Hardware for best performance in DCS

[pieceofmind]

This is my first post here so I hope I'm starting this thread in the right place.

 

Buying DCS has really fired up my interest in flight sims again and I'm finally going to get round to building a machine that can run this game well.

 

I'm just looking for some general advice about what hardware components should receive the most attention. My main priority for this build, as the title may suggest, is performance in DCS Black Shark (and possibly the subsequent titles from DCS).

 

I'll briefly list the proposed specs then I'll have a couple questions... (well, more than a couple:lol:)

 

Motherboard: ASUS P5Q PRO Turbo

CPU: Intel E8500 with Xigmatek HDT-S1283 attached.

VGA: Gigabyte GeForce 9600GT SilentCell

RAM: OCZ 2x2GB DDR PC8500 (1066MHz)

HDD: One or two Samsung spinpoint drives I already own. 7200rpm.

PSU: Vantec ION2 C Series 460W

Case: Thermaltake Element S

 

 

I intend to overclock the CPU and probably the graphics card as well. As such I'll be keeping a close eye on the thermal dynamics in the system and I'll be adding more fans than are provided by the case alone.

 

First, a couple of points.

I'm a fairly regular reader of the SPCR forums so you might be able to guess that low noise is a high priority for me. I've built one system before (in an Antec P182) and I was very pleased with how quiet it was. It convinced me to never buy a pre-built desktop PC again! i.e. A DIY'er was born.:)

 

Anyway, the low noise is the reason I have toyed with the idea of the passive graphics card. However if DCS would benefit significantly more from a more powerful graphics card then I will be willing to sacrifice some of the peace and quiet! This is one of the things I am looking for advice on, as I know my current graphics card is probably well behind the average that you all probably have by now (a Gigabyte 8600GTS fanless card).

 

I have read advice that a dual core CPU is best for DCS, so I have gone with the relatively good value (compared to the E8600) E8500. Is this overkill for DCS or not enough? The very low power consumption is one of the things that attracted me to this line of CPU.

 

The other questions I have are mainly about the operating system. I will initially use Windows XP 32bit but I want to leave the Windows 7 upgrade option open as well. In that case I'd probably create a separate partition for the new OS and keep XP for the older games. I actually don't know much about the difference between 32bit and 64bit OS's or CPUs but I'm mainly interested in their effects on DCS performance. :D Any tips here?

 

For the record, I'm hoping to use this machine for the other sims I've come to love (Jane's FA18, FSX, IL2 Sturmovik and a couple others).

 

In particular, does my choice of RAM, CPU, and graphics card look reasonable? If one of the things is clearly going to bottleneck the whole system then please argue that! Is there some massive blunder I have made with these component choices?

 

One final thing.. I'm assuming the hard drive performance is not a big priority so I am probably going to start off with a couple of the drives from my existing PC. Is there any gain to be hard from using a 10k RPM drive? I'm not even going to touch SSD! :lol: Assuming I use two drives where one is better than the other, would it be wise to place the OS and game install on separate disks, and if so, which of the OS or game should get the better performing drive?

 

Thanks in advance!

Piece

 

EDIT.. Fixed a typo. The VGA was meant to be a 9600GT not a 8600!

Edited August 3, 2009 by pieceofmind

[Shaman]

It's pretty much same rig as mine, diffrence is I have E8400, and GeForce 9800GTS. Haven't OC anything yet. Flying @ 1680x1050, 16xAA, 16xAF, in-game default HIGH settings, and it's all aya. However huge missions tend to slow things down, then I propose to fiddle with in-game settings for them only, f.e. lower down shadows.

I was consindering to OC my CPU, but for now I do not drop below smooth framerates during offline campaign play, so I don't bother.

[CE_Mikemonster]

I have the E8500 and that exact cooler (the Thermaltake).

 

You'll need to OC the E8500 in order to run [very]reasonable graphics in DCS.

 

I think on Medium-High I was reaching about 3.5GHz on both cores (with a 1920x1200 screen). The bottleneck on my PC was then my HD3850.

Overall I had OC'd the E8500 to 3.8-4ish GHz (if I remember right) on air with that cooler. It was running in the mid/high 60's with room air temp at about 17 degrees.

 

Obviously you want a silent PC so the faster the processor the better, but the E8400 is a very good overclocker as well - at a lower price.

 

I don't know enough about Quad Cores to commentate on any other alternatives :)

[dawestsides]

Look at my sig...

[EtherealN]

Example of a very functional DCS system (100+ in light missions, reliable 30+ in heavy missions with averages at 60+) is in my sig.

 

I am slightly worried about the choice of the 9600 though. A 9800 like the one I have is usually way more than one needs for DCS (though nice for added AA and so on) and is usually quite manageable to overclock as well.

[pieceofmind]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

It's pretty much same rig as mine, diffrence is I have E8400, and GeForce 9800GTS. Haven't OC anything yet. Flying @ 1680x1050, 16xAA, 16xAF, in-game default HIGH settings, and it's all aya. However huge missions tend to slow things down, then I propose to fiddle with in-game settings for them only, f.e. lower down shadows.

I was consindering to OC my CPU, but for now I do not drop below smooth framerates during offline campaign play, so I don't bother.

 

Nice to hear a similar machine runs the game mostly smoothly! May I ask which graphics card you use, as in which brand of 9800GTS?

 

I have the E8500 and that exact cooler (the Thermaltake).

 

You'll need to OC the E8500 in order to run [very]reasonable graphics in DCS.

 

I think on Medium-High I was reaching about 3.5GHz on both cores (with a 1920x1200 screen). The bottleneck on my PC was then my HD3850.

Overall I had OC'd the E8500 to 3.8-4ish GHz (if I remember right) on air with that cooler. It was running in the mid/high 60's with room air temp at about 17 degrees.

 

Obviously you want a silent PC so the faster the processor the better, but the E8400 is a very good overclocker as well - at a lower price.

 

I don't know enough about Quad Cores to commentate on any other alternatives :)

 

Re the E8400, turns out it's only slightly cheaper in price (30AU) whereas the E8600 is 104AU more!

 

Re the thermaltake heatsink, how is it? Do you run it with a fan on it, and if so what sort of volts or RPMs do you use it at when under load? Mind if I ask what case you use or what overall cooling system is employed? The case I have in mind has a mother of a fan (200cm) almost directly above where the heatsink will be so I'm wondering whether it might be unnecessary to have a fan mounted on the heatsink. After all, the S1283 has slightly larger fin spacing than similar sized heatsinks meaning it could run pretty well with no fan attached. The decision to do this or not will depend on if and how much overclocking is done on the CPU!

 

I also run a 1920x1200 display at the moment so your mention of it has helped me get an idea what to expect. Thanks.

 

Look at my sig...

Overkill much? :)

 

That must've been an expensive machine! Similar components would be a little outside my budget unfortunately. Ignoring the fact it's probably not a very quiet system (but only you - not I - can judge that), I prefer to steer away from hardware that is leading edge because of the price spike.

 

Example of a very functional DCS system (100+ in light missions, reliable 30+ in heavy missions with averages at 60+) is in my sig.

 

I am slightly worried about the choice of the 9600 though. A 9800 like the one I have is usually way more than one needs for DCS (though nice for added AA and so on) and is usually quite manageable to overclock as well.

 

The 9600GT passive card I linked is actually very cheap by my standards. Since I will most likely use this machine for some other possibly more demanding games, it seems a safe minimum.

 

But for what reason were you worried about the choice of 9600? From the context it sounded like you thought it was overkill, but if that's the reason then you needn't worry for the reason I mentioned above. Also, the Gigabyte 8600GTS passive card I already have has never let me down and stays very cool, giving me some faith in their newer cards with the same idea.

[dawestsides]

 

 

Overkill much? :)

 

 

 

A kind of,this is my first build.

