Archived

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

jfri

Will there be a difference in performence between these system

Recommended Posts

Take a system with a 8400 and 2 Gb RAM and a 8800GT. Will there be a difference in FS9 FSX performence between Win XP and Vista (64 bit)? If so which is faster?The same thing but with 4 Gb RAM instead of 2 Gb?

Share this post


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

Running FSX in Vista 64 would eliminate any possibility of out of memory errors that some folks have had issues with because you have more memory space to deal with. If you're going the Vista 64 bit route, you might as well install 4GB RAM just because its so inexpensive now. I did not notice any appreciable difference in performance with FSX between XP and Vista 64.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Running FSX in Vista 64 would eliminate any possibility of>out of memory errors that some folks have had issues withIs this a problem only in Vista 32 or also Win XP?>because you have more memory space to deal with. If you're>going the Vista 64 bit route, you might as well install 4GB>RAM just because its so inexpensive now. >If I would get Vista it will be Vista 64 with 4 Gb RAM. Otherwise Win XP Home and 2 Gb RAM.>I did not notice any appreciable difference in performance>with FSX between XP and Vista 64. What about FS9? And DX10 preview? Does it work better and more stable than Win XP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DX10 is only in Vista.....I use Vista 64..I tell no difference in speed...It has not given me any problems so far..... But it insists that to do a reformat the OC must be removed from the CPU or it can go NUTSO.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stay away from that 8400. That one's for business office machines. The 8800GT/512 is the way to go. The 9800GTX is going below $200 soon, however: 1) It's HuGe and will need lots of room in your case. It will need 2-3 harddrive racks to be evacuated And block 4 (vertical-style) mobo SATA plugs.2) It needs pOweR.3) It's a great wintertime room heater, not so nice in the summer.4) I'm (still) seeing no difference between the 9800GTX and my current 8800GT in FS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he means the Intel E8400?In any case, there will be some big price decreases in the future due to ATI's release of the 4850. It might be a good idea to wait a bit and see where the prices end up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes, now I see it. I concur with all previous. 1) Go with Vista 64 to forestall those OOM issues. I'm running Process Monitor on a 2nd LCD with FSX running. I'm seeing greater than 2Gs of Vmemory in use All The Time. That'd cause an OOM in a 32 bit op system. I'll be setting up a PMDG airplane flight into a big addon airport soon. 2.5Gs of Vram is the highest I've seen yet with the default airplanes. I'm sure PMDG and I can take out that 32 bit system's max 3G (switch) limit. I'll bet I can hit the 64bit op system's 4G limit too. Stay tuned. 2) Physical ram loads for - Just FSX - run 1.7G+ too. With only 2Gs of physical ram installed, the op system (32 or 64 bit) would 'starve out' FS to allow itself enough ram to function as an Operating System.Run Vista 64 and 4Gs-O-ram. Reasons 1 and 2 are why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Maybe he means the Intel E8400?>Yes he (I) meant the penryn Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 6MB FSB1333 Boxed (with cpu-cooler!) Socket 775. What other '8400' are there?>In any case, there will be some big price decreases in the>future due to ATI's release of the 4850. It might be a good>idea to wait a bit and see where the prices end up.Wait how long? Weeks? Months? At any rate it would be best if I could wait until August or September if possible. But my current system has showed signs of severe trouble. But I might be the cause of that on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Ahhh yes, now I see it. I concur with all previous. >>1) Go with Vista 64 to forestall those OOM issues. I'm running>Process Monitor on a 2nd LCD with FSX running. I'm seeing>greater than 2Gs of Vmemory in use All The Time. That'd cause>an OOM in a 32 bit op system. I'll be setting up a PMDG>airplane flight into a big addon airport soon. 2.5Gs of Vram>is the highest I've seen yet with the default airplanes. I'm>sure PMDG and I can take out that 32 bit system's max 3G>(switch) limit. I'll bet I can hit the 64bit op system's 4G>limit too. Stay tuned. >>2) Physical ram loads for - Just FSX - run 1.7G+ too. With>only 2Gs of physical ram installed, the op system (32 or 64>bit) would 'starve out' FS to allow itself enough ram to>function as an Operating System.