Computer build for flight sims

[odie072]

I'm in the market to build a new computer for flight sims using the trackir and I thought that since BS is the main sim I'm looking at, I would come here and get your opinion on the build.

 

I'll have roughly $1000 for the build (excluding monitor and OS), but I also don't want to spend more money than I have too. So to start off, what CPU and GPU would you use.??

 

Thanks and I can't wait to get started as BS looks awesome!!

 

odie072

[mrbinkels]

Check out my sig but get the 4890 instead of the 4870X2 and you'll come in under or right at your budget. I run BS at 1920X1200 with AF at 16X and AA at 8X with NPs. You could go with Nvidia for your video card. There's a few post about rig setups here in the forums, but can be hard to find. Good luck and welcome!

 

Oops almost forgot, YMMV

[EtherealN]

Do you require a case and HDD?

 

If not, the stuff in my sig has served me fantastically, and exclusing screen, case and HDD that 1k should even have a bit to spare.

 

However, mrbinkels, I do not agree with your choice of 8gigs of RAM. There's not much practical use for it today, and your memory bus will have a bigger workload. When, in the future, the 4g becomes a bit on the thin side it's easy to top it up.

 

That also means there's some added savings as well.

 

One note though, mrbinkels, if you do stuff like video editing and encoding or heavy-duty 3D, CAD or photoshop work, then I understand the choice and please disregard. But for just simming... No point. Windows commit charge isn't more than half a gig, give half a gig for random other processes, and DCS is a 32bit application so it won't be using more than 2 gig anyway since that's where it's adress space runs out.

 

I cannot comment on your video card recommendation though, since it's a long while since I used an ATI card. I am however extremely happy with my 9800GTX+. It costs next to nothing, has a fantastic overclock range for those games that are extra graphic, and for the $ spits out some amazing performance. However, it does use the double six-pin PCI-e and is physically large, so always doublecheck the power supplies to ensure the availability of that.

 

To the OP, the one really big recommendation I have is twofold:

Do NOT save money on the power supply.

Do NOT save money on the motherboard.

 

And in the case of the powersupply it's extra treacherous, since it isn't the wattage that's important. My system here only drinks some 350watt on full load (amazingly, and excluding screen). The important thing is the quality of the power supply and it's ability to provide stable (so-called "clean") power on all it's rails. That aside, higher peak wattage is never wrong, but 500-600watt is enough and with margin for most systems. (Though I have seen systems that actually use a full kilowatt on load... crazy people...)

 

On the motherboard, make sure to select one that has good reviews and that is aimed specifically at the overclockers/enthusiast market. Even if you aren't intending to overclock. This makes it a lot easier to do good cheap upgrades in the future. Finally, I would probably recommend that you try to squeeze a motherboard meant for DDR3 into the budget - DD3 memory sticks have fallen quite a bit in price and will make the system easier to upgrade in the future. But I have no problem with my system being a DDR2 one either - though I have overclocked my pretty cheap 800MHz sticks more than most sticks will tolerate; 800MHz stick running at 1092MHz is amazing, and the only reason I stopped there was that they don't have temperature sensors so I don't know how close I am to frying them. I did not stop due to memory faulting or graphical corruption.

 

(Different case in the graphics card, there I stopped at 1300MHz on it's memory due to it creating artefacts on screen. Core didn't mind being jumped to the 820-830MHz range though...)

[mrbinkels]

Sigh, well you def provided more detailed information in your response. Although arguments can be made on both sides as to any of your points, however let's stay on topic instead of picking apart recommendations shall we? Recommendations is what the gentlemen asked for.

Edited June 5, 2009 by mrbinkels

[EtherealN]

Well, I used points in your recommendation to highlight options as I see them. It wasn't intended to be "picking apart" your recommendation. If that is how it came across, please accept my apologies.

 

If you do however have comments that you don't want to clog the thread with, PM me. I'm always interested in second opinion, especially since you are using both CPU and GPU from AMD which is something I have limited experience of (as of late, at least, I used to be all-out AMD from the K5 to the Athlon 64).

 

I realized though that I had forgotten to touch on the CPU side of the OP's question, in which case I would have this to say - though once again, do note that I have no experience of the AMD alternatives:

 

Right now I would say that the best bang-for-buck is the Intel C2D E8400-E8600. If you are an overclocker, you are probably better off with the E8400 since most of them can take enough heat to equal the 8600 (an artefact of the "binning" practice). However, nowadays they are pretty close to each other in price, and the higher ones have a higher maximum multiplier which means you can go higher with less load on the FSB. Value judgement on what's best there. I went for the 8500 myself and is happy with it, though I have been thinking about if I shouldn't have gotten the 8600 to get the higher multiplier, since I believe it is my FSB that's holding my system back.

 

If you are not an overclocker, that series is less attractive, especially since Intel have just commited to the socket change which means that an Exxxx and Qxxxx-based machine might suffer very limited options in future upgrades. The i7 would be the way to go then, but I do not feel that software design generally speaking is at a place (yet, give it a year or two) where there is real gains in it's reinvention of hyperthreading on the extra cores (giving eight "logical" cores, sort of). Also, at current, DCS is not multithreaded and won't be for quite a while, so there are no specific gains above the second core which the E-series has.

 

Other applications and other games do have some such benefits though. Depends entirely on what you intend to do with the system beyond DCS.

 

However, you would then start ending up in a spot where you have to pick and choose. F.ex, I highly doubt you'll squeeze a good DDR3 motherboard in with an i7 and the rest of the system below 1k dollars.

 

mrbinkels might be better acquainted with the AMD processors and their sockets - if they are sticking to a socket that they have in use and appear to be doing so for a while more, I would probably say go for that one just on that point since it allows you to get a cheap system now (but with quality components) while still maintaining the upgrade option.

[odie072]

Here's what I'm thinking so far (I might wind up going a little over my limit):

 

GIGABYTE GA-MA790FXT-UD5P AM3 DDR3 AMD 790FX ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail

 

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor Model HDZ955FBGIBOX - Retail

PC Power & Cooling S75QB 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI NVIDIA SLI Certified (Dual 8800 GTX and below) CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS ... - Retail

XFX HD-489A-ZDFC Radeon HD 4890 1GB 256-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card - Retail

 

I have a hdd and dvd already, so that will help.

 

Thanks

 

odie072

[mrbinkels]

Odie072, Make sure you research as EtherealN stated previously. I went with AMD products because it saved me quite a bit of money in relation to attainable performance. We all know Intel is champ when it comes to raw cpu power. However, IMO, at the end of the day, when all the components are put together, the small increase in performance you may gain in some applications with Intel is not worth spending the extra $$$ for a top of the line intel cpu/mobo combo.

 

In my upgrade/situation I was not going to settle for anything less than the top of the line AMD or Intel cpu combo. However spending $1300 on a Intel cpu/mobo was just not cost effective. Although I will admit it was very tempting.

 

So in the end, digest as much info as you can and make an informed decision that you will be satisfied with.

 

IMO you can't go wrong with your choices there.

Edited June 6, 2009 by mrbinkels
spelling

[EtherealN]

Agreed with mrbinkels.

 

The PSU is one I've never read about but I did a quick look-around and it looks like quality. Just verify which power connectors the GPU wants (if it's 8pin or 6pin PCIe's) and that the PSU has them.

 

Another point is to see if you can verify the physical size of the graphics card. The one I have is just MASSIVE and there were some really tight margins in my previous case since it actually intruded into the HDD-cabinet. Though, if your case is a fulltower this isn't likely to be a problem - my previous one was a mid-tower and things are a bit tighter there.

 

Then it's mainly just a question of selecting memory sticks. I would normally have recommended going for Crucial's BallistiX-line since I have only good experience of it, but I have no experience of their DDR3 products and I have seen people complain about some of Crucial's products failing early.

[Immermann]

I'd consider the PhenomII X3 720BE, recent tests seem to show that tripple-core is the sweetspot for the newer games, and a fourth core doesn't bring much more to the table. Unless you do decodes and such of course.

 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/multi-core-cpu,review-31567.html#

[shadowze]

To answer the original post

 

CPU: i7 920 ( you can overclock the hell outa them)

 

GPU: Fastest single GPU available 4890 or if you have more money gtx285

 

PSU: aviod hyper psu's like the plague , tagan make some nice ones

 

Mobo: for i7 there is a nice entry cost board from gigabyte ex-58-ud3r

 

ram: IF you are going to use 64bit OS then get 6G of the fastest DDR3 you can afford , otherwise just get 3G. AVOID crucial like the plague. Corsair do some really good stuff at not bad prices. OCZ if you can afford it.

 

 

 

 

[EtherealN]

You might want to add some qualifiers to that. I have only good (in fact, fantastic) experience of Crucial memory, though I have read about people who have had some negative experiences.

 

Reading multiple reviews on every component is the way to go, always.

[mrbinkels]

My 8 gigs of Crucial DDR3 1066 runs at 1333 just fine.

Edited June 14, 2009 by mrbinkels

[shadowze]

Qualifiers:

Things like went through 3 sets of crucial ballistix in 9 months

That was running them at stock speeds and voltages

 

I suppose the bright side was they have a life time warranty so when this last set dies , I can get another set that will run for a while then die.

 

2 sets dying is not good in my book.

 

Hint:

If you are thinking about buying something google "nameofitem problems"

To see what comes up

 

"crucial ram dying" is a good one to look at