I'm a hardcore gamer and I wanted to know how Crysis would look at max settings.

 

 

[CE_Mikemonster]

Sorry mate, only just got back to this thread.

 

The cooler is impressive, especially combined with the cool running Dual Core. Not sure if you bought a Quad how useful any air cooling system could be.

 

I'll admit that i'm not actually OC'ing at the moment, I knocked it down for summer and playing FF5 (my logic was why run it hot when not needed). When I feel in the mood i'll give DCS a bash again and do the obligitary OC lol.

 

I run the fan on slowish speed (honestly I've never learnt how to run it fast.. Speedfan doesn't allow me to change the RPM and I didn't really need to), but even then it was allowing.. (hang on i'll dig out my OC'ing notes..)

 

Right, from what I can find, with the thermaltake cooler I was running 395FSB x 1.275v giving me a stable overclock of 3.75GHz

Max temp: 70deg (~43deg @ idle.)

Please note this was using RealTemp to monitor - there are conflicting opinions about whether the 'temperatures' given are even accurate (due to the Intel thermometer thingybob). Near the end of my OC (after this) I started to ignore the 'temperatures' and focus on the distance to TJ Max).

 

That was in a case with a 20cm fan on the side blowing onto the mobo.

 

So that's not actually hugeley impressive (but it was adequate for matching my HD3850 in DCS)..

 

At the moment at idle my CPU is running at 36degrees on both cores, in a CM-590 case with only one exhaust fan (12cm back) and one intake fan(12cm front) (plus also the Thermaltake cpu cooler fan on the cooler itself).

 

Have you thought of watercooling? I honestly can't see much of a difference when it comes to air cooling at this level between the various competitors. :(

 

As you've probably realised i'm not an expert but I did do a lot of research into OC'ing when I did it and can help with most questions specific to my componentry. If I have given bad advice I look forward to being corrected, the last thing I want to do is mislead you.

 

I'll check here more often to see if there's any more specific stuff I can give you figures for.

 

Edit: The thermaltake cooler (like many others) can be mounted facing vertical or horizontal, so you should be able to harness some of the airflow from that large exhaust fan. You'd still be better fitting a fan on it though imo, and I suppose it'd be more effective than putting the same fan as a case-fan. When I overclocked I noted that the Northbridge heatsink got quite warm on my P5K Pro, might be worth searching for on Google (I put a crap little 4cm fan on and forgot about it, heavens knows if it even needed one).

Edited August 11, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[pieceofmind]

Just an update, I'm now looking at turning this into an upgrade to my existing system rather than a new build. The motherboard I have already (aBit IP35 Pro) already can handle 1066 DDR2 RAM, and I've had to cut back my budget a bit. This way I won't need a new powersupply, M/B and case.

 

And I can probably continue to use my current Thermalright U120 extreme. I'm not sure the xigmatek would be a huge improvement over that cooler - certainly not enough to justify the cost.

[TheHeretic]

That RAM is too expensive. The need for fast ram is vastly overstated and most people waste their money thinking it will harbour results: when it won't. RAM is the least understood PC component and its position in the market is based on people being oblivious to RAM speed actually works.

 

DDR memory runs at half its listed speed, for 1066 RAM runs at 533mhz. Meanwhile that CPU is quad pumped, so its true speed is 333. When your RAMs FSB is running faster than your CPU that extra speed is pretty much going to waste. Because you are overclocking you will obviously be pushing that FSB higher. The CPU is running at 333 with a 9.5 multiplier, to get it to use all your RAMs speed you'll be overclocking at 533x9.5 which is 5ghz. If you can achieve that let me know, otherwise just get DDR2 800 and save your money. Any old RAM will do, designer ram is pointless.

 

An E8500 is mostly a waste of money as well, having the same base spec's as an E8400 minus a hit in clock speed, if you are overclocking anyway you'll push both chips to their limits, which is well beyond what this game will actually need.

 

That GPU doesn't have the bandwidth to use 1gb of RAM, it simply isn't powerful enough and the perfomance gains will be null. Get yourself an ATi 4850 or 4770, which are both cheap and pretty powerful to be boot. They are quiet cards and should be inaudible. Thats the bear minimum in todays market really, a 9600GT was meek when it came out and outdated by todays standards. It could probably handle DCS but why buy outdated technology?

 

Thats a no-name PSU and is dangerous to use, get a Corsair or Seasonic instead. Poor quality PSU's can blow and ruin everything they are connected to. Thermaltake cases are generally of a poor quality, the Coolermaster 690 is the best case within your price range, the Antec 300 being slightly below that.

 

And a thermalright 120 extreme is a high performance heatsink. Strap a 120mm fan on it and you are good to go. Upgrading that is again, a waste. The Xigmatek 1283 (which is what I use) may actually perform worse.

 

Faster hard drives decrease load times, but rarely help frame rates. A 10k RPM is very loud, which defeats the purpose of your build. SSD's are quiet as they have no moving parts, but vary widely in performance depending on the manufacturer. For the most part they are too expensive for what you get.

 

Good luck!

Edited August 15, 2009 by TheHeretic

[Kuky]

The Heretic, I think you are bit misinformed, first I read in one of your posts saying i7 920 has un-clocked multiplier which is not true as the i7 965 Extreme has it but costs bit more then 4x the price of i7 920. Now you're saying running RAM at higher FSB then CPU is waste... have you heard that CPU and RAM can run at FSB ratios different from 1:1? You can have 400FSB on CPU and 533FSB on RAM and it is well effecting the RAM speed ;)

[TheHeretic]

The Heretic, I think you are bit misinformed, first I read in one of your posts saying i7 920 has un-clocked multiplier which is not true as the i7 965 Extreme has it but costs bit more then 4x the price of i7 920. Now you're saying running RAM at higher FSB then CPU is waste... have you heard that CPU and RAM can run at FSB ratios different from 1:1? You can have 400FSB on CPU and 533FSB on RAM and it is well effecting the RAM speed ;)

 

The i920 has a multiplier of 21 (or something like that), which is going to take the chip as far as it can possibly go without the FSB ever being a problem. You are right, its not truly unlocked as the unlocked models go up to 36 or something insane, but its enough to take an i920 to 4ghz which is as high as you'd ever take the thing on air and is pretty much insane overall.

 

Yes, there are FSB ratios. They are also pretty much a complete waste. Outside of video editing or other RAM speed dependent tasks that extra ram speed does essentially nothing. Video games simply don't require the systems memory to be all that fast, with pretty much no exceptions. Benchmarking shows the difference between generic DDR2 and triple channel DDR3 is quite small in gaming. Your getting a few frames for second for a whole lot of money. Unless you intend on doing tasks that actually demand fast RAM: and they do exist, the only real reason to get faster RAM is to meet motherboard specs or give your CPU a higher FSB. In his case an E8500 has no chance of using 1066 clocked memory properly, and if hes on a budget that money can be better spent elsewhere.

 

Heres a benchmark illustrating DDR3 vs DDR2.

 

http://www.breakitdownblog.com/ddr2-800-vs-ddr3-1333-does-speed-matter/

 

The difference ranges from exactly 0% (memory's bottleneck not being met) to 1%. :D

 

Why? Sata drives aren't fast enough to feed into the RAMs extra bandwidth. Basically.

Edited August 16, 2009 by TheHeretic

[EtherealN]

An E8500 is mostly a waste of money as well' date=' having the same base spec's as an E8400 minus a hit in clock speed, if you are overclocking anyway you'll push both chips to their limits, which is well beyond what this game will actually need.[/quote']

 

An e8500 costs about $10 more than an e8400, but has a 9,5 multiplier instead of a 9. This (ever so slightly, but for 10 dollars - who cares?) decreases the risks of running into FSB problems.

[Kuky]

TheHeretic, issue wasn't about weather DDR3 is faster then DDR2 whitch it isn't much right now because even though DDR3 has faster speed but also much higher latencies. So yeah, for performance/price DDR3 is not very good at all. I was talking about if you run CPU:RAM at 1:1 ratio and running it at say 4:5 ratio in which case when CPU requires data from RAM it can get it bit faster.

 

PS: it's actually i7 975 Extreme with unlocked multi

Edited August 16, 2009 by Kuky

[TheHeretic]

TheHeretic, issue wasn't about weather DDR3 is faster then DDR2 whitch it isn't much right now because even though DDR3 has faster speed but also much higher latencies. So yeah, for performance/price DDR3 is not very good at all. I was talking about if you run CPU:RAM at 1:1 ratio and running it at say 4:5 ratio in which case when CPU requires data from RAM it can get it bit faster.

 

PS: it's actually i7 975 Extreme with unlocked multi

 

How can the CPU get data from the RAM faster? The entire point is it can't! If the RAM is faster than the CPU FSB wise the CPU cannot use that speed, period. Its like having one pipe that can handle one litre a second connected to another that can handle two litres a second: whats the end result here? Only a litre of water per second can pass through: no matter which way it goes!

 

I don't actually use i7's so you are probably right!

[EtherealN]

This needs diagrams and a lot of verification work to get explained possibly, something I don't have time for but basically:

 

If memory works faster, latencies will have less of an impact and there will be less cycles between requesting a memory location be read and the contents of it being delivered. In a 4:5 ratio example compared to a 1:1 it could (extremely simplified, I woke up like 6 minutes ago so...) there would be 4 cycles on the processor rather than 5 before it gets data on an operation that requires 5 cycles in RAM to be performed.

 

Issue is how often that actually happens, especially given that in reality it's more complex than just counting cycles, but I think that's the general gist of what Kuky is thinking about? If so, I agree on the theoretical gains but is slightly skeptical about how much of a practical impact it would have. It seems it can be a bit like opening the ventilation hatch in the canopy of a soaring plane - it'll affect performance, but not enough to make you notice...

[Kuky]

sure it can and here's how:

 

for every operation of the RAM (access, process, write, cache etc of data) it requires certain number of cycles. So for same period of time and provided you keep same latencies, there will be more cycles for same period of time, meaning more operations will the RAM perform in that same period of time.

 

I think main reason why you don't see increase in speed in games is because it's not the amount of data that CPU gets from RAM that's the bottleneck, but the actual processing of data in the CPU itself.

[TheHeretic]

sure it can and here's how:

 

for every operation of the RAM (access, process, write, cache etc of data) it requires certain number of cycles. So for same period of time and provided you keep same latencies, there will be more cycles for same period of time, meaning more operations will the RAM perform in that same period of time.

 

I think main reason why you don't see increase in speed in games is because it's not the amount of data that CPU gets from RAM that's the bottleneck, but the actual processing of data in the CPU itself.

 

 

We also have to keep in mind faster RAM tends to have slower timings. This is especially the case from DDR2 to DDR3. This is all besides the point because all the technical explanations aside the benchmarks do verify higher speed RAM, almost always used in ratios, does very little or frequently nothing at all.

[Kuky]

Well wait a sec, we are not discussing DDR2 vs DDR3 rather any same RAM that is rated for certain max speed an having it run at that max rated speed or lower with same timings. I do remember one thing that some people do, which is lower the timings on the RAM and have it run slower speed than max rated but this is also way of overclocking and usually with RAM overclocking is not very good as in most cases system becomes unstable.

[TheHeretic]

Well wait a sec, we are not discussing DDR2 vs DDR3 rather any same RAM that is rated for certain max speed an having it run at that max rated speed or lower with same timings. I do remember one thing that some people do, which is lower the timings on the RAM and have it run slower speed than max rated but this is also way of overclocking and usually with RAM overclocking is not very good as in most cases system becomes unstable.

 

 

Ok fine, DDR2 800 doesn't perform any worse than DDR2 1333 in any real sense in gaming. So I don't really see your point there as well.

[Kuky]

point is, in some applications RAM speed does matter ;)

[TheHeretic]

point is, in some applications RAM speed does matter ;)

 

All you've done is move the goal posts. From defending RAM speed to defending RAM speed in certain applications. I conceded that posts ago ;)

[Kuky]

dude, give it up, I'm not in the mood to explain to you things which are very logical. Obviously you just don't get it :music_whistling:

 

Please do a propper benchmark on the game with same hardware and then get the RAM (if you have faster RAM) run at different speed... see what you get and show us the results.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Kuky

[pieceofmind]

That RAM is too expensive. The need for fast ram is vastly overstated and most people waste their money thinking it will harbour results: when it won't. RAM is the least understood PC component and its position in the market is based on people being oblivious to RAM speed actually works.

 

DDR memory runs at half its listed speed, for 1066 RAM runs at 533mhz. Meanwhile that CPU is quad pumped, so its true speed is 333. When your RAMs FSB is running faster than your CPU that extra speed is pretty much going to waste. Because you are overclocking you will obviously be pushing that FSB higher. The CPU is running at 333 with a 9.5 multiplier, to get it to use all your RAMs speed you'll be overclocking at 533x9.5 which is 5ghz. If you can achieve that let me know, otherwise just get DDR2 800 and save your money. Any old RAM will do, designer ram is pointless.

 

An E8500 is mostly a waste of money as well, having the same base spec's as an E8400 minus a hit in clock speed, if you are overclocking anyway you'll push both chips to their limits, which is well beyond what this game will actually need.

 

That GPU doesn't have the bandwidth to use 1gb of RAM, it simply isn't powerful enough and the perfomance gains will be null. Get yourself an ATi 4850 or 4770, which are both cheap and pretty powerful to be boot. They are quiet cards and should be inaudible. Thats the bear minimum in todays market really, a 9600GT was meek when it came out and outdated by todays standards. It could probably handle DCS but why buy outdated technology?

 

Thats a no-name PSU and is dangerous to use, get a Corsair or Seasonic instead. Poor quality PSU's can blow and ruin everything they are connected to. Thermaltake cases are generally of a poor quality, the Coolermaster 690 is the best case within your price range, the Antec 300 being slightly below that.

 

And a thermalright 120 extreme is a high performance heatsink. Strap a 120mm fan on it and you are good to go. Upgrading that is again, a waste. The Xigmatek 1283 (which is what I use) may actually perform worse.

 

Faster hard drives decrease load times, but rarely help frame rates. A 10k RPM is very loud, which defeats the purpose of your build. SSD's are quiet as they have no moving parts, but vary widely in performance depending on the manufacturer. For the most part they are too expensive for what you get.

 

Good luck!

 

Thanks for the critical feedback! Also thanks to everyone else who has joined in the discussion and mini-debate!

 

TheHeretic, note in my post before your first that I said I'll no longer be buying a PSU, MB or case. The PSU I use now is a Corsair 450W one and works very quietly, which is part of the reason I don't want to buy a new one. The heatsink I have now is indeed very good. I don't recall my CPU temp ever going above 35C unless the actual ambient temperature did!

 

As for the CPU, as someone noted earlier, the price difference is very small between it and the e8400 in Aus. However, the price jump from the e8500 to e8600 is huge. Even if the difference between the e8500 and the e8400 is very small, as long as the CPU is one of or the most limiting components when running this game, then I'm prepared to spend the approx 5% more on it.

 

Regarding graphics, I don't know much about the card but I do know it will be one of the most silent. You said the ATi 4850 and 4770 are inaudible. Given that my VGA is fanless and I can still hear it (very slight buzzing sound when under load, similar to my keyboard when it's illuminated), I find it hard to accept any card with a fan will be considered inaudible. Or are you talking about fanless versions of those cards? I noticed this card is fanless - would it be included in the ones you recommended? I'll look into it but yeah, I don't run very graphics intensive games apart from DCS and FSX, and even those are barely graphics intensive (I get the impression DCS is more CPU intensive than anything else).

 

By the way, the primary source of noise in this computer at the moment is the hard drives. The P182 places them near the front of the case which is good for airflow and fairly standard, but not good when they're noisy and everything else is nearly silent. I tried mounting one with elastic but it didn't appear to do much noise reduction. The noise appears to be from the air - not case vibrations. The ticks and click noises etc. are fairly quiet and don't actually bother me anyway.

 

But when I build this new system, I'm probably going to have two separate bootable systems using a HDD switcher. When I run games I'll use the slightly noisy but high capacity hard drives, but when I run quiet mode I might opt for a 2.5" drive like a WD Scorpio Blue in a silicon enclosure (unless it overheats).

 

I'm very interested in the discussion about RAM. To be honest, I don't know a lot about it and at the moment I'm using 2x1GB. I forget what speed it is though - is there any way of checking that in winxp?

 

If upgrading to 4GB is not likely to help I won't do it, cos every bit of money I can save, the better. But I was expecting RAM to be one aspect where this game would likely benefit. There are also other occasions than running flight sims that I appreciate having the extra RAM available.

[TheHeretic]

As for the CPU, as someone noted earlier, the price difference is very small between it and the e8400 in Aus. However, the price jump from the e8500 to e8600 is huge. Even if the difference between the e8500 and the e8400 is very small, as long as the CPU is one of or the most limiting components when running this game, then I'm prepared to spend the approx 5% more on it.

 

If the price difference is small then for sure. In my opinion the Phenom II 550 is the better dual core, simply because its significantly cheaper. Its almost half price which is pretty amazing. It does perform slightly worse than Intels line though, so if you are looking for the best dual performance you are barking up the right three. If you a budget conscious its something to consider, and there are benchmarks to look at.

 

Regarding graphics, I don't know much about the card but I do know it will be one of the most silent. You said the ATi 4850 and 4770 are inaudible. Given that my VGA is fanless and I can still hear it (very slight buzzing sound when under load, similar to my keyboard when it's illuminated), I find it hard to accept any card with a fan will be considered inaudible. Or are you talking about fanless versions of those cards? I noticed this card is fanless - would it be included in the ones you recommended? I'll look into it but yeah, I don't run very graphics intensive games apart from DCS and FSX, and even those are barely graphics intensive (I get the impression DCS is more CPU intensive than anything else).

 

Generally i'm pretty skeptical of fanless cards. Passive cooling is pretty hard to achieve. For example with that 4850 the core is slightly overclocked but the memory is slightly underclocked: perhaps to achieve desirable cooling results by running under spec. Its still going to be a good card though, the 4850 is great, much better than the 9600. I don't find the GPU to be loud enough to overcome other parts, so whats inaudible to me may not be to you.

 

By the way, the primary source of noise in this computer at the moment is the hard drives. The P182 places them near the front of the case which is good for airflow and fairly standard, but not good when they're noisy and everything else is nearly silent. I tried mounting one with elastic but it didn't appear to do much noise reduction. The noise appears to be from the air - not case vibrations. The ticks and click noises etc. are fairly quiet and don't actually bother me anyway.

 

Yeah that tends to be the case. Cases without rubber holders for HDD's are worse as the entire case vibrates making ungodly noise. The P182 is a really good choice. You could go SSD I suppose.

 

If upgrading to 4GB is not likely to help I won't do it, cos every bit of money I can save, the better. But I was expecting RAM to be one aspect where this game would likely benefit. There are also other occasions than running flight sims that I appreciate having the extra RAM available.

 

4GB will probably help depending on what OS you are running, definitely for Vista or 7. As for RAM speed don't take mine or anyone elses word for it: there are dozens of benchmarks demonstrating what kinds of performance increases you will achieve. I think you'll find the money is, proverbially, going down the toilet.