>>Run Vista 64 and 4Gs-O-ram. Reasons 1 and 2 are why.One thought here. When I tested out FSX on my current system at the time it was released I never experienced any OOM issues.Another question that needs to be asked is if my HD is big enough. Got two IDE of 250 Gb and 60 Gb. I think I have read that only installing Vista will take some 60 Gb, true? Then if I add both FS9 and FSX with addons space might be running out.BTW I read a article in the May issue of Computer Pilot about upgrading to Vista. They wrote that they recommended 2 Gb of RAM and 'moving to 4 Gb appears to make little difference, but is useful if you need to to switch to other application)'.Also they stated 'FSX has considerably fewer issues with Vista than FS9'. Is Vista best for FSX but Win XP best for FS9 maybe? My current systemAMD 64 3200+1 Gb RAMNVIDIA 6600GT 256M DDR3Two IDE HDWin XP Home OEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Maybe he means the Intel E8400?>>>>Yes he (I) meant the penryn Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 6MB>FSB1333 Boxed (with cpu-cooler!) Socket 775. What other '8400'>are there?There's the GeForce 8400 series video cards. It took me reading your post a couple of times to figure out you were talking about the E8400 and not the video card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 32bit system will OOM at 2G. If a player has the HP to run high sliders with 512G Vcards, these 2G OOMs will be common. For instance, an AMD 2.0/1G/6600GT-256 will never allow the data load to induce even a 2G OOM. An Q66/4G/8800GT-512 will get there on virtually Every flight. That GTX280 will likely threaten the 3G limit in Every flight. I haven't hit 3G yet with the 8800GT-512, but I'm working on it. 2) Physical ram loads for - Just FSX - run 1.7G+ too. With only 2Gs of physical ram installed, the op system (32 or 64 bit) would 'starve out' FS to allow itself enough ram to function as an Operating System.Computer pilot doesn't know. This is what's happening. What Vista issues are those? Unless they can point to something, anything, I'm not sold. Vista's fine. Seems to me Vista bashers just want appear smarter than a really smart . . . anything. You'll be fine with the operating system and FXS on one 250G HD. Use the other for data storage. A Vista install is < 20G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>A 32bit system will OOM at 2G. If a player has the HP to run>high sliders with 512G Vcards, these 2G OOMs will be common. >For instance, an AMD 2.0/1G/6600GT-256 will never allow the>data load to induce even a 2G OOM. An Q66/4G/8800GT-512 will>get there on virtually Every flight. That GTX280 will likely>threaten the 3G limit in Every flight. I haven't hit 3G yet>with the 8800GT-512, but I'm working on it. >Shouldn't the swap file be used when RAM runs out? Why would the new GTX280 be more affected?>Computer pilot doesn't know. This is what's happening. >>What Vista issues are those? Unless they can point to>something, anything, I'm not sold. Vista's fine. Seems to me>Vista bashers just want appear smarter than a really smart . .>. anything. >I think they meant more work to have function as intended. The author wrote that he ended up with working sims both FS9 and FSX.He also wrote that there was little or no advantage with Vista f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physical ram loads will swap over to the swap file if necessary, however it's always better to Not have to use the swap file. $35 worth of ram will do that trick. On the Vmemory front, a 32 bit op system will simply shut dowm a program if it's Vm requirement goes beyond 2G - or 3G with the 3G switch enabled.This is a pic of a tool called Process Manager. The "Virtual Size" column shows FSX's Vm number. Note it is 3.4Gs. Even with the 3G switch enabled in a 32bit op system, the program would have shut down at 3G. I would have been able to go to 4G because I'm running a 64 bit op system. The "WS Private" is the physical ram in use. Note that it is 2.6G. A 2G install of physical ram wound have had to go to the page file here. It's better to keep this in physical ram if possible. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/189997.jpgThis was an FSX approach to JFK 13L in the PMDG 744. The IAP is directly over Manhattan. Every setting was full right/on. This was very strictly a 'test flight' and I staggered down final at 3FPS. Note the system ram load is 3.5G. I finally landed and now (simply) have the flight minimized as I write this post and use the computer as normal. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/189998.jpgYou might just consider a quad. Look at those 4 cores crankin'. They all really got a work out this time. Very cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Physical ram loads will swap over to the swap file if>necessary, however it's always better to Not have to use the>swap file. $35 worth of ram will do that trick. >But such a swap shouldn't trigger a OOM. My impression has been that by a OOM problem means that the system crashes and not just a decrease in performence, correct?Otherwise this info means things get tricky (expensive) for me. As I understand it FSX is not going to funcyion correctly if I try to run it under Win XP with 2Mb or with Vista without 4Mb RAM because of OOM crashes , correct. >This was an FSX approach to JFK 13L in the PMDG 744. The IAP>is directly over Manhattan. Every setting was full right/on.Is that PMDG a big performence hitter? For me it seems that New York is big performence killer on FS9 on my system. What is your systen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, here is a puzzle for ya:Why does it crash? I have no explanation: it crashes always when at touchdown, or 10ft before or just slightly after. Same flight from KATL to EGKK. Tried two different aircraft, PSS 777 and LDS 767, same thing. If I fly with the /3GB switch, it doesn't crash. But using /3GB switch, I can't use my BAV ACARS (online tool for British Airways Virtual).But I am kinda puzzled why it crashed 1,75 GB of usage? Why didn't it wait to cross 2GB mark???http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/190003.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/190004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word Not Allowed, That's not the OOM message. Sounds like a swap file problem (maybe?). Make sure you have the swap file set to System Manage. Now Vmemory. This Vmemory thing is Not the swap file or physical ram. The program and the op system are constantly chatting. The op system keeps a tally sheet of what it THinKs it will need (in the future). It also adds in the projected Video memory. This is the VS number in Process Explorer. It is a "tally sheet" number, OnLy. It is some soft of internal function in which the op system engages. Consider this function with a 64bit system running a 64bit program. This function will still occur, but the limit will be 8 terabites. We're not worried, right? 8 trillion bites ought to do it. In 1965, they weren't worried either cuz they thought 4 billion bites ought to do it. WroNg.The system will continue to run fine because No Physical limits are being exceeded. However when the system's VS number is exceeded, the program will simply shut down. It was supposed to be more of an engineering function. We were NeveR meant to encounter this function, but here we are.>> As I understand it FSX is not going to funcyion correctly if I try to run it under Win XP with 2Mb or with Vista without 4Mb RAM because of OOM crashes , correct. nO. That's noT correct. OOMs have nothing to do with physical anything.If you are considering a strong system, don't even think about a 32bit op system. I can ramp over 3Gs of VS at will. This will OMM Any 32 bit op system. Again, this can happen at AnY physical ram load. It has Nothing to do with Physical ram. (I just hit 3.6Gs (VS) inbound to EGLL with 2.7Gs physical ram load). Q6600@3.6/4GRam/8800GT. I can run any default airplane over Seattle (2K' @ 180kst) in FSX with with 100% AG/Spec effects, full scenery sliders except 2-Low water, ~ 15% AI . . . locked at 20FPS with adequate fluidity. Those settings are on the ragged edge. Even a knat's whisker above that starts inducing Bad stutters.PMDG is the final frontier for FSX, and it's ThE killer. Any PMDG flight needs AG/SE and AI Totally off. Even then, the plane lacks 'feel.' I'm back to FS9 for any serious flights with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, this IS FS9. I never said that I am running FSX. I can't hit the numbers you are counting with FSX...What is it, if not OOM? What is an OOM then?Swap is set to system managed, it creates 2GB file, and for that I made it a 3GB separate parition where swap file is sitting.I will create another swap file on C, which has more space, maybe that will give it more workout space.The fact is, it always crashes at the same moment. And only after a long flight.I bought today another 2GB'o'RAM, so installing Vista64 is an option. And probably a good one. Just one driver I am missing, so waiting for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>> As I understand it FSX is not going to funcyion correctly>if I try to run it under Win XP with 2Mb or with Vista without>4Mb RAM because of OOM crashes , correct. >>nO. That's noT correct. OOMs have nothing to do with physical>anything.>>If you are considering a strong system, don't even think about>a 32bit op system. I can ramp over 3Gs of VS at will. This>will OMM Any 32 bit op system. Again, this can happen at AnY>physical ram load. It has Nothing to do with Physical ram. (I>just hit 3.6Gs (VS) inbound to EGLL with 2.7Gs physical ram>load). >So these OOM crashes is to be expected if I use a 32 bit OS but not in a 64bit OS regardless of there is 2 Gb or 4 Gb RAM installed? BTW is VS=Virtual Space?I'm considering a functional system that is highest priority. Next comes good performence but I have to take the cost into account

