Archived

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

krishcanag

Which H/W to increase performance

Recommended Posts

HiI am thinking!! only!! about upgrading my CPU to a Q9550, also buying a WD 10000 rpm disk, will changing my CPU (E8500 running @ 4.1GHz) really offer any advantage in FPS if for example I overclock my Q9550 to 3.6GHzAlso will chnaging the HDD really show any fps difference.]This is for FSX

Share this post


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

The clock on a single core generates the FPS. The additional cores assist in scenery loading. A quad at 3.6 will actually Decrease your FPS (from a dual at 4.0), but could increase smoothness by allowing more aggressive scenery loading. Also, if you are taking a quad to 3.6, get the Q6600. At 3.6, a Q66 and Any core2/penryn quad will provide Identical performance. The i7 is looking like it'll get another 15% beyond the core2/penryn at the same clock.The 10K drives won't help FS in-game play. It'll load program a bit faster, but only on the 1st load after a reboot. It'll then load flights a blt faster, but only on that flight's 1st load. There is no ingame scenery loading advantage to the 10K drives. Modern 7200K drives provide all the data FS can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HiI am thinking!! only!! about upgrading my CPU to a Q9550, also buying a WD 10000 rpm disk, will changing my CPU (E8500 running @ 4.1GHz) really offer any advantage in FPS if for example I overclock my Q9550 to 3.6GHzAlso will chnaging the HDD really show any fps difference.]This is for FSX
If you MUST get the Q9550, make gosh darn sure it's an E0 revision. That will almost guarentee you a 4GHz clock, depending on your board & psu.But the i7 would be better.And a 10,000 Velociraptor HDD will improve your scenery loading noticably over a 7200rpm drive. Biggest benefit is reduced "popping" of scenery into focus, and generally overall clearer details. And don't look for dramatic increases in FPS (you won't get that with anything available today)! You want to maintain 25-30 fps and IF IT"S SMOOTH and the SCENERY'S CLEAR, you'll be happy.-jk-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys fantastic posts, really explains the issue for me, and also saves me some money!!!cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks guys fantastic posts, really explains the issue for me, and also saves me some money!!!cheers
You will be hard pressed to find a Q9550 in E0 stepping... it is possible but very difficult today. All Q9650 procs are E0 and will do 4GHz. The 9550 has a reduced multiplier and most will not hit 4GhzWhen making the choice between a Quad and a Dual in pre i7 make that choice based on core speed. If the dual is running 500MHz+ faster than the quad, the dual will provide the better performance in frames over the quad. So if you are going from 4.1 down to 3.6 you can expect to see a perf loss, that much is true although scenery such as terrain and autogen will load and run with much less issue around stutter with higher scenery sliders. In your case and unless you go with a Q9650 to assure 4Ghz operation you would be better off remaining on the 4.1 solution since the 9550 will most likely be difficult to get up to and past 3.6As for the storage system. The suggestion that a WD VelociRaptor is not better or will not provide anything over a 7200 RPM drive or that its major influence is in initial or 2nd flight load is a very basic and common user misunderstanding of storage system engineering and computers not to mention how FSX works in relation to file calls Even basic level computer techs can make the same mistake around storage systems especially if they do not understand the application for which that storage system will be applied. Although a large platter 7200 drive in the 500 to 1TB range would be the 2nd choice to a good FSX system a 10K VelociRaptor will in fact reduce latency to the system in file reads effectively providing a system more CPU overhead, something we all know is a critical area for FSX, and, also reduces/removes large scenery boundary load stutters as the aircraft crosses sectors in FSX especially with high scenery sliders in use. FSX will load large numbers of files in sets as the aircraft travels from area to area over a predefined boundary point in the scenery. The lower one is to the ground and the higher the airspeed when crossing such areas the more noticeable it can be if the storage system is slower. The combination of the two primary advantages in using a 10K VelociRaptor allows the title to place more priority on rendering the scene instead of waiting for storage system operations to complete.The VelociRaptor is worth every penny spent to FSX in game. Initial flight load is influenced by such a drive however it is not the drive which makes flight loads faster or slower.. it is a combination of the CPU (dual or Quad) the CPU speed, the memory and system speed, the video card memory and performance ability, the sliders you use and last the storage system. Addons such as UTX can also increase flight load times, not because of the storage system but because of how UTX adds night lighting and car traffic which must all be prepared in render by the CPU and video card (UTX night lighting enabled is #1) thus causing a stall in the load just as higher scenery sliders can influence the load time.In reality the better storage system has more function to providing a smoother result in-game than in the initial flight load. After FSX has been rebooted (not the system, just FSX) the user will notice a much faster loading time. The speed increase in 2nd load has little to do with the storage system and again this is a very basic and common user misunderstanding of storage system engineering and computers. The reason for increased speed in flight load time is because FSX engine and world files required for FSX to run are already loaded into physical memory and are simply being processed by the CPU/Memory and video card along with a very simple 'reload' of the textures/models/scenery for the direct area the flight being loaded. The storage system quality will have a small effect on this speed too however it has little to do with why the flight loads faster... the true advantages to the better storage system are purely in-gameGood Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will be hard pressed to find a Q9550 in E0 stepping... it is possible but very difficult today. All Q9650 procs are E0 and will do 4GHz. The 9550 has a reduced multiplier and most will not hit 4GhzWhen making the choice between a Quad and a Dual in pre i7 make that choice based on core speed. If the dual is running 500MHz+ faster than the quad, the dual will provide the better performance in frames over the quad. So if you are going from 4.1 down to 3.6 you can expect to see a perf loss, that much is true although scenery such as terrain and autogen will load and run with much less issue around stutter with higher scenery sliders. In your case and unless you go with a Q9650 to assure 4Ghz operation you would be better off remaining on the 4.1 solution since the 9550 will most likely be difficult to get up to and past 3.6As for the storage system. The suggestion that a WD VelociRaptor is not better or will not provide anything over a 7200 RPM drive or that its major influence is in initial or 2nd flight load is a very basic and common user misunderstanding of storage system engineering and computers not to mention how FSX works in relation to file calls Even basic level computer techs can make the same mistake around storage systems especially if they do not understand the application for which that storage system will be applied. Although a large platter 7200 drive in the 500 to 1TB range would be the 2nd choice to a good FSX system a 10K VelociRaptor will in fact reduce latency to the system in file reads effectively providing a system more CPU overhead, something we all know is a critical area for FSX, and, also reduces/removes large scenery boundary load stutters as the aircraft crosses sectors in FSX especially with high scenery sliders in use. FSX will load large numbers of files in sets as the aircraft travels from area to area over a predefined boundary point in the scenery. The lower one is to the ground and the higher the airspeed when crossing such areas the more noticeable it can be if the storage system is slower. The combination of the two primary advantages in using a 10K VelociRaptor allows the title to place more priority on rendering the scene instead of waiting for storage system operations to complete.The VelociRaptor is worth every penny spent to FSX in game. Initial flight load is influenced by such a drive however it is not the drive which makes flight loads faster or slower.. it is a combination of the CPU (dual or Quad) the CPU speed, the memory and system speed, the video card memory and performance ability, the sliders you use and last the storage system. Addons such as UTX can also increase flight load times, not because of the storage system but because of how UTX adds night lighting and car traffic which must all be prepared in render by the CPU and video card (UTX night lighting enabled is #1) thus causing a stall in the load just as higher scenery sliders can influence the load time.In reality the better storage system has more function to providing a smoother result in-game than in the initial flight load. After FSX has been rebooted (not the system, just FSX) the user will notice a much faster loading time. The speed increase in 2nd load has little to do with the storage system and again this is a very basic and common user misunderstanding of storage system engineering and computers. The reason for increased speed in flight load time is because FSX engine and world files required for FSX to run are already loaded into physical memory and are simply being processed by the CPU/Memory and video card along with a very simple 'reload' of the textures/models/scenery for the direct area the flight being loaded. The storage system quality will have a small effect on this speed too however it has little to do with why the flight loads faster... the true advantages to the better storage system are purely in-gameGood Luck
