X-Plane 10 and a new PC

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by Topper, Jun 18, 2012.

  1. Topper macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #1
    I am buying a new PC just to run X-Plane 10.
    X-Plane 10 at higher renderings is just too sluggish on my Mac Pro.
    I will use my Mac Pro for everything else.
    I want to thank Apple for their glorious upgrade to the Mac Pro.

    My new PC:

    Processor - Quad-Core Intel® Core™ i7-3820 3.60GHz 10MB Cache
    Motherboard - Intel® DX79TO - ATX - Intel® X79 Express Chipset
    Memory - 4 x Crucial 4GB PC3-10600 1333MHz DDR3
    Case - Antec Twelve Hundred V3 - ATX Full Tower - Black
    Power Supply - Corsair HX1050 - Modular - 1000W Power Supply
    Hard Drive - (2) 1TB SATA 6.0Gbps 7200RPM - 3.5" - WD® 7200.14
    5.25" Bay - Samsung 22x DVD+/-RW Dual Layer (SATA)
    Video Card - MSI NVIDIA® GeForce GTX 680 Twin Frozr III/OC 2GB GDDR5 (2xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDP)
    Operating System - Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 Home Premium (64-bit) with Recovery Partition
     
  2. The "Dude" macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    #2
    Sure is a lot of investment just to play X-Plane. Maybe just buy a real plane.
     
  3. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #3
    Cessna Corvalis TTX with Garmin G2000 avionics - $733,950.00
    Computer with X-Plane 10 and a Cessna Corvalis TT with accurate, realistic Garmin G1000 avionics - $2,200.00

    Odds on me dying in a real Cessna Corvalis TTX - 99 percent
    Odds on me dying in a flight sim with a Cessna Corvalis - 0 percent
     
  4. The "Dude" macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
  5. andydckent macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Location:
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    #5
    You do know that no current computer will run X-Plane 10 on full settings?

    Have fun though, wish I could afford a new computer just for X-plane! Would be interested to here what kind of settings you can reasonably get with it.
     
  6. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #6
    Oh yeah, I know that full well. XP9 was bad enough but XP10 is a disaster, nice eye candy but a disaster.
    Did you know that XP10 takes over 3 minutes just to start up?
    I am hoping for some launch and frame-rate improvements in the next few revisions.

    Thank you. I'll let you know.
     
  7. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #7
    XP10 runs fine on my 27" iMac Core i7 2009. I had to lower some of the settings compared to 9, but still runs very smoothly.

    Plus, I think 10 is still in beta.
     
  8. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #8
    I ran XP9 at extremely high renderings on my 2008 Mac Pro with a HD 5870 card.
    I'm not going to lower my renderings just to make XP10 run smoothly.
    I love XP10's scenery. I need a computer that can work with it.
    I've got the latest X-Plane revision downloaded. It's something like the fifth revision (10.05r1 or something like that).
     
  9. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    I could run XP9 on extremely high too on the iMac. I only had to lower it down one setting which looks very good still on XP10. Most of the other settings remained the same.
     
  10. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #10
    LOL

    I hear you, mate!

    I still have the '08 Mac Pro (8 Core 2.8, 8 GB RAM) with Radeon 5870. I try to get by X-Plane 10 with most rendering options high enough to make it look nice.
    But, I have so many "bad allocation" errors, it makes me avoid high textured places (like the payware KLGA with added Manhattan scenery, etc.) but, sometimes it annoyes me if I occasionally fly across a piece of scenery which seems to exceed the OS X 32 bits RAM limit of 3.5 GB for X-Plane 10, especially if you load lots of plug-ins... and therefore crash this app with the same irritating "bad allocation errors. Etc.

    TBO, I think that a 64 bits upgrade to the app to help it overcome the RAM errors will make a huge difference, maybe even more that investing in hardware now. You can pump up the grfx detail but I assume the RAM related errors will increase!
    Yes, by removing the RAM as the "weakest link" for X-Plane 10 on a fast Mac Pro, then it will become hugely obvious that the grfx hardware and the CPU will become the next bottleneck. I assume a Radeon 7970 will help us... (why, o why, didn't Apple give us this card as a BTO option for the Mac Pro's?)

    I was at the Aviation Megastore (close to EHAM ;)) a few weeks ago, and there was this PC flying FSX..... man o man.. that did look soooo sweeeeeet..!

    Yes, it is in Dutch, but you'll probably understand the specs....
    Ugly POS on the outside... but hey... it will get those grfx details!!

    Arrggh.....
     
  11. skyenet macrumors regular

    skyenet

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Location:
    Near Glasgow - Scotland
    #11
    My 2009 iMac Core 3.06Gz does not run X-Plane very smoothly at all. Its got 8Gb R am and runs everything else fine. However I believe the real problem lies more in the GPU. Mine has a ATI Radeon HD 4670 256 MB so I feel its the lack of Graphics memory that is the main problem. Hence my daily visit to Macrumours to keep up to date on iMac developments. Hopefully they will get launched along with Mountain Lion. Had thought about a powerfull PC to run X-Plane, but I use Mac Apps far too much to waste money on a PC and will just wait to they are updated.

    X-Plane is my main reason at looking at an iMac upgrade and am going to go for the top of the range 2012 iMac when they are released. WIll look at getting maximum memory for the GPU and will get probably get about 8Gb extra RAM from Crucial on top of whatever the standard RAM that will ship with the new machines.

    Was wondering about an SSD but not sure if that will make a tremendous difference. I do quite a lot of iPhoto and iMovie stuff as well as X-Plane. Aiming on going for a 2TB Hard drive. Thoughts on whether an SSD would make that much difference?

    I rarely ever switch my computer off so boot up time isn't a problem. I always have multiple apps open at the same time such as Safari, iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, Keynote and Pages. I have a number of iPhoto libraries (some as large as 100Gb) and my iTunes is well over 130Gb. However when I run X-Plane I normally shut down all other apps.
     
  12. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #12
    Yeah with the settings I run it at, it says I am using 256 MB of VRAM. Of course that is all the ram you have on your GPU.
     
  13. Trav29 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    #13
    Were you planning to use a joystick?
     
  14. Topper, Jun 26, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2012

    Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #14
    I've been using Apple computers for 22 years. That supposed upgrade was the dumbest thing I've ever seen Apple do. The least they could have done was upgrade the video card.

    Very nice. That should work.
    I am reconsidering buying a PC.
    I run XP10 in Windows on my MP. I do so for two reasons:
    1. I've got very sophisticated Garmin avionics for X-Plane. Unfortunately the Garmin avionics are PC only.
    2. I think X-Plane may run better under Windows. It is certainly true that AMD cards run better with OS X while nVidia cards run better with Windows.
    I am hoping that Mountain Lion will have drivers for the GTX 680. If so, I'll throw that bad boy into my MP.
    On the other hand there is a Garmin G1000 available for X-Plane that requires two computers and two monitors just to run it. That would be a good excuse to buy a PC and a second monitor.
    I don't suppose you've got any money you could lend me?


    They are saying now that XP10 can use a video card with 2GB of vram.

    Yes
     
  15. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #15
    Yep. At least they recognised it and pulled the word "new" from the online store... :rolleyes:
    I still baffles me why they didn't go for the obvious thing.... like you said... update the **** video cards! :mad:

    BTW, it seems X-Plane 10.10 won't be 64 bits: http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/06/were-still-here-really/

    Looks like it will take a long time before we're out of the out of memory errors.
     
  16. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #16
  17. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #17
    If this machine is solely for X-Plane, why use two 1TB disks instead of one SSD? I picked up a 256GB 6Gb Vertex for $230 at NewEgg.

    Wouldn't that benefit the startup times?
     
  18. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #18
    Have you bought the PC already or is that just what you are thinking of buying? If you haven't bought it yet, you could easily save hundreds by going with a i5-3570K based build. You don't need SB-E or X79 unless you need more than 16 PCIe lanes (SLI/CrossFire) or 32GB of RAM. Invest in a good CPU cooler and you can easily OC it to over 4GHz without a trouble.

    Also, I would seriously consider an SSD as well.
     
  19. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #19
    I do use a SSD in my Mac Pro to run Windows 7 under boot camp.
    The SSD starts up Windows a lot faster than a HDD.
    The SSD seemed to start-up XP9 very fast also.
    But XP10 is so slow to start-up, I don't see any advantage. I've tried XP10 with both a SSD and a HDD.

    Points well taken, thank you.
     
  20. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #20
    Have you tried an SSD with XP10?
    XP10 is so slow on start-up, I honestly didn't see any advantage.
     
  21. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #21
    On the .org forums many have tried X-Plane 10 with an SSD.
    It makes no difference at all. At most X-Plane reads as much as 20 MB per second. So, even a medium-capable 5400 rpm disk of a laptop is not slowing X-Plane 10 down.

    X-Plane 10 has these limits:

    1. 64 bits.
    Worst limit ATM. If you have very capable hardware and you have the settings very high and lots of scenery extra's and plugins installed, the game reaches the 3.5 GB limit (on OS X, 4 GB in Windows IIRC) too easily and crashes.

    2. Grfx card.
    Getting to the settings mentioned above, you'll need very powerful 3D grfx hardware. A Radeon HD 5870 is just powerful enough to get you to the RAM limit, but no way near for max. eye-candy settings. A 7970 will help a lot, but even that card won't be able to handle all settings full.

    3. CPU.
    X-Plane 10 is more "multi-CPU aware" than X-Plane 9 was, but in no stretch of the imagination does it use 4 Cores a lot, let alone 8 Cores.

    You know, as it is now, with the 32 bits limit, playing X-Plane 10 on decent hardware (any Mac Pro with Radeon 5870) therefore having the settings nice, but not too high, might the the best option ATM.
    Once X-Plane 10 is fully 64 bits and all plugins are compatible, only then would I consider a serious upgrade of the hardware.
     
  22. xav8tor macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    #22
    I too am now going back to Windows for XP 10. I use minimal objects/trees, but very high detail and texture rez (extreme would be nice) and 8x AA. No AI aircraft.

    I have settled on the GTX-680, 4GB version if I can find it in stock. I'll often be driving two monitors, but usually they'll be mirrored. I'll have a dedicated SSD, which I have found does make a difference in scenery loading, especially with photoreal textures. No more pauses or stutters after I went that route.

    My question is the CPU. My quad '09 Pro @ 2.93 (4870) now gives me about 40 FPS on the ground in the XP10 demo at KSEA with my normal settings (after days of tests and tweaks). In the air, maybe 50 to 70 depending on locale, clouds, viz, etc. I've never seen more than one core at 100%. The rest stay well below 50%

    I want to kick up the detail and texture rez to the max, maybe a few more objects, but I want a min 60 FPS, no matter where, no matter what plane, etc.

    What do you guys recommend for a CPU? I am looking at a stock E5 3730K hex, or an overclocked one to around 5.0 GHz (major $$$). Also considering a 3770K overclocked, or a stock E5 1620 or 1650 in an HP workstation. All of the OC'd options are custom builds. Which way would you go?
     
  23. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #23
    The CPU isn't going to help to get you to extreme res, etc. As you pointed out yourself, the CPU isn't maxed out running XP10. The CPU will help with things like AI aircraft. On my 27" iMac Core i7( 2009), it can handle I believe it is 8 AI aircraft without a problem. It will be the GPU that will make the biggest difference.
     
  24. xav8tor macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    #24
    XP also uses additional cores for scenery loads. I am hitting 100% CPU close to, or on the ground. Tests posted on other forums show OC makes a big difference when all other settings remain the same between tests, so, clock speed DOES matter. The way XP is coded, if the primary core hits 100%, that is a brick wall, the others cannot pick up the slack.

    Where I am confused is with regard to architecture (e.g., Z77 v X79), Ivy v. Sandy E, 10mb cache v 15 mb, memory bandwidth, etc. All that stuff. Will it make a difference in XP 10? Example...which would you get:

    Stock i7 3930K, stock Xeon 1620, or stock Xeon 1650, or an Ivy Bridge 3770K? The 3770K and 3930K can be OC'd easily.
     
  25. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #25
    How can you go wrong with that? 4GB may be overkill but why not get the best right now?!
     

Share This Page