Best laptop for FSX for under $1500 Can.?

Rebadged 215. But you can find reviews in the Asus forum, has good performance in current games.

 

You can force pretty much any program including Fsx to use from 1-4 Cores or you can let the Turbo Boost feature of the i7 take care of it. The Turbo Boost will be approximately 3.0 Ghz for a single Core, 2.8 Ghz for 2 Cores and 2.0 Ghz if 3 or 4 Cores.

Fsx's performance is more related to clock rate as opposed to number of Cores and yes, you could force Fsx to run on 2 Cores then decide if you want DX10 on or off.

The issue is you would have to manually set Core affinity each time you start up Fsx unless you can find a prgram or method of doing it automatically. The one I know of is not Windows 7 compatible.

I would expect performance to go down with DX 10 in all cases.

 

The performance increase forcing 2 cores seemed massive, so i would probably have to find a way of making it permanent. Could you do a quick test of fps with dx10 enabled forcing 2 cores please?
Thanks

 

Also wouldnt letting the turbo boost sort it out be a bad thing? It would automatically decide 4 cores and then running at a lower clock speed? Thanks

 

Sure, the only problem is on knowing which Cores to use because if you select a virtual one then results will be severely reduced. Virtual Cores look the same as physical ones as far as I can tell.

 

The Turbo Boost will probably get it wrong a lot of times but there may be a method of simply forcing or manually changing to Turbo Mode or 2 Cores other than using affinity.

 

Right i see, surely you could determine which cores are real and virtual after playing around with it abit? Isnt it just written at Cpu 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7?

 

Yea you could do that but another issue is that you could end up using 1 physical and 1 virtual Core as opposed to 2 physical so reducing performance potentially. I guess in theory you could either disable hyper threading some how or find some other method of determining Core type.

I tried again but this time I coudn't find the right Cores and was getting 15 fps lol.

 

Last few questions i promise
If you could do fps on dx10 forcing the two cores that would be great.
also can you see a difference between dx10 on or off?
Thanks

 

So the real and virtual cores do they keep changing around? Couldnt you use the same ones you did for the 2 core affinity you did in the results?

 

Did the game generally look good to play though? Respectable frames with good graphics? Il play around with the affinity when i get it i think, unless you find a solution lol.
If your in the mood a youtube video with sp2 dx10 would be awesome, only if you have the time
No worries otherwise, thanks for your time.

 

I am not sure but I have just found some freeware that claims to automatically set affinity. It also differentiates between physical and virtual Cores as well as allowing you to set priority so I am testing this out.

Using that freeware with DX 10 and forcing it to use only 2 physical Cores I get the following:

Min 9, Max 68, Avg 40.937

I would expect better performance from forcing 2 Cores with SP1 installed.

 

Well that sucks!
didnt you use sp2 with 2 cores last time though?

 

Am i reading this right then?

SP2 Dx9 forced 2 cores = 35/82/56
SP2 Dx10 forces 2 cores = 9/68/41

Was the 9 a mistake? Seems shocking a 9!
SP2 is kinda essential for me lol.
Looking at the figures surely the best bet is to do SP2 DX9 with 2 cores?
can you tell the difference between dx9 and dx10?

 

I didn't test SP1 with 2 Cores before. I don't think DX9 looks that different to DX10 in this game and it is labelled as a DX10 preview so maybe it is not finished or unoptimised.

Bare in mind that the benchmark is designed as a worse case scenario because when I go into game on those sae settings and DX10, I get frame rates from 85-100 fps.

Yes, SP2 with 2 Cores with either DX9 or DX10 it is. The problem is that SP2 offloads the scenary streaming to a dedicated Core.

 

Ok so in conclusion whats my best option?
I think my best bet is SP2 DX9 2cores 35/82/56
Did the freeware programme give the same fps results as when you got the two real cores by chance?

 

if you could post a youtube video, say 30 seconds or so of the best performance you have that would be great. Does it look good to play, nice sharp graphics and good fps when playing?

 

DX10 with SP1 or SP2 you get 85-100?
do you just put it through hell and calculate the results then?
Its so confusing!
What would you recommend for me then. Looking for 25 fps all the time/ graphics not such a big issue as long as they are comfortable/sharp!
We have gone from 35fps min to 85! 85 is like a nasa computer. lol

 

Most useful benchmarks are designed to push a system to its limits. Take Furmark as an example, that tool is designed to test stability and temperatures of GPU's. In that program it can push a GPU to 90C yet in actual everyday use the GPU will never go beyond 80C for example.

