Archived

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

Guest Nick_N

HyperThread - FSX - i7 -and YOU

Recommended Posts

There is a thread in the FSX forum where the following was suggested may have benefitAfter reviewing the docs on i7 and looking at the tech information at FSINSIDER I have come to the conclusion that there MAY BE some value in running HT with i7 and FSX if the affinity mask edit is used.I personally do not have time to drop what I am doing and go into this and test it correctly .. therefore I am going to post this for people using i7 to tryNOTE: IF you are running 4GHz and enabling HT may push the temp of the i7 processor over the 80c limit you should reduce the clock on the processor to ensure safe operation. You may wish to stress test with HT enabled and establish your clock first before running this test.Enter the BIOS and ENABLE this setting if it is not already enabled:Intel HT Technology In the FSX.cfg add the following if it is not already there[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=Nuse these settings for N as you test and you must EXIT the sim and relaunch between changes255 - all 8 in use 254 - 7 in use with the first remaining free252 - 6 in use with the first entire CORE remaining free127 - 7 in use with the last remaining free63 - 6 in use with the last entire CORE remaining free(edited by David per Nick's request)Verify the use and the perf then report back please.There are some unanswered questions about the JOBSCHEDULER and what I posted in affinity mask settings above with i7 would answer a lot of them. Please post back the findings.

