Archived

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

mondeoman

Increased Memory

Recommended Posts

Hi, Could anyone please tell me if I would gain any noticable difference in running FS9, if I increased my memory (ram) from 2gbs to 3gbs?Many thanks

Share this post


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

Hi, Could anyone please tell me if I would gain any noticable difference in running FS9, if I increased my memory (ram) from 2gbs to 3gbs?Many thanks
While it could depend on your system's components and configuration, the general answer would be no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS9 is a 32bit program and limited to 2Gs. There are work-arounds to allow the program to use up to 3. However FS9 will not need it except under extreme memory loading circumstance. Unless you're running big jets (LVLD or PMDG), into big airports (Aerosoft Heathrow) there's no need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the same apply to FSX? Doesn't the amount of addressable memory depend upon the the Operating System (e.g. 32bit vs 64 bit)?Thanks,Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the same apply to FSX? Doesn't the amount of addressable memory depend upon the the Operating System (e.g. 32bit vs 64 bit)?Thanks,Don
The amount of ADDRESS SPACE when a system including its video memory + the OS requires more the the edit is made to the cache to allow that ADDRESS SPACE to expand and keep a 32bit OS from crashing to OOM errorsFS9 CAN USE more than 2GB IF, and only if a user edits the Fs9.exe file to the >2GB aware. This setting is known as LARGEADDRESSWARE and it will allow any 32bit application to use more than 2GB of memory, and, it requires special software to make that edit.FSX RTM (the DVD) and SP1 is NOT LARGEADDRESSWARE enabled, FSX SP2 and Acceleration, is but defaultThe only way the expanded memory amount would be of use to a FS9 user is if the user is already approaching the 1.8GB mark with system memory while FS9 is in use. This can happen especially with addons.and note that even WITH only 2GB of physical memory, larger video memory cards in a 32bit OS can squeeze the address space which is why Phil Tayor said the cache edit can help even those on running >2GB in reference to FSX (not FS9). It depends on the installed hardwareLet me make this quite clear... the act of adding 1 stick to a system can have negative effects on performance if that memory/motherboard reduces memory speed and removes DUAL CHANNEL memory operation in order to run the extra stick. Usually it is best to install 2x2GB over mismatched memory in a system. The user MUST consult their motherboard manual about using more than 2GB or 2 stick to assure the memory they purchase will not hinder performance instead of help it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me make this quite clear... the act of adding 1 stick to a system can have negative effects on performance if that memory/motherboard reduces memory speed and removes DUAL CHANNEL memory operation in order to run the extra stick. Usually it is best to install 2x2GB over mismatched memory in a system. The user MUST consult their motherboard manual about using more than 2GB or 2 stick to assure the memory they purchase will not hinder performance instead of help it.
What about 2x1GB plus 2x512MB? I think this is what the Manufacturer's were doing when they were offering computers with 3GB ram. Is this still considered a detrimental mismatch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about 2x1GB plus 2x512MB? I think this is what the Manufacturer's were doing when they were offering computers with 3GB ram. Is this still considered a detrimental mismatch?
As i said... The user MUST consult their motherboard manual about using more than 2GB or 2 stick to assure the memory they purchase will not hinder performance instead of help it.Some motherboards will allow full operation with the layout you mentioned, and that can also be influenced by the memory manufacture and their design as well. That is one area that can be tricky for a typical user to figure out. Usually the motherboard manual will list what the board will and will not allow in the memory section of the book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember 3 steps must be accomplished. 1) Any 32bit .exe file must be hi mem enabled. Both FSX and FS9 need mods. FSX got it with the SP2 update. FS9 needs it done manually.2) The op system needs to be hi mem enabled. 32 bit op systems need that nefarious "3G switch" manually applied. 64 bit systems are already set to use > 2Gs. 3) > 2gs of physical ram must be installed. This virtual memory application under discussion here (VS) is a ram-use forecasting function. It's simply a number kept on a note pad that the op system continually updates. When this ram memory forecast number - for any single program - hits 2-3-4Gs, the op system shuts down that program. The definition 'Cache' provides a misunderstood assessment of this function. This VS function always runs higher than physical ram usage. Therefore, the program will shutdown at a physical ram level below the 2-3-4G VS limit.Adding an additional 2x512 sticks (to add to 3G) may cause a performance decrease. However, this might only be measurable with scientific instruments via the assessment of a highly motivated marketing department! We see this kind of hyperbole all the time. Representatives constantly imagineer negative performance effects of more efficient (but less expensive) solutions. It will likely have no perceivable effect on FS performance. Run with, then without the additional 2x256 sticks. You will likely see there is no Real problem adding this extra 1G. Additionally, this might be helpful. Even with 4G installed, I will occasionally press hard into this physical limit if I have lots of programs running. Remember this 2-3-4G VS limit is Per Program. Even a 2G VS limited system could use 8Gs of physical ram if enough programs were running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding an additional 2x512 sticks (to add to 3G) may cause a performance decrease. However, this might only be measurable with scientific instruments via the assessment of a highly motivated marketing department! We see this kind of hyperbole all the time. Representatives constantly imagineer negative performance effects of more efficient (but less expensive) solutions. It will likely have no perceivable effect on FS performance. Run with, then without the additional 2x256 sticks. You will likely see there is no Real problem adding this extra 1G. Additionally, this might be helpful. Even with 4G installed, I will occasionally press hard into this physical limit if I have lots of programs running. Remember this 2-3-4G VS limit is Per Program. Even a 2G VS limited system could use 8Gs of physical ram if enough programs were running.
You may install varying memory sizes in Channel A and Channel B. The system maps the total size of the lower-sized channel for the dual-channelconfiguration. Any excess memory from the higher-sized channel is then mapped for single-channel operation.I guess that is placed in an example manual to let people know they will be reducing the memory efficiency potential becuase it requires a scientific instrument to see the difference? Why mention it??Do me a favor... explain to this forum why you use DDR2 800 memoryAnd please do not say its because the system requires that for your clock, because, Nvidia boards can unlink the QDR and run DDR2 800 at FSB 266.5OK?Now, please explain clearly to this forum why DDR2 800 in a Nvidia system will run both the system and FSX smoother and better than a memory speed of QDR 1066/4 or 1333/4 with system FSB unclockedDoes that indicate your statements/assessments are incorrect? Or does that mean the perf stops at DDR2 800? and is that where the 'holy grail' top end is.. where you personally stopped in memory speed/timing and have never used anything faster because you really believe it requires a scientific instrument to see anything better?hmmmmmmmmNow, please explain to the forum if memory speed and timing makes no difference why for the purpose of saving money one would not purchase a cheap Nvidia motherboard, unlink the QDR from the memory, run the CPU as high as possible and leave the memory speed at 266.5 or 333.5 effectively reducing the motherboard and memory cost to nothing compared to better motherboard and memory products?The industry is not spending billions of dollars on R&D and production of higher speed motherboards and memory to SCAM the world into buying something they don't need, and that includes i7. They would be run up on a rail by the engineering community if that were trueIt is however true if the user does not know how to use SELECT and USE the products correctly they may not get the value out of the purchase and CAN end up running worse.. and that goes back to plugging memory into a motherboard without consulting the motherboard manual AND understanding how speed/timing works which is why they put that message I posted above ( and others of that nature) in the motherboard manual to begin with. If a scientific instrument were needed to see the difference, they WOULD NOT bother transmitting that information and other content about the board and how it makes use of different memory configurations to the user in the manual!Unless of course the manual is all part of the marketing conspiracy! :(Are memory companies gulity of price fixing in the past? YES!Are they guilty of using a number system that can be confusing to the typical user if that user does not understand how it works WITH thier motherboard and provide the 'marketing' potential for HIGHER quantity sales that may not help the inexperienced users system? YES!Are they making motherboards and memory which allow experienced users to operate them at lower latency/higher frequency to SCAM the world? NOI offered wholeheartedly to send you a real motherboard and memory with video card and even set it up, ALL at my cost and you refused that offer. I would have even thrown in the processor.I guess it would be very hard to continue the this type of 'opportunity posting' in response to what I say if you had something in front of you that pretty much places many of your technical statements in the category of which they belong.If you were offering a unqualified 'opinion' I would not bother with posts like this however you are not offering an opinion, you are stating something as a fact with a wonderful flair in the written terminology.NOw That is marketing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zing!Nick, with specs like i7, 6gb SDRAM, GTX260 should I even bother editing fs9.exe? I understand this all depeneds on the amount of memory used when the sim is in full swing, with a payware bird, scenery and ASV6.5 running at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zing!Nick, with specs like i7, 6gb SDRAM, GTX260 should I even bother editing fs9.exe? I understand this all depeneds on the amount of memory used when the sim is in full swing, with a payware bird, scenery and ASV6.5 running at once.
Back up your original FS9.exe file somewhere safe for restoreUsing the software CFF ExplorerBrowse to and open the FS9.exe file in the FS9 directoryOn the left side you will find "NT Header: File HeaderClick on File HeaderOn the right side click on: click hereEnable: App can handle >2gb addressset Select File, then Save making sure that new file is located in the FS9 directoryFS9 will now address more than 2GB of memorySame can be done with FSX.exe RTM or SP1.. SP2 is already >2gb addressset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding an additional 2x512 sticks (to add to 3G) may cause a performance decrease. However, this might only be measurable with scientific instruments via the assessment of a highly motivated marketing department! We see this kind of hyperbole all the time. Representatives constantly imagineer negative performance effects of more efficient (but less expensive) solutions. It will likely have no perceivable effect on FS performance. Run with, then without the additional 2x256 sticks. You will likely see there is no Real problem adding this extra 1G. Additionally, this might be helpful. Even with 4G installed, I will occasionally press hard into this physical limit if I have lots of programs running. Remember this 2-3-4G VS limit is Per Program. Even a 2G VS limited system could use 8Gs of physical ram if enough programs were running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding an additional 2x512 sticks (to add to 3G) may cause a performance decrease. However, this might only be measurable with scientific instruments via the assessment of a highly motivated marketing department! We see this kind of hyperbole all the time. Representatives constantly imagineer negative performance effects of more efficient (but less expensive) solutions. It will likely have no perceivable effect on FS performance. Run with, then without the additional 2x256 sticks. You will likely see there is no Real problem adding this extra 1G. Additionally, this might be helpful. Even with 4G installed, I will occasionally press hard into this physical limit if I have lots of programs running. Remember this 2-3-4G VS limit is Per Program. Even a 2G VS limited system could use 8Gs of physical ram if enough programs were running.
I did not think you would answer the simple questions put directly to youOK, that’s fine too... thanks for answering because the repeat post in the true spirit of marketing a opinion as a fact says more than anything else and simplifies it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites