Clock, Cache or Card?

[okami]

Hi everybody,

I'm at the verge of purchasing a new computer to replace my ailing current one, however, I just want to check one more thing before I send off my order:

Which has the most impact on my framerate? Is it the CPU's clock rate, its cache, or the video card's memory?

I'm just asking this as, I'm afraid to admit, I'm rather clueless when it comes to the little numbers, and I don't want to buy a turkey.

As a guidance, my old computer's a Dell Dimension 8400 with the following specs:
Dimension 8400 4P processor 540 (3.20 GHz, 800 fsb, 1MB)
160 GB (7,200 rpm) SATA hard drive
1.024 MB DDR400 Dual Channel Memory (2x512)
128MB PCI Express ATI RadeonTM X300SE

With scenery set to dense and traffic set to 100%, reflective textures on and a mipmap setting of 5 or 6, it had an average framerate of 12 fps with (rare) peaks of its set limit of 20, though it did have moments when it could dip to as low as 8 fps. That, of course, before the problems that caused it to nosedive to 1 frame per 2 seconds...

The new one would be a Dell Studio XPS 8100 with the following specs:
Studio XPS 8100 - Intel Core i7 Processor 860 (2.80 GHz, 8 MB)
2 TB, double hard drive, non-RAID (2 x 1TB - 7,200 rpm)
6,144 MB 1,066 MHz Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM [2 x 2,048 + 2 x 1,024]
1 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTS 240 graphic card

As you can see, the CPU's clock rate's lower than that of my old one, which is why I'm asking all of this.

Thanks in advance,

Nikko

[ashaman]

Fundamental in the struggle of more speed, nowadays is yes the clock of the CPU, but other things are as much if not more important.

1) You'll be going from a P4 to a Core i7, this already is a step forward, even if under the point of view of the physical Mhz clock seems a step backward, it is not. In the new rig you have more than one physical CPU (it's a multi-core), and the efficiency of every core is higher than the old P4 at the same speed.

2) Your new CPU has 8Mb of integrated cache. Eight times the old one. Cpu die-integrated cache is FAST, bringing the computer to new performances. Do not underestimate the might of the integrated cache.

3) Your new system has 2Gb 1066Mhz Dual Channel Memory (you're better off than me, I have Dual Channel 800Mhz ones), granting you a boost of performance not to be underestimated.

4) Your new HDs have surely more performance than the old ones (it's like that for HD's)

And for last... 5) The new graphic card, though not top of the line, is surely a sight better than the old one.

...

Was I you, I would go for it.

[stansdds]

This is what I have gathered.

CPU: Speed = frames per second. The faster the CPU, the faster it can carry out calculations, the more frames can be generated each second. Cache, as previously stated, is ultra fast memory, the more cache, the smoother the simulation. Number of cores, two is good, four is better, not for generating frames per second, but more cores means textures can be loaded and processed faster and that leads to a smoother sim.

RAM: 2 gigabytes is a minimum these days. With Vista, you really need 3 or 4 GB as Vista uses more RAM for itself. Some have claimed that 4 GB gives them a boost in performance, I just upgraded from 2 GB to 4 GB, same speed and timings, and have seen no increase in frame rates, but there seems to be less stuttering and pauses with FSX. Faster RAM is nice, but not if the timings are lose (those numbers like 4-4-4-12), the higher those numbers, the slower the RAM.

If you are using a 32-bit operating system, you can install 4 GB of RAM, as I have, but only 3.2 to 3.5 GB will actually be recognized and that is normal. Your computer can still use all 4 GB, it just can't address all 4 GB's. If you are using a 64-bit operating system, then you can use 4 or more GB's and your computer will address all of it.

Hard drive: This is where having a second hard drive might be of benefit. Either dedicate a second hard drive entirely to MS flightsim or, if it is a large hard drive, partition it and make MS flightsim the first partition. The reason you want to use the first partition is that will be near the outer edge of the platter and that is where the drive accesses, reads and writes fastest. Things to look for in a hard drive are speed (7200 rpm minimum), cache (16 MB minimum, 32 might be better), and access time.

Graphics card: I'd say 512MB of dedicated video RAM is a must. GPU and RAM speed are very important, the lower the video card specs, the less anti-aliasing and/or anisotropic filtering you will be able to use. I have a 8800GT factory overclocked card with 512MB RAM, that seems to do ok in FS9 and FSX.

Just my two cents.

[Johan Dees]

Okami, simple, FPS=clock. Get as much as you can pay.
Then, 4 mb will do for now, but memory is cheap, so put 8mb in it.
On the video card, 512 is enough, more that enough.. for FS it is.
My 8800 version has also 512 and is enough for every game I try.
Harddrive, all bullock.. any modern will do, and even defrag is bullocks.. do it once in a while, never noted the difference.
OS? I use XP as long as possible, because its LEAN!, but in your case it wil be WIN7, but go for 64 bit, FS( or X will benefit of it, no more OOM anymore..

oh on the clock, a 2.8 i7 will be much more faster than your old 3.2, its in the architecture.
now, within the i7 range the difference counts, a 2.2 or a 2.8 will differ, not what you will notice in fs9 much.
but look to the future, the fastest the better. (but.. the fastest now is expensive, so one notch below is good enough for now.)

and finally, whatever new system you buy now, will blow you away in performance in FS9 as you knew it.
you cant go wrong for this, only when you look at the future, then you need to think over.

EDIT: fs9 will not use multicore!!! just one, just use one as fast as possible, but you can put all other stuff on the other core easily. (affinity).
note: 2 cores is good for fs9..since one is used, looking to other things, future and such, quad is better.. for newer games etc.. (fsx!!)
depends on what you want to do with it later on..

[okami]

Thank you everybody for the advice. The computer has now been ordered, and it's turned out a little bit different in specs, as it has a bit more memory to compensate for my failing one ;D.
Here are the specs of the "finished product":

Studio XPS 8100 - Intel Core i7 Processor 860 (2.80 GHz, 8 MB)
2 TB, double hard drive, non-RAID (2 x 1TB - 7,200 rpm)
8,192 MB 1,333 MHz Dual Channel DDR3 [4 x 2 GB]
1 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTS 240 graphic card

As things are now, it looks as though it'll be another month before I'll receive it (preliminary delivery date March 4 2010) - though I'm not particularly looking forward to completely reinstalling Flight Simulator and all the associated programs (probably takes me another week to do so... <.<