Share this post


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

Tried it here... i7 920 on evga x58, FSX SP20) With HT OFF in the bios I noted 4 'cores' 0,2,4,6 being used by FSX.1) With HT on and NO AffinityMask set, I noted 4 'cores' 0,2,4,6 being used by FSX.Same result as having HT off in the bios.2) With HT on and AffinityMask = 255, I noted all 8 'cores' 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX.Loading times seemed dramatically fasted with HT ON and AffinityMask = 255maybe just a perception at this point could have been other reasons, like cache being used,but it was clearly faster for my quick test.3) With HT on and AffinityMask = 254, I noted cores 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX, core 0 was not used by FSX.I noticed no difference from AffinityMask = 255 as far as load times or stuttering.4) In areas were stutters happen, like Vancouver using Vancouver+, I noticed no difference HT on or HT off.Intel's i7 seems to be like a wild horse, that needs to be tamed.It has raw power, but it's misunderstood and tempermental :)The chips run very hot and need high voltage to get high clocks.I think it will take a couple chip batches and MB revisions to get it stable and predictable.FSX and i7 can be amazing at times but the stuttering when it happens seems to have more buck than the core setups did.I'm still not convinced it offers much more for FSX than a quad core/duo setup would at 4GHz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tried it here... i7 920 on evga x58, FSX SP21) With HT on and NO AffinityMask set, I noted 4 'cores' 0,2,4,6 being used by FSX.2) With HT on and AffinityMask = 255, I noted all 8 'cores' 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX.Loading times seemed dramatically fasted with HT ON and AffinityMask = 255maybe just a perception at this point could have been other reasons, like cache being used,but it was clearly faster for my quick test.3) With HT on and AffinityMask = 254, I noted cores 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX, core 0 was not used by FSX.I noticed no difference from AffinityMask = 255 as far as load times or stuttering.4) In areas were stutters happen, like Vancouver using Vancouver+, I noticed no difference HT on or HT off.Intel's i7 seems to be like a wild horse, that needs to be tamed.It has raw power, but it's misunderstood and tempermental :)The chips run very hot and need high voltage to get high clocks.I think it will take a couple chip batches and MB revisions to get it stable and predictable.FSX and i7 can be amazing at times but the stuttering when it happens seems to have more buck than the core setups did.I'm still not convinced it offers much more for FSX than a quad core/duo setup would at 4GHz.
Jack, .. I do not see any of the stutters here you seem to be experiencing and I am certainly seeing better perf than a clocked 4GHz Qx9770 so I am not sure what is happening on your end at this pointI do wish to point out I did warn about 920 and that users of the 940/965 would not be as limited as 920 user who pushes the limit.. regardless of the internet stories, I posted that for a reason.. I have already burned (dead) both a 920 and 940 engineering sample here for discovery in voltage limits so I am aware of how hot the 920 runs in compare.the more info gathered about the use of HT from different users the better... thanks for looking at this!PS.. the P6T motherboard is now on revision 2 and out of all the boards on the market it is the best one for the typical user running i7 regardless of the revision. I use the Rampage Extreme II for the engineering access and for full DDR3 1800/2000 support which is the memory I am running with it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Nick, 252 runs FSX on the last six threads (last 3 cores) and 63 on the first six. I'm trying out different settings but I don't know how objective I'll be. But in Task M. it certainly pegs all six threads I had running so far.And I've got a Swiftech WC system on the way so I'm going to ditch air cooling for a while. If this all is for real then I'm gonna need it. Besides, I'd love to put my Cu TRUE up on the shelf.-jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack, .. I do not see any of the stutters here you seem to be experiencing and I am certainly seeing better perf than a clocked 4GHz Qx9770 so I am not sure what is happening on your end at this pointthe more infor gathered about the use of HT from different users the better... thanks for looking at this!
Don't know whats happening with your Qx9770 setup , but my 4G QX9650 is smooth as could be.I'd give you some tips but every one I used to get it smooth was a post from you :)My 4G i7 setup does have more raw power / framerate but when it jerks its jerks harder, if that makes sense.I've never seen an FSX setup flying the f18 full out that can not be made to stutter over some terrain?Great thread here, looking forward to more results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already burned (dead) both a 920 and 940 engineering sample here for discovery in voltage limits so I am aware of how hot the 920 runs in compare.Hey Nick, feel free to send out any chips my way for which I can help you discover those limits! :( It's still cool in San Diego :( -jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Nick, 252 runs FSX on the last six threads (last 3 cores) and 63 on the first six. I'm trying out different settings but I don't know how objective I'll be. But in Task M. it certainly pegs all six threads I had running so far.And I've got a Swiftech WC system on the way so I'm going to ditch air cooling for a while. If this all is for real then I'm gonna need it. Besides, I'd love to put my Cu TRUE up on the shelf.-jk
you are correct.. I got those backwards becuse the binary is backwards from the cores in use.. will editEDIT: Time ran out on the edit... So anyone posting results, be aware252 - 6 in use with the first entire CORE remaining free63 - 6 in use with the last entire CORE remaining freesorry... :(Nick, I have edited your post.The info is now correct :--)Best,David Roch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NickN - so what vcore did it take to burn out a 920?
It was not Vcore.. it was DRAM and that came in 10 days @ 1.80vI took out the 940 on VTT pushing a 4.37Ghz clock on what I consider (possibly) acceptable vcore @ 1.46I have 2 more slugs here that will go to the Vcore voltage discovery cause... first one is @ 1.55 now and has been fine for 12 days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know whats happening with your Qx9770 setup , but my 4G QX9650 is smooth as could be.I'd give you some tips but every one I used to get it smooth was a post from you :)My 4G i7 setup does have more raw power / framerate but when it jerks its jerks harder, if that makes sense.I've never seen an FSX setup flying the f18 full out that can not be made to stutter over some terrain?Great thread here, looking forward to more results.
F18 here pops mach1+ on the deck, no stutters and no terrain blurs.. love it especially canyon runsI will say this about the multithread and flight loading.. it makes sense based on what was posted about SP1 work=================================During loading, we run the DEM loader on threads. You'll see good balanced usage across all cores, as well as about 1/3 faster load times on average.=================================OK so that does not really mean chit to the game in progress although with Adams changes to how the 'world' and terrain with the thread work they added are used may, which is one of the primary reasons I want to check this out with as many i7 users as possible. It may load the flight like a rocket and that actually makes sense but I dont care about flight load.. I want to know about in-game changesToo many freakin MYTHS get posted about tweaks and the only way to know if JOBSCHEDULER really makes a difference is the RIGHT mindset in what is REALLY happening and of course reports from other so I can compare those reports to what I see here when I end up spending quality time testing all this.The forums are full of MIRACLE tweaks which are BS and I do not like posting something works unless I know they really have teeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NickAs i already posted my findings on the other thread, i'm not going to post them again here. The 252 setting i didn't test yet, though, but i will, just to see if it has any improvement over the 254 setting (which so far is the one to go, in my opinion).But i'm glad to see you slowly starting to accept you were wrong when you stated things like "absolutely nothing was gained or lost by enable/disable HT in i7" and "I normally find those who use the affinity mask tweak and say killing a core to FSX makes the system work better and run smoother in application, see that result because FSX is NOT correctly tuned". Just proves you are human like the rest of us. :( Looking forward for your own tests.Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NickBut i'm glad to see you slowly starting to accept you were wrong when you stated things like "absolutely nothing was gained or lost by enable/disable HT in i7" and "I normally find those who use the affinity mask tweak and say killing a core to FSX makes the system work better and run smoother in application, see that result because FSX is NOT correctly tuned". Just proves you are human like the rest of us. :(
Is there a reason for this nonsense that was taken out of context in the same post I placed this?===========================================I will look at it again when I get time to see if I missed something.. which is possible but nothing I saw when I ran i7 tests back in Oct-Nov indicated HT was doing anything for FSX with i7 except heating up the proc in a high clock. All my test were run on SP2/Acceleration as I do not use RTM or SP1 at all..I am also on WindowsXP x64 although I did run FSX on Windows7 and saw no difference either so there are few different wildcards out there in configurations that may need to be looked at.The bottom line to all this is.. if you think you have found something that works for you. no matter the 'what' or 'how'.. use it :( =============================================Nothing was gained or lost in my tests, thanks for pointing out I wrote that correctlyIt is unknown at this point if this will provide anything across the board to FSX other than what appearsto be faster load time It may.. or it may turn out to be another "works for me" ... "I dont see any change" ... "Made mine run worse" ... tweak that ends up being a placebo for 1/2 and a small ratio of people may see something of benefit.. where others may find no change and still others find it makes their system run worse.So if it was your intent to come into this thread to insult someone with a twisted, out of context statement and by suggesting something provides benefit across the board without proper testing and research to confirm... you have indeed accomplished those goals!Multithread and Hyperthread are 2 different things http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1532293This may be taking advantage of the changes to how MULTITHREAD is applied on i7 but even if it is shown to have some benefit, that does not mean the HYPERTHREAD instuctions as defined by Intel are being used, only that hyperthread must be enabled to use the expanded multithread ability of the proc which was not available on C2/Q Intel procs.Until I get confirmation from Phil for whom I have a pending communication in progress, or, someone at Aces that says FSX takes full advantage of HYPERTHREAD instructions and not just MULTITHREAD, what I posted and why I posted it is quite true regardless of the outcome in testing, and, even if FSX is taking some advantage of HT in all its glory, until this gets looked at correctly for application with in-game use it does not represent any major benefit to users. Many of them may discover the 2, 3 or 4GHz loss in the clock they need for heavy iron aircraft due to heat generated by HT is not worth any minor gain the feature may allow.Until those unknowns are at the very least defined somewhat... none of this means anything other than what appears at this point to be faster FSX flight load timeLast, I have always posted in this forum and any other, if I find I am wrong about something.. I am the first to admit it and do not need the assistance of a anyone to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a reason for this nonsense that was taken out of context in the same post I placed this?===========================================I will look at it again when I get time to see if I missed something.. which is possible but nothing I saw when I ran i7 tests back in Oct-Nov indicated HT was doing anything for FSX with i7 except heating up the proc in a high clock. All my test were run on SP2/Acceleration as I do not use RTM or SP1 at all..I am also on WindowsXP x64 although I did run FSX on Windows7 and saw no difference either so there are few different wildcards out there in configurations that may need to be looked at.The bottom line to all this is.. if you think you have found something that works for you. no matter the 'what' or 'how'.. use it :( =============================================Nothing was gained or lost in my tests, thanks for pointing out I wrote that correctlyIt is unknown at this point if this will provide anything across the board to FSX other than what appearsto be faster load time It may.. or it may turn out to be another "works for me" ... "I dont see any change" ... "Made mine run worse" ... tweak that ends up being a placebo for 1/2 and a small ratio of people may see something of benefit.. where others may find no change and still others find it makes their system run worse.So if it was your intent to come into this thread to insult someone with a twisted, out of context statement and by suggesting something provides benefit across the board without proper testing and research to confirm... you have indeed accomplished those goals!Multithread and Hyperthread are 2 different things http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1532293This may be taking advantage of the changes to how MULTITHREAD is applied on i7 but even if it is shown to have some benefit, that does not mean the HYPERTHREAD instuctions as defined by Intel are being used, only that hyperthread must be enabled to use the expanded multithread ability of the proc which was not available on C2/Q Intel procs.Until I get confirmation from Phil for whom I have a pending communication in progress, or, someone at Aces that says FSX takes full advantage of HYPERTHREAD instructions and not just MULTITHREAD, what I posted and why I posted it is quite true regardless of the outcome in testing, and, even if FSX is taking some advantage of HT in all its glory, until this gets looked at correctly for application with in-game use it does not represent any major benefit to users. Many of them may discover the 2, 3 or 4GHz loss in the clock they need for heavy iron aircraft due to heat generated by HT is not worth any minor gain the feature may allow.Until those unknowns are at the very least defined somewhat... none of this means anything other than what appears at this point to be faster FSX flight load timeLast, I have always posted in this forum and any other, if I find I am wrong about something.. I am the first to admit it and do not need the assistance of a anyone to do so.
It would be interesting to get the bottom of this because I'm pretty sure that MS said ages ago that FSX couldn't use hyper-threading. I wonder whether the i7 implementation somehow "dupes" FSX, in which case we may end up with the very collisions that made MS disable hyperthreading to begin with; or whether i7's implementation is such an improvement that there aren't any collisions any more.Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be interesting to get the bottom of this because I'm pretty sure that MS said ages ago that FSX couldn't use hyper-threading. I wonder whether the i7 implementation somehow "dupes" FSX, in which case we may end up with the very collisions that made MS disable hyperthreading to begin with; or whether i7's implementation is such an improvement that there aren't any collisions any more.Tim
Hi TimI posted a reply here on what we 'know' for sure and why the affinitymask hook can help with procs prior to i7http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1532737I am waiting to hear back from Phil so when I do look at this I have it right in my mind what I am seeing on the screen and how what is presented on the screen is being translated by the application through the hardware.EDIT: and the key word used by Intel which may be allowing this to work is the new design they refer to as "uncore"It was the tech docs in the description of the processors in that they are treated as somewhat separate in use from the single 'core' for which they are contained, and, the self-contained cache for each which sparked my interest in this when applied to 'multicore' type threading.. in that what you said is very possible based on the i7 design change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if it was your intent to come into this thread to insult someone with a twisted, out of context statement and by suggesting something provides benefit across the board without proper testing and research to confirm... you have indeed accomplished those goals!
You say I insulted YOU? Well, since are so sensible i'm not even going to argue with you.I know you are the only one who can do proper testings and research. :( Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say I insulted YOU? Well, since are so sensible i'm not even going to argue with you.I know you are the only one who can do proper testings and research. :( Cheers.
That makes even more sense.. ! I guess asking the forum and posting this around the net for feedback http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...D=167132#167132 in order for users to look at this on their own systems equates to me being the only one who can evaluate its use on their systemSo far you have misquoted me out of context and insinuated quite a bit more in nothing but pure speculationApparently you have a problem with something. I don’t know, or CARE, what it is however I would appreciate it if you would leave your very well established personal issues out of this thread.Thank You

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F18 here pops mach1+ on the deck, no stutters and no terrain blurs.. love it especially canyon runsI will say this about the multithread and flight loading.. it makes sense based on what was posted about SP1 work=================================During loading, we run the DEM loader on threads. You'll see good balanced usage across all cores, as well as about 1/3 faster load times on average.=================================OK so that does not really mean chit to the game in progress although with Adams changes to how the 'world' and terrain with the thread work they added are used may, which is one of the primary reasons I want to check this out with as many i7 users as possible. It may load the flight like a rocket and that actually makes sense but I don't care about flight load.. I want to know about in-game changesToo many freaking MYTHS get posted about tweaks and the only way to know if JOB SCHEDULER really makes a difference is the RIGHT mindset in what is REALLY happening and of course reports from other so I can compare those reports to what I see here when I end up spending quality time testing all this.The forums are full of MIRACLE tweaks which are BS and I do not like posting something works unless I know they really have teeth
OK...spent most of all day playing...testing this out. I have an i7 920.....Thermaltake CL-P0508 110mm CPU Cooler.........6 gig DDR3 1600 Mem...two 500gig HDD with one dedicated to FSX.....9600GT video card.....Asus P6T Deluxe M/B. The 920 is clocked right now to 3.6GHz...with a very basic use of the M/B settings.....the BCLK is at 180 and the DRAM freq is at 720MHz.....NB freq 2880MHz tripple channel....Win XP 32 bit. My system is setup according to Nicks setup and use guide for FSX exactly except for the defragger....I use Ultimate Defrag and imho I have the defrag setup correctly. Before I started this I had a sound problem that caused stutters at certain times. I can say after todays findings that is now gone and the only stutter I get now or the past several hours is on the rare touchdown. My FSX settings are pretty much maxed out except for autogen=normal for this test.....both traffic sliders at 54%...water at Low 2. Weather was set at Fair weather. My test locations were Seattle....GEX....FEX.....FSGenesis....Alice Springs...with FTX. When turning on HT and setting Affinity Mask at 255 all cores...threads..were in use with thread 0 always being maxed out with the load spread evenly out over the remaining threads with CPU usage showing on average around 80% with a low of 24% and high of course 100%....which is where the stutters were at the worst....as one guy said when i7 stutters it stutters hard. The same happened when plugging in the different masks. The next set of numbers would drop off thread 0 and thread one would be maxed out and the rest spread out over the remaining 6 threads. It was the same result as I went down the threads until I got down to using 3 threads and it was just not usable to me. As a matter of fact with HT on and the mask set at 255 I created lots of hard stutters at 3000 ASL just cruising along with no ATC...just flying. All of my tests with HT caused me stutters....bad ones. So to try a more level playing field I took the clocking out and set all settings in BIOS to default and ran everything again. Same results....stutters....not all the time clocked or not clocked but you did not have to wait long for them to come along. The FPS did not change in any of these test except when the stutters started and then they were all over the place. I stayed locked at 30. So I clocked again and tried one more time...same results. Then I turned off HT and set up the mask for 4 cores....15 being the number I use for all four. Without the Affinity setting the 920 would use all 4 cores with core 0 being usually maxed but the remaining 3 would be giving low usage most of the time. There were times that I would hit 100% but rare and usually 24% to 46% but no stutters....still locked at 30 FPS. Then when I used the Affinity mask it was a whole new ball game. My total CPU usage very rarely dipped below 50% and most of the time staying between 65% to 80%. It would hit 100% at times but not much...but here is the thing...smooth as silk. Raised FPS to 60 and locked. Making turns at Alice Springs and not even a micro sttuter..same at Seattle. Now my FPS did not stay at 60 but varied between 45 to 60 but as one knows that bottom number could be a lot lower but it happens so quick one cannot see it...but the key for me is performance. My flying is much better with 4 cores and using the Affinity Mask in the fsx.cfg file than without. Up until yesterday or maybe the day before I had not even thought about Affinity Mask...FSX is supposed to use all 4 cores after SP1...and one can see it does.....but on my PC with Affinity Mask in the cfg file it is showing me with hard numbers that my CPU is being used more than when there is no Affinity Mask in cfg. My load times are faster using the Affinity Mask setting with HT on or off. I am aware of all the myths and have seen a ton of videos on the 920 being clocked on air to 4GHz...but I am never going to try that. I read and saw a lot of so called gurus all over the NET saying how a 920 could save you a 1000 bucks just by clocking to 4GHz. I never bought that even before I bought the chip. I have spent about 12 hours today doing this and these are the facts....I have Nicks guide printed out and went back over my system with it to make sure it was all still set up the same as it was before I started this...and it was. On my PC HT is a no go as it causes stutters. But the Affinity Mask setting has merit for the 4 cores. Now maybe down the road someone can explain why the Affinity setting in task manager is not the same as when you put it into the cfg file. As I said earlier my clock is mostly with everything set at auto...so am not sure where that plays into this but when the CPU was at stock HT still caused the stutters for me. Anyway I need to go back and thank who ever put us onto this because it has helped me. Regards Nick and thanks for all your input that helps me enjoy my hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi TimI posted a reply here on what we 'know' for sure and why the affinitymask hook can help with procs prior to i7http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1532737I am waiting to hear back from Phil so when I do look at this I have it right in my mind what I am seeing on the screen and how what is presented on the screen is being translated by the application through the hardware.EDIT: and the key word used by Intel which may be allowing this to work is the new design they refer to as "uncore"It was the tech docs in the description of the processors in that they are treated as somewhat separate in use from the single 'core' for which they are contained, and, the self-contained cache for each which sparked my interest in this when applied to 'multicore' type threading.. in that what you said is very possible based on the i7 design change.
Thanks for looking