinkering is needed with the FSX.CFG file or even your i7 will struggle.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 11, 2013)

how's it run with all 6 cores being used?


----------



## Alcpone (Feb 12, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> how's it run with all 6 cores being used?



It is running better, Atleast it is pushing the chip now, still tweaking the cfg file and need a bigger cooler to start clocking. Hopefully I can get it up to 4.3ghz ish.


----------