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word Not Allowed. Good idea. There's no need for the swap file on another partition. Just let it build where ever Mr. Default wants. With 4Gs on-board now, you shouldn't need it (for FS). I tried the OOM experiment on a 32bit op system and it OOM'd precisely on schedule as VS ticked from 1.9 . . to 2.0. But there's still plenty 'bout 'puters I have still never seen (like pretty much, most!)>>So these OOM crashes is to be expected if I use a 32 bit OS but not in a 64bit OS regardless of there is 2 Gb or 4 Gb RAM installed? BTW is VS=Virtual Space?Precisely, X2. VS is Virtual Size. The computer world has a real bad tendency to call everything Virtual. If they don't know what else to call it, it's Virtual Stuff. For instance Windows likes to call the Page File "Virtual Memory." This stuff we are looking at is called Virtual Size by Process Explorer. I've called it Virtual Memory (Vm) and everybody else (I expect) has called it about everything else. It's a wild world out there. The trick is to know what it is, then look past the name. The system's hardware is not the issue. It's about the op system's VS limit and the resources the program needs.The ops system delegates ("tally sheets") more Vm (VS) as a game (program) load increases. If a light system forces you to use low FSX sliders, not much Vm will be tally'd. The 2 Gs of VS a 32bit op system provides will be plenty. Look at Word Not Allowed's FS9 shot. Even at high sliders, FS9 just doesn't use the resources FSX does. A strong system will let the user run FSX sliders high. Lots of resources will be required and Vm will ramp. Try setting max FSX sliders and just let a flight hop along at 2FPS (Amazon mission is good, Lots of trees). Watch VS in Process Explorer. The Vm requirement would be the same for a 'sliders high' Amazon mission running at 50FPS on a strong system or staggering along at 2 on a lighter one. The hardware would not change anything . . . . That said, we might find that VS also looks at the Vcard's physical ram. A 512 card will (might) add more Vm than a 256 card to this VS tally sheet number. The new 1G'd GTX280s might just obsolete 32 bit op systems - Entirely - at very high loads. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Word Not Allowed. Good idea. There's no need for the swap file on>another partition. Just let it build where ever Mr. Default>wants. With 4Gs on-board now, you shouldn't need it (for FS).>I tried the OOM experiment on a 32bit op system and it OOM'd>precisely on schedule as VS ticked from 1.9 . . to 2.0. But>there's still plenty 'bout 'puters I have still never seen>(like pretty much, most!)Umm, bit contradictory your statement: should I now disable the swap or just let managed onto C? And of course, while running XP32, I see only 2.98 without any /3GB switches, which I can't use, as I said before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then select to run the swap file using the default settings. The default settings will be to use your boot drive (partition) as the swap file's location and Let Windows manage the swap file's size. Then, delete your current swap file partition completely. It's wasted space.Your sig describes that you have 2Gs of physical ram onboard, but you are seeing 2.98Gs? What are you looking at? The 3G switch will not allow one to "see" anything. That is, other than a completed flight if Vm stays below 3G on this windows "tally sheet" thing Process Explorer is tracking as VS.Be careful not to confuse this Vm/VS operating system function with physical ram. They provide entirely different operating system functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, I already understood VS and physical. No, I now have 4GBs. Bought it yesterday, just sig not changed.I didn't activate any /3gb switch, since as I said, BAV ACARS won't start if I use the /3gb switch. Application crashes.Therefore now testing without the switch, and see what happens....So, it crashed. But now very close to 2gb, it was just 1910 and was showing also 1980 before landing.You know what else is very interesting, it exits with "Your computer has run out of available memory", and my sim starts with VS of around 800...then very quickly it builds up up to 1100, and after that, on the flight from Atlanta to London Gatwick, it grows up to 1900.What's up with that growing of usage? Is that normal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.9Gs could be right. A 32 bit op system also has a characteristic that it only will use ~3Gs of physical memory. This is not a hard limit like the VS 2G or (switched) 3G "tally sheet" limit. It varies by system. Some 32bit installs can use up to ~ 3.5. Why? Wish I knew.Now that you have the tools, you can watch what's going on. On my 64 bit install, VS was staying .5 to 1G - Above - my physical ram load for FS(X). With the default 2G of Vm available with an unswitched 32 bit system, I doubt FS(any) will be able to take advantage of anything above (say) 1.5Gs of physical ram. However the extra (recognized) physical ram will still be available to other processes (programs).As you saw, FSX proved it was willing to use ~ 2.7Gs of physical ram. I expect a 64bit op system running a 32bit program will Still OOM at 4Gs/VS. My test flight's real purpose was to bust that 4G/VS barrier and see if I could Force an OOM with a 64bit op system running a 32 bit program at 4Gs/VS. I hit 3.7G/VS at a 2.7G/physical ram load . . . but I just couldn't take it over the top. I was all over that dumb EGLL airport in fog, pouring rain, twilight, dawn, bloom, traffic, shadows . . the works. It just wouldn't go any higher. Any ideas on how to load the game any more? One of the guys has a GTX280 with 1G of Vcard ram. I'll bet that would have taken it over the top. We'll see. Ed: I see that growing thing too with the VS number. On the way into EGLL I lapped London proper a couple of times to load it up. I wanted the airport's VS load to build on an already high VS number. It's interesting to see how close we've been running to these OOM's with a fully modded out FS9. If the 64bit op system/32 bit program combo really will OOM at 4Gs, we're just that close again. I hit 3.7G/VS YesterDay. The real solution will be 64bit programs. Then OOMs will occur at 8 terabytes. That ought to do it.If FS11 is going to increase the load like FS9 > FSX, a FS11 program running as a 32bit application will be a train wreck just waiting to happen. It's TiMe for 64 bit applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for the prize-question:With 2.98 recognized, do I have to use /3GB switch to take the FS9 over the 2GB limit? Or is the modding of fs9.exe (cff explorer blah blah...) enough to let it go over the 2GB top?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only describe the VS 'tally-sheet' / Physical Ram relationship I've seen so far. I have never seen physical loads that were greater than the VS tally. However, I have a 4x4 system (4VS /4 Physical).For instance, I only had 2.7Gs of physical ram loaded when VS tally was at 3.7G. This VS was only .3Gs away from where I suspect this 64 bit x 32 bit combo would have OOM'd. In your case, I expect VS will also lead the system's physical ram load (for that particular program). Because of this, I expect that the system will experience a VS based OOM event before the physical ram load (for that particular program) gets anywhere near 2Gs.Remember too, there is No limit for physical ram usage. The 3G switch does not address any physical ram "limit" (directly). However it Will influence the amount of physical ram available to individual programs, indirectly.So: The 3G switch is needed - Only - to allow VS to run up to a higher VS crash (OOM) limit. Therefore: If the VS limit is raised, the program will be able to continue to run and and increase its physical ram usage - at will - until the VS / OOM crash. How much additional physical ram might this allow to be loaded? That's hard to tell, but my guess is it might be 1:1. Sounds like a fun experiment. Setup a test flight and see what it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites