13.3" for Flight Sim X

My brother currently has a Sony Vaio SR (P8400, ATI 3470M, 8GB, 500GB 5400RPM Drive). Want to know how the ATI 6470M, 6630M, Nvidia GT520M handle Flight Sim X? He like's his current Sony but it is falling apart (plus short battery life and my computers including a ULV machine have always felt faster), and wants to stay at that screen size, so I would like to know how low end cards handle the game coupled to an i5-2410M over his current Sony?


So he could get:

• Acer 3830TG (if it ever comes to the US 540M)
• Asus U31SD or U36SD (GT 520M)
• LG P330 (if it ever comes to the US, 555M)
• Sony Vaio SB (ATI 6630M one)

 

The 3830Tg overheats and downclocks because of its single fan cooling design.
The Asus has a weak graphics card.
The LG will be expensive (but might turn out to be a good product.)
The Sony is expensive and most likely has heat issues.

 

the comment on the S is that from a source or out of thin air?

I would guess that the lg would have heating issues since the TDP in that card is much higher

 

My two cents: Wait a week and a half for all the Llano laptops to come out. Theres bound to be a 400SP IGP Quad core 13.3 incher.

 

For flightsim you ned cpu power! Gpu is not that important. Even the fastest mobile processors struggle with FSX, if you include 3rd party scenery and AI traffic.
But of course, it depends on if he can live with low settings, then the i5-2410m will be fine
For FSX a quad core is really necessary

 

I agree with what n0elia says. FSX is all about CPU and marginally about GPU. That being said, where is this info coming from on Acer 3830TG having heating problems? 3820TG was notorious for excellent cooling in such a small package.

 

14" LG P430 is 4.27lbs (1.94kgs). 1.09" thick has a GT520M + Quad-core option.
I'm not aware of any 13" systems with Quad Core.

Have you considered an eGPU setup instead? The could consider the expresscard-equipped systems here like the 1.40kg Toshiba R830.

 

I don't know why people keep on saying a Quad Core is necessary. Fsx design started of using a single core and then Dual Core was patched into the code at a later time, and then basic multicore features were added. Take a look at your CPU usage while it runs and you should see the first Core being used more than any of the others.

If you benchmark Fsx, a Quad Core will only get the same performance as a Dual if it can match it clock for clock. A higher clocked Dual Core will perform better than a lower clocked Quad and this has been shown in benchmarks we did ages ago of a 2.8 Ghz Core2Duo vs a 2.0 Ghz Core2Quad. I wouldn't be surprised if a Dual Vs Quad at the same clock rate performed the same too.

 

FSX has supported quad core since SP1 (I only found this out recently). One of many links, but this one summarizes best:

Quad Core & FSX

FSX SP1 addressed the multi-core issue. There is a fsx.cfg file tweak to set multi-core for FSX operation:

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=n

n= # of Cores

1 = 1 core 0001
3 = 2 cores 0011
7 = 3 cores 0111
15 = 4 cores 1111

Just edit your fsx.cfg file and add the JOBSCHEDULER command line and change the n to the appropriate number for the amount of cores your CPU has.

Go to this website for more information on tweaks
Great add ons also
One of the best sites for FSX!

 

FSX loves CPU power and Nvidia GPU's. A fast quad-core with an Nvidia card will provide the best experience.

 

M14x is what you just described.

 

you mean the transvestite in the room? size and weight its hardly a 14''

 

They changed the design and it only has one fan doing all the work.

 

you can also find it in reviews and the owners lounge here

 

The m14x is still good for what you are saying. Good GPU and a VERY fast CPU. I don't see many alternatives other than the new LG330, thats not even out yet.

 

I am aware that Fsx added Quad support in the SP 1 update but the entire coding was not designed for Quad so it will never make significant performance differences.

With SP2, you no longer need to edit any config files too. Don't forget, some time ago we benched this game comparing the 2.0 ghz Q9000 Core2quad with a 2.80 Ghz Core2Duo. Everyone thought the Quad would perform better (including myself) but it was slower due to the clock rate.

Some suggest that a Quad is only better for this game if you use a lot of addons. Take this forum user for example, who upgraded his Dual Core (E6600) to a quad core (Q6600). Both overclocked to 3.42 Ghz. He reported seeing the same average frame rates as he did when he had a Dual Core.

If Fsx was coded from the ground up to use more Cores then that would be a different matter perhaps. FSX still uses a single Core to run the main code and the remaining three cores are only used for scenery loading.

 

I think I will wait and see what the 13.3" Llano laptops bring. Flight Sim X is the most demanding thing he does with his current SR, otherwise it is Office, Youtube, basic stuff. I think he could get by an AMD powered laptop. He even said he would be fine with forgoing an optical drive. And I wonder about the LG, by the time it comes out Ivy Bridge will be almost here. It really seems like Sandy Bridge has killed off the good Intel+dedicated graphics portables.

But still, how much improvement are the Nvidia 520M or ATI 6630M over the ATI 3470 for the game? Just wondering.

 

Pretty big improvement, especially the 6630M.