Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

I am using Windows XP and FS9 with many add-ons. My question is, how much difference will CL 4-4-4-12 make over 5-5-5-15 (with everything else being equal? If not in FS, where do such speed advantages show up? Also, is 4Gb overkill using XP? I know XP won't utilize all 4Gb, but it will utilize more than 2 Gb (with 4GB installed) Are there any advantages of having more the 2Gb of RAM using XP in any application?Thanks in advance.RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Decreasing the ram timings will provide no FS performance improvement. You might see a difference in an Everest memory benchmark run, that that's about. At our simming level, ram rated at lower timings is just a way to get us to spend more money on useless stuff. That said, there's a whole 'nother world out there that has an entirely different priority. Their priority is better Everest memory benchmarks. That's a great hobby too. With a 4 gig load, you'll see 3.2-3.5 available. My Vista64, 4 gig load generally runs over 3 gig with a flight running. If you feed it (ram) it will eat. Does it help? Couldn't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. Does the Everest memory benchmark relate to anything else in the real world of the home computer in terms of program performance?RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At our level, no. You'd have to spend thousands of dollars and invest years of patient experiment to gain even a subjective improvement from increased memory speeds. Everest's memory benchmarker is just a tool for computer hobbiests to measure the results of their latest science project. For us, it's just an interesting aspect of computer operation to know about. There's really no end, and that's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it can make a differnce in FSX as anything that increases the memory badwidth helps but it just isnt worth it if the only thing changed is the Latencies, you need a speed increase too. As for size, 2 gig is all you need and XP wont see all 4. Even in the most complicated places FSX barely creeps above 1.6 Gig and FS9 certainly wont get that close. Get memstatus, from the web ,it will let you see whats being used in video and system ram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on over to our memory chat room. We're considering that decreased Latency is parameter that will increase performance and that memory speed (bandwidth) only helps toward that goal. However it's all computer hobbiest stuff. None of it will help FS performance in any observable way. Theoretical, yes. Can you see a difference? No. If you possibly can, go with vista 64 and use 4 gigs. Your life will be easier in (almost) every way. Here and there you will find an obscure device that does not have vista support, but not often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you like that AMD64 X2 6400? That's the processor I am thinking about going with. Using FS9, it should shine.RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still in FS9 land. I won't even consider FSX for at least a year, possibly more. I am still not quite satisfied with FS9 at the point. I am using an overclocked FX57 (@3.0 Ghz). I am thinking about placing an AM2 daughter card in my ASRock board and going with the AMD64 X2 6400 with 4Gb of 800 speed DDR2. Even though the speed of the X2 will only be about .2Ghz higher at (3.2Ghz) and the DDR2 RAM slightly faster at DDR 800 speed, the second core should help run programs like Active Sky and Radar Conact. I am trying to squeeze all of the juice out of my ASRock board. I don't feel like getting a new motherboard and having to reload everything. I'd be interested in some comments on my plan.Thanks in advance for any comments!RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good choice. The AMD FX57 is still a completely adequate single core player. If you can just drop in an AMD dual, that'll get within 20% of any core2 rig. The DDR2-800 speed rating will make no difference. You best upgrade path might be Vista64 and a second 2 gigs of whatever you already have. Look what's coming . . . Very soon. (Comdex)http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/new...2008-great-wall"Chris "Fugger", Shamino, Kingpin and the rest of the top overclockers at the Foxconn "Quantum Force" booth also seem to have good words in for the Nehalem's clocks - but first take a look at their Penryn E-0 stepping overclocks tomorrow at the said location. Can anyone say 6.5 GHz quad-core?"This is all just initial exuberance, but there's no sense getting a bit excited about Any Core2 upgrade right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Intel Nehalem (@6.4Ghz) sounds just like what FSX needs!Would Vista64 and 4 Gb of RAM help FS9 performance. I don't use FSX now and will not consider it until I get my hands on one of those Nehalems.RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista 64 will stop the out of memory events. Vista's a memory hog, so 4 gigs will help with general usability. Not, necessarily FS9. However I see over 2 gigs total system usage with FS9 all the time. If I had only 2, the op system would have to cut back on FS9. I really don't want to go through a big resource purge drill every time I go flying, so 4 gigs is more of a convenience. So, yes. Both will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sam --Do you see over 2 gigs of total system RAM with FS9 in Windows XP a lot? So, would 4 gigs of RAM be a convenience in XP?Thanks for the info.RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't use XP, but the convenience would be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Sam. Is there any performance loss of FS9 in XP when compared to Vista64? I know Vista is more of a resource hog than XP in general. I'd hate to hook up Vista only to show a performance loss in FS9. If not, I'd consider even going as high as 8Gb of RAM in Vista64.Thanks,RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites