FSX running with Vista 64

[PierreFSX 5]

Hi,This is my first time so there we go, I am in the process of buying a new computer to run FSX and I wonder if I should install Vista 32 bit or Vista 64 bit. If I run Vista 64 with more then 4 gig of ram would I see any performance improvement? or should I stick with 4 gig and Vista 32?Thanks.....

[Guest Nick_N]

Hi,This is my first time so there we go, I am in the process of buying a new computer to run FSX and I wonder if I should install Vista 32 bit or Vista 64 bit. If I run Vista 64 with more then 4 gig of ram would I see any performance improvement? or should I stick with 4 gig and Vista 32?Thanks.....

If this is not a i7 processor system, I would go with Vista x64 and run 4 gigs (2x2GB)if its i7 Vista x64 and run 6 (3x2GB)you are much better of an a 64bit OS with FSX all the way aroundYou just need to make sure your hardware and devices are supported... most are now-a-days

[Guest Aviator4life]

I have my FSX w/Acceleration on a Vista Ultimate 64 bit OS. Run GEX, UTX, and REX with no problems here. Of course I followed all of Nick's tweaks as best I could for making everyone play nice together . . . No, I do not use the DirectX 10 preview option in FSX. Along with Nick's recommendations I would also add that you might consider a dual boot system if you do a lot of other PC gaming, you won't regret it. But keep it simple, two harddrives, one operating system on each drive. XP 32 bit and Vista 64 bit.Enjoy your new rig and best regards. :(

[Guest ziporama]

I'd recommend 64 bit for FSX. With regards to 4Gb or more, FSX on my system has not peaked much beyond 1.8Gb, primarily because FSX is 32 bit and it's going to have a hard time accessing more than 2Gb total. I don't believe the footprint will significantly increase beyond that, so 4Gbs should be ok to run the "other stuff".I think the question for >4Gb is probably more dependent on your processor/board combination as to what makes the most sense to get the best performance, such as multi-channels, which will boost somewhat your overall simulation performance, rather than make actual use of the memory capacity itself. I would go with at least 4, and see what makes sense for you beyond that.FS11 will hopefully include a 64 bit version as that platform becomes more and more popular, and that will become a totally different question!Etienne

[maximus92 0]

If this is not a i7 processor system, I would go with Vista x64 and run 4 gigs (2x2GB)if its i7 Vista x64 and run 6 (3x2GB)you are much better of an a 64bit OS with FSX all the way aroundYou just need to make sure your hardware and devices are supported... most are now-a-days

Why 6 GB on a i7? Why not 8 GB (4x2)? I see people building these i7 machines and only go to 6 GB, is that all it supports?I'm running 8 GB on my Athlon64 X2 with Vista 64 bit, and FSX is as smooth as butter. FSX, itself, may only have a footprint of about 1.8 gigs, but if you add in all the addons, the footprint starts to slowly grow. Plus the OS, programs running in the background and so on. Yeah, 4 gigs at the very least.

[maximus92 0]

Never mind, just read that i7 is tri-channel. Makes sense now. :(

[Guest Nick_N]

Never mind, just read that i7 is tri-channel. Makes sense now. :(

amazing when them lightbulbs pop on, eh? :(FSX SP2 will address up to 4GB in a 64bit OS (MAX for 32bit program in 64bit OS as I recall) and that amount depends on installed addons. As addons become more complicated and memory intensive the footprint will increase.Having 6 is a limit of i7 on tri-channel as you discovered, otherwise you are stuck at 3 if you wish to have the full ability of Quickpath in i7 at your disposal.It still wont go to waste.. assuming you expand into the 3.x GB range with installed addons in FSX there is nothing cramping it by limiting to 4GB. The extra is just breathing room. Of course A/V, engineer'in and graphics production just loves larger amounts of memory in x64they eat it up :(

[Alvega 2,119]

Having 6 is a limit of i7 on tri-channel as you discovered, otherwise you are stuck at 3 if you wish to have the full ability of Quickpath in i7 at your disposal.

Nick, 6 is not the limit on I7, you can go up to 12GB (4x3).Cheers.

[Guest Nick_N]

Nick, 6 is not the limit on I7, you can go up to 12GB (4x3).Cheers.

I did not say what I was trying to convey correctly... I know the upper limitWhat I expressed poorly is that in order to get at least 4GB in i7 (the max FSX can use being a 32bit application) and not be stuck at 3GB, for full quickpath support 6GB is the minimumsorry.. the way I posted it originally was not stated clearly.

[giddybert 1]

I did not say what I was trying to convey correctly... I know the upper limitWhat I expressed poorly is that in order to get at least 4GB in i7 (the max FSX can use being a 32bit application) and not be stuck at 3GB, for full quickpath support 6GB is the minimumsorry.. the way I posted it originally was not stated clearly.

Nick thanks for all your effort with the FSX tweaking guide, it's really appreciated.

[krishcanag 0]

Hi,This is my first time so there we go, I am in the process of buying a new computer to run FSX and I wonder if I should install Vista 32 bit or Vista 64 bit. If I run Vista 64 with more then 4 gig of ram would I see any performance improvement? or should I stick with 4 gig and Vista 32?Thanks.....

From my experience. I have tried FSX with add-ons of aircraft and traffic X, XP is the best, windows7 and vista 64 are equal 2nd.But still put in 4G memory, even though 3.25G will be seen, that is good enough.Most people think vista 64 would be better, becuase it can access all 4G, well its of no use, given that XP home is far lighter on its feet compared to vista anything, go with XP Home (32 bit)

[PierreFSX 5]

From my experience. I have tried FSX with add-ons of aircraft and traffic X, XP is the best, windows7 and vista 64 are equal 2nd.But still put in 4G memory, even though 3.25G will be seen, that is good enough.Most people think vista 64 would be better, becuase it can access all 4G, well its of no use, given that XP home is far lighter on its feet compared to vista anything, go with XP Home (32 bit)

Ok thanks for the advices, I guess I will try it and see.

[GSalden 4,655]

Till 2 years ago I used XP with very good performance.After that I used Vista 32 without any problems or issues. Vista , when tuned properly tuned, is very stable.Since 2 months I switched to Vista 64 , because of the OOM I got when using London VFR icw AI Traffic.I never had an OOM after the switch.W7 beta is smaller in size and therefor computers which are not high end might benefit from that.Using more than 4 Gb of memory ( Vista 64 /W7 64 ) is not a good idea , because Windows has to control the whole size of memory.When having more Gb than needed it will slow down performance.