A question about computer graphics technology....

[Navy Chief]

A retired Master Chief friend of mine up in Pensacola just bought a ASUS CM1740-04 computer set up at Best Buy.

Processor Speed is 2.4, system bus 1333mhz, 4mb cache memory, system ram is 8gb expandable to 16gb with 1 TB hard drive. UMA graphics for HDMI Output to HDTV. 64 bit, Quad core A8-3800 Processor.


He is wanting to fly FSX on it, and the employee at Best Buy said it would handle it.

Thing is, the system has (am told) a new type of computer graphics system called UMA? Description as follows:

UMA is Unified Memory Architecture. This means that the graphics controller on this desktop is integrated into the chipset/motherboard and uses video memory via sharing from system memory. Therefore, it does not have a dedicated / discrete graphics card.

So am wondering if his new system can, indeed, run FSX?

Thanks in advance, shipmates.

NC

[kilo delta]

To be honest, I don't think it'd run FSX all that good,maybe with all the sliders backed off to the left. Also, I believe this build comes with a 300w PSU as standard which would need upgrading if your friend ever decides to try adding a capable stand alone GFX card at some point down the line. The CPU is a little weak too.

[Navy Chief]

To be honest, I don't think it'd run FSX all that good,maybe with all the sliders backed off to the left. Also, I believe this build comes with a 300w PSU as standard which would need upgrading if your friend ever decides to try adding a capable stand alone GFX card at some point down the line. The CPU is a little weak too.

Thanks Kilo. I suspected that is the case. Problem is, he doesn't want to spend the money necessary to get a system that will run FSX. My own system is a home-built, and I picked out the individual components specifically to handle FSX.

I just can't convince him to spend the bucks!!

NC

[kjb]

I would say maybe. FSX is not very dependent on the GPU. It's processor intensive.

PC Magazine review (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396545,00.asp)

The Asus Essentio CM1740-04 ($549.99 list, at Best Buy) is a solid entry-level desktop PC (http://www.pcmag.com/reviews/desktop-computers), equipped with a AMD A8 Llano APU that has the CPU and GPU on the same die. It's not a stellar performer in day-to-day tasks compared with desktop equipped with Intel's competing Core i-series of CPUs, but pitted against gaming- and graphics-intensive applications, the Llano APU bests Intel's integrated graphics by a significant margin. The CM1740-04 also has more expansion room than other entry-level desktops, but you'll need to swap out the power supply, which may be deeper than most users are willing to go to upgrade.

[Gdavis101]

One should always ask a friend first before believing the people at places like Best Buy, all they probably did was look at the min requirements for FSX and said, " Oh yeah, it will work." I would think that bypassing the integrated video and adding a stand alone video card would definitely help the situation though.

[argo147]

I recently purchased a new desktop with an NVIDIA GTX 550ti. So far it gets the job done but I think it may be a bit too new for FSX, I get some weird glitches here and there and it'll crash to the desktop every now and then. Newer games seem to work fine though.

[napamule]

argo,
You said: '... may be a bit too new for FSX'. That's incorrect assumption. I have a i7 2600K @ 3.8 Mhz on air cool and a simular video card to yours (I have ATI Radeon HD-5770 ($150)) and I get 100+ fps in FSX (with no AI traffic) with sliders ultra high (except water is 'low 2x'). I lock at 30 fps and get 30.1 (hehe) so it's NOT your 'new' or 'modern' hardware. It's your fsx cfg tune up. Did you run your fsx.cfg thru Jesus's ('Venetuvo') auto tune? That would help a lot. You can visit Bojote's FSX Tweaking & Tuning service at http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html . Good luck.
Chuck B
Napamule
PS: And how well FSX runs also depends on how many 'Services' you have running in the background. Here is a pic of my 'load'. Keep it real.

[kjb]

I also have a new desktop with a 550 and haven't run into any problems or crashes. I went with a 3960X processor and it flies (pun intended). Slewing over my Tucson photo scenery, with sliders turned to max and LOD at 9.5, it often runs over 100 fps at 1900 x 1200. The worst it does there is around 65 fps. Slewing at low level, I had to run it up to 840 kts to get the slightest blurries.

[argo147]

That's encouraging. It sounds like we've got a pretty similar setup. I've got the same CPU so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't get similar FPS. My next stop was going to be my FSX.cfg file so I'll give that website a whirl. Thanks for the info

[Victory103]

Navy CPO,
I have always been told to avoid integrated vid cards, as they are no where near the performance of a dedicated card. Ask your bud if he can return the cpu and get his money back from Worst Buy, for the $$$ he probably paid, he can get a better deal on Newegg.com and have a faster system, maybe not max'd out but at least enjoyable.

argo, awesome avatar! There are a few sticky's for getting the most out of FSX, but I highly recommend hitting the veneturbo site for your FSX.cfg settings. Also, do you have the UIAutomation fix yet? I would get unprovoked CTDs after initially transferring from FS9 to FSX, and almost went back to FS9 because of it.

[wombat666]

He is wanting to fly FSX on it, and the employee at Best Buy said it would handle it.

Anything for a sale Chief!
I'm with you, been building my own systems for the last 17 years [time certainly flies] and integrated graphics never did cut it for me.
:kilroy:

[Navy Chief]

I heard back from my friend. Now he's planning on adding a Ge Force GTS 250 card. I cautioned him to be prepared to upgrade his PSU....NC

[napamule]

I left out a very important operation that MOST simmers don't realize will improve the Sim performance, although it's Windows related. The first thing is to set your FSX screen res to the same as your Desktop res. There is a scientific explanation as to 'why?' but trust me, it makes a difference to your video card. I have mine at 1400x1050x32 (23'' wide screen LCD). I don't need 1900 x ????. Unless you have a 50'' monitor-then maybe.

I made screenies of settings that make a difference (trust me). Go to 'Start/Control Panel' and follow screenies. Minor adjust? Unimportant? Not in my book. Especialy the page file. You can make it 1.5x your physical memory (if you have 4 Gb, then make it 8 Gb (exact amt gets rounded out by windows). Click 'Set' to make it stick (not just 'ok'). Have fun.
Chuck B
Napamule
Edit:The order is right to left for sequence (got posted backwards).

[gigabyte]

argo,
You said: '... may be a bit too new for FSX'. That's incorrect assumption. I have a i7 2600K @ 3.8 Mhz on air cool and a simular video card to yours (I have ATI Radeon HD-5770 ($150)) and I get 100+ fps in FSX (with no AI traffic) with sliders ultra high (except water is 'low 2x'). I lock at 30 fps and get 30.1 (hehe) so it's NOT your 'new' or 'modern' hardware. It's your fsx cfg tune up. Did you run your fsx.cfg thru Jesus's ('Venetuvo') auto tune? That would help a lot. You can visit Bojote's FSX Tweaking & Tuning service at http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html . Good luck.
Chuck B
Napamule
PS: And how well FSX runs also depends on how many 'Services' you have running in the background. Here is a pic of my 'load'. Keep it real.


Just a note here and I am not trying to "nit pick", but the screen shot you show is not the running services, that is the Processes, and it is only a small portion of the possible process list, to get the true picture you must check the box at the bottom to see processes from all users - I know there may only be one user logged in but there are other active system user accounts running in the background at all times and they use resources. Your active process list for your account looks to be very clean and the CPU load is 1% so it should be performing as well as the system can, but you can't be sure how many background services and system processes are idle at any given time, if there is anything in the system scheduler or any dependent services that start up after you open FSX such as update checks for AV software or Toolbars, the load can go up very quick, and very often if a service starts while an application has priority the service and it's associated dependent process(s) will not shut down and release the memory blocks they have reserved, they wait for priority to complete their task and they just plug up the works if you will.

I am not saying that checking the process list is not a good idea, it is something I do often and is quite useful, but if you are looking to get the full picture make sure you look at all users, and if you are running XP you have to use the Services Manager to view the Services not the Process Manager, they both play a part.

[gigabyte]

UMA is Unified Memory Architecture. This means that the graphics controller on this desktop is integrated into the chipset/motherboard and uses video memory via sharing from system memory. Therefore, it does not have a dedicated / discrete graphics card.

So am wondering if his new system can, indeed, run FSX?

Thanks in advance, shipmates.

NC


Chief, I will not defend the Sales - what ever they call themselves, but UMA is quite a step up from what we have always seen in integrated Video cards, I have not tried it with FSX but I can say I have tried a system that uses UMA technology for one of my AutoCad stations at work and it actually performs better than the existing station that is using a dedicated card with 512Meg DDR 5 Video RAM. We have been having problems with a Rendering application that turns CAD drawings into "Walk through" movies in essence and this new system with UMA seem to handle it very well. The rest of the specs are comparable, CPU, RAM, PSU, HDD, etc. we are getting a rendering approx 1/3 the times it takes on the existing system, so while it is not a direct comparison both use the Video resources in a similar way so it might be worth your buddies while to try FSX on the system as it is before he drops another $150.00, it will not cost him anything to try.

[Navy Chief]

.....it might be worth your buddies while to try FSX on the system as it is before he drops another $150.00, it will not cost him anything to try.

Great advice; thanks!!! Pete

[napamule]

gigabyte,
I said: '..how many 'Services' you have running in the background'. 'Services' in quotation marks to 'qualify' it. But I have clicked on 'PROCESSES' tab, so am well aware of difference. Maybe I am trying to describe what windows is 'doing'. Like the good all days: TSR's. Remember those? But of course you are right. I guess I am just being 'cute' (and using poetic liscense?). Maybe Francois will notice my 'style' and recruit me to write for his magazine (ha).

The 'other' thing that I inadvertently left out is that after install of FS9/FSX it is very IMPORTANT that you DEFRAG the HD the sim is on. No ifs, and, or maybe.
Chuck B
Napamule
Edit: I just looked and I do have 'show all users' checked. Don't know what happen.