Now back to Fsx, I get 85-100 fps with DX10 and SP2 in game because that is just standard gameplay. Benchmarks are designed to stress out the a system so I will rarely get performance like that.

You won't have any problems with Fsx with this laptop. I expect a 3.0 Ghz Core2Duo will give great performance as well.

From the original Fsx benchmark thread

When you play the game as usual, you are not putting it through stress like this all of the time I would imagine.

 

I don't have anything to do videos with but yes it looks great, performs very well but if you go with the full HD, you may be forced to lower res which will cause a slight blur which I never like.

 

Thanks for all the replies.
I found out that I get a 10% EPP discount with Dell (and maybe able to haggle a bit beyond that). So I'm now slightly leaning towards an Alienware M15x.
With an i7 processor, 4Gig Ram, 1600 screen, GTX 260m, I'm looking at about 1700 Can.
I know I can get a similar spec Asus (with a higher res screen) for about $200 less....but I just have no experience with Asus and their support, which makes me nervous with this much $$ involved. Whereas I have about 11 years experience with Dell (Alienware) products and service, and knock on wood, they've been very good...

 

ASUS gives you free 1 year accidental damage protection and another year of warranty, so 2 years of coverage. I'm in Canada also, last year my G1S broke and had to get a motherboard replacement. So I called them up, they sent me a box the next day (prepaid for FedEx overnight shipping), but my laptop somehow revived :S then I didn't send it back. Two weeks later it broke again and they sent me a second box, this time I sent it back. Sent out the laptop on Monday, they received it on Tuesday, fixed it on Wednesday / Thursday (the tech called me up to ask whether there was anything else I wanted) and it was back in my hands on Friday. I don't know if the ASUS support in Canada is still like that, but if it is, then I have a hard time seeing Alienware beat that.

 

Im really undecided on resolution lol. Fraps you could use that i heard its decent. When you say 85-100 fps on desktops thats extreme, so thats impressive.
is this ignoring the affinity thing?
il just probably get sp2 and dx10 and live with that.
Off topic do you think the gtx 300 series will be compatible with this? Then i would get 1080p?
Is 1600x900 ok for using hdmi with tv?
Thanks

 

Just one added thing, do you think its better to have 1080p and lower the graphics settings? Or have 900p and have a higher setting, resulting. In similar frames?

 

From all the reading I've done, I believe you will have a better display with running the 900 at native. You might get the same frame rate with the 1080 and lower settings, but might not look as good since you won't be running at native.
At least that is my understanding..

 

Using fraps to record a gaming video will lower fps a lot because its recording process is very intensive. Youtube lowers quality through compression as well. If you are buying a laptop purely for Fsx and nothing else then it is possible that this laptop is overkill. I just played Fsx in free mode just now at medium - high settings and I was hitting 140 fps. You have no worries about the performance of it but I just assumed that you were aware of the nature of gaming benchmarks and / or benchmarking in general that is not always representative of standard every day gameplay. I do think that you will get great performance in Fsx with a 3.0 Ghz Core2Duo paired with a GTX280 / GTX260M as well.


@gibson00

I would still recommend a Sager / Clevo over that even if you are getting a discount because the build quaity, cooling and reliability of the Sager will be so much better.

 

i see, so when you got those figures what were you using? sp2 dx10? With or without affinity?
Could u do me a favour and take off or land at heathrow or los angeles and give the frames, thT is usually a test! Thanks

 

Thanks for the advice, its difficult because my plan is fsx based, but then i see videos of people maximising gta iv in 1080p, same with need for speed. So il end up going for 1080 i think. 900 feels abit awkward and not a common resolution idk. According to xotic pc they said its likely gtx 300m series will be compatible with the laptop, so then less of an issue. But then i want ai traffic and heathrow airport addon, so it brings me back to 900. Then i think if i use fs9 maxed that would still be good, with addons, so im confused lol

 

When I got those figures, it was with DX10 and nothing about the CPU's affinity had been changed.

I just did a take off from Heathrow Airport in the sunny day,flying a boeing 747, minmum fps was 45 fps, mosly the minmum was 55 fps but I noticed 75 fps to be very frequent. This was with DX10, native resolution, medium high settings, global High. It was very smooth with no slow downs. Los angeles was similar accept the maximum fps was usually around 50-60 fps but it was night time.

 

Your still better off with Asus G73... It should play flight simulator on max easily.... also doesn't have problems like ASUS G50 or G51 series...

 

Did you notice the frame rates when they maximised those games at full HD? Need for speed went below 30 fps quite a few times from what I saw and GTA IV looked to be running at around 35 fps. When you get a GPU upgrade, with the 1600x900 screen your performance will increase even more.

 

This is awesome! Is medium high decent graphics? What frames do you get with everything on high? Im happy with 35+ fps so im wondering what settings i can roughly achieve.
This is excellent. Thanks again.

 

Medium - High looks real good to me but I am only a casual Fsx gamer. I just tried all High and took of from Los Angelos, the most frequent minimum fps was 35 fps, once I saw it dip to 27 fps but the most constant fps was 45 and it hit 50 fps sometimes. Frame rate varies when you change views but every view performed very well.

Now consider the minimum fps of 35 fps at native, on the full HD screen that could potentially be lowered to 25 fps at native.

 

Thats my concern, i havent really played fsx in depth much myself, just im undergoing flying training and its essential. Is there anyway you could print screen an image of medium high and high settings?
Its a subjective thing as long as its sharp and looks decent im happy lol. Is AA full?
Im leaning towards 900p just for the reasons of better fps, and being such a small screen it shouldnt make much of a difference no?
Im only concerned with using it on a TV. Does it look nice for say typing a document as well? Or did you only get 900 based on gaming benefits? Thanks again your really helping

 

I got the 1600x900 screen based on pure gaming but it is also fine for everything else from movie watching to typng documents. I think if I had full HD screen, that I would need to lower the res in the desktop because the text would be too small, or use some kind of magnification.

In Fsx, AA was enabled in all standard and benchmarking. Will do screen shots another time, I have loads of game installs running right now.

 

Yes sure i have just noticed all these posts, not sure what totally sure what happened lol.
I think i might get a 1600x900 and put the saving towards some ram?
What will happen putting it on a TV? Would it then be best to use 720p?
Im not sure what time your on but if they could be on for when i wake up that would be awesome, its 10pm ish here. That would be great.
Glad your enjoying the laptop and all it has to offer, is it loud and have you noticed any problems?
Thanks

 

I think you probably need to get the same as me and be done with the worrying, i7, 4g RAM, GTX260m, 1600x900. That is what I am looking at in the Alienware M15x. I imagine it'll run most anything really well, including FSX.

 

Yea there has been loads of posts here but I am sure others can benefit from the conversation. The fans are so quiet that I thought they were not working but they are. During gaming the fans don't make a lot of noise either. Fan noise is probably determined partly by how well the bare bones has been assembled by your reseller or who ever did it.

I never use external TV's but you should have no problems. I have enclosed a few screen shots. I used fraps to do them and you can see the fps at the time.

 

Great stuff, really appreciated.
Im going for 1600x900, i realised my last laptop was 1280x800, and i thought that was great. So no brainer as of now, an extra 8-10 fps is massive.
Hope you had a nice day talking to me and doing benchmarks etc lol.
I got mine from Xotic PC, and im actually flying from Heathrow to LAX to pick it up, and see family lol.
Where did you get yours from?
Nice pics, did you say AA was on complete full?
Are the pics medium or high settings, some of the ground looks a little shallow? (is that the word), but looks really decent, the plane in paticular.
Is there anything you would recommend before i finalise the purchase? I.e extra ram?
When i say that i mean for the immediate future, obviously in 2-3 years it would be very useful.
Thanks again, if you love helping people so much what frames do you get high around the center of NYC?
A pic of take off would be awesome, to analyse an airport. Highest possible settings that give a nice fps would be appreciated, thanks again.
Thanks

More info : Ive noticed 1600x900 is 16:9 and all the modern resolutions are 16:10. Apparently there isnt an option for this in the FSX settings?

 

Yep im going for that, but with Xotic PC you get a GTX 285m!
Iv heard bad things from alienware, but its your call. Depends if you want the stylish looking product or the cheap and chearful one with the slightly better components, and sager is upgradeable

 

I had a great day, the beauty of having a Quad Core is that you can do so much at once with great performance. You could be installing one game while playing another, while encoding music, burning a CD etc etc. I still have many games to install and bench but it is all so much fun.

By the way, that Bill2's Process Manager freeware program I linked to allows you to set the Core number or type of Core to use for any program including Fsx so you could configure it exactly how you wish. If you found using only 2 physical Cores gave best performance then you could set it to do this automatically.

I got mine from KobaltComputers UK, they are the best and they really thoroughly burn test the laptop before shipping after they have built up the bare bones themselves. They also have a standard 2 Years European collect and return warranty on this laptop.

I don't know, all I know is the box that says ''Anti-Aliasing'' was ticked.

The pics are on high but you can fine tune settings to add more detail in for example scenary but reduce it in other areas that you aren't concerned with.

I recommend 4GB of RAM minimum and a 640GB HDD. I also recommend a decent Notebook cooler such as the NC2000. That laptop does not need any help in keeping cool at all but the Notebook cooler will keep the other components cooler so extending the life of the laptop.

I briefly tested out NYC and it was the lowest fps so far. I had settings on high, AA on, DX10 on. At first I got 27 fps but then after a short while it was at a constant 35 fps, later that was usually around 45-50 fps. NYC seems to be one of the most demanding areas so far.

Fsx did have a 1600x900 setting but a few other games might not. There are always ways around it they don't.

 

I wont quote because it seems a bit long, but thanks again.
Im really concerned over 16:9?
I thought 1080p was 16:10 which has kinda annoyed me, do you notice any difference? Surely your last laptop was 16:10?
Thanks

 

Just another point, could you please give me the exact measurements of the (screen) both length and width please lol
It is widescreen right?
Im not going with a cooler for now, going to be spending more than enough lol

 

Im absolutely so confused right now to which resolution i need/want lol.
16:9 resolutions it goes 1080p then 900p. Errgggh!
I thought something might be in the middle lol answer my question.
Could you post some shots of how the screen looks please, like the desktop page to see the size proportions? Im worrying i will need 1080p later, if i go to FS9 i would regret it you see.
Argghh!

 

My last laptop was a 1680 X 1050 resolution, this one is wide screen but I don't notice much difference really. Apparently it is cheaper to manufacture the 900 one so they use that more now. I am not too bothered, it will take some getting used to that's all.

Nothing can be perfect in every way. I didn't waste time worrying too much about it. The 1600 x 900 screen is a good compromise over performance and looks. The full HD one may look better but I guarantee that you will feel like switching down a res to get better performance in games.

If you are so unsure just arrange to go in and take a look at both resolutions running some games or ask some one who has this same laptop but with a full hd screen. I bet most people purchased the full HD one.

I have absolutely no regrets but playing at native res is very important to me. If you want to know the exact measurements, just ask at the Kobaltcomputer forums.

 

Med High is very acceptable - a lot depends on what you plan to fly as well (low and slow or high and fast).

I get a steady 30fps in most locations around the world, with everything set higher than that, as well as with REX running and few other add-ons (i dont run DX10 mode because some of the anomalies it produces irritate me, but most people find they get better FPS with it). Definitely use NHancer to set your graphics card up as that helps with a few FSX quirks.

Hope this helps

A

 

Yes thanks alot.
Im going with fhd 1080p because I can still get a good performance, and ive downgraded a 1080p monitor im using now and put it at 1600x900 and it only looks bad with loads of writing, which most games are graphically based.
30FPS is awesome, so the moral is im just going to use 1080p, most things wont need to be changed, but if it does its not the end of the world, im used to gaming at like 1280x800 so will be an improvement.
Then also if i go FS9 for maxing things out, i still have the option of 1080p.
When you say you got 30 FPS that was 1080p res right?
Thanks

 

Yes, im still fiddling with the FSX settings to get the best performance for my GA flying but I run it full screen at native resolution. I dont fly any very detailed aircraft, but they do pull my frame rates right down when i briefly tried the lovely Citation jet.

Big cities obviously drag it down - flew into London City last night and I think I was probably down to 15fps - still flyable though

A

Edit - should mention that I fix my framerate to a max of 30fps - seems to be smoother for me than when it bounces from 30-90-30-50 etc

 

Ah right, could you do me a massive favour and try going through london again at 1600x900 resolution?
does it look a lot worse to look at and what kinda frames are you getting?
London City again to compare accurately, thanks
This would be really appreciated.
Im trying to back my decision up for 1080p or 900 native, and if going from 1080p native and going to 900p is a good idea, or should i just get the 900p native.
Lol
Thanks

 

This is very interesting, I wonder what frame rates Arabella would get if he ran the same benhmark that I did. I am also curious about his frame rates in NYC.

@Will1692

I thought you had 100% decided to go for fullHD