Thanks Nick, I repect your post, great info. However it raises a question, I could only afford the 150GB ver. which is still about 260US $ here in UK, I have tried FSX on XP Home (32), Vista 64 and also windows 7 (64), XP won, only just in FPS. I have lots of other things on my main drive, if one loads FSX in XP should it be on the same system disk? what about vista 64 which I do not use for anything except FSX but so far have been disapointed that I did not see any benefit (much more services running)? basically how should I use the VR HDD in relation of OS and FSX?Now my FSX is loaded with add-on aircraft (Level-D 767 + PMDG 747) plus the fps killer traffic X. Now before install of traffic x everything is smooth as silk at even EGLL and 20-38 fps (PMDG747), load traffic X and I start getting stutters like doing the truck drag race mission, load traffic X SP1 which adds much more flying planes and the stutter getts a bit bad but not on all missions, or not on normal created missions. But the fps drops at EGLL to 13 - 18 fps SPOT view depending if parked planes in view or not. FSX without traffic is boring unless there is a better product. I have FS2004 and traffic 2005, planes line up to land, love it.The other point is when flying low you see ground textures loading in chuncks as they come close I guess, its all a bit off putting while in FS2004 you don't get that but then the detail is not there!!!Will adding the VR disk help either of the above issues?cheerskrishanPS. You have a good tweaking post, could you link that in as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Nick, I repect your post, great info. However it raises a question, I could only afford the 150GB ver. which is still about 260US $ here in UK, I have tried FSX on XP Home (32), Vista 64 and also windows 7 (64), XP won, only just in FPS. I have lots of other things on my main drive, if one loads FSX in XP should it be on the same system disk? what about vista 64 which I do not use for anything except FSX but so far have been disapointed that I did not see any benefit (much more services running)? basically how should I use the VR HDD in relation of OS and FSX?Now my FSX is loaded with add-on aircraft (Level-D 767 + PMDG 747) plus the fps killer traffic X. Now before install of traffic x everything is smooth as silk at even EGLL and 20-38 fps (PMDG747), load traffic X and I start getting stutters like doing the truck drag race mission, load traffic X SP1 which adds much more flying planes and the stutter getts a bit bad but not on all missions, or not on normal created missions. But the fps drops at EGLL to 13 - 18 fps SPOT view depending if parked planes in view or not. FSX without traffic is boring unless there is a better product. I have FS2004 and traffic 2005, planes line up to land, love it.The other point is when flying low you see ground textures loading in chuncks as they come close I guess, its all a bit off putting while in FS2004 you don't get that but then the detail is not there!!!Will adding the VR disk help either of the above issues?cheerskrishanPS. You have a good tweaking post, could you link that in as well.
http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041Your issue is horsepower, not storageYou are trying what only the faint at heart will try to accomplish with the addons you are pushing. You need to back off those sliders to adjust and compensate for the massive CPU footprint you are adding.Your best bet is a i7 940 clocked to 4GHz on DDR3 1600 memory and the VRand I always install FSX to its own drive with no partitionsWhen it comes to FSX its not all aboutThe CPU The CPU SpeedThe memory type for the CPUThe memory Speed and TimingThe motherboard and its abilityThe storage systemThe OS install and setupThe drivers in useFSX install and setupAddons which help with perfAddons that kill perf and tweaking the features, if possible, for the system abilityFSX tuning for all of the aboveits about all of the above working in concert Performance in a computer is the combination of all parts and setup of them working in concert to produce the performance result. When you select a SET of components which are geared toward the final result you get the result if they are indeed setup and configured correctly. Plugging a 10k drive into system will help with part of the problem but it will not act as a cure all for lacking support components. That is where the myths about storage performance come from.. that and people who do not know what they are talking about and how to correctly assess a storage system in relation to their own setup, and, one that is correctly spec'd and configured to support the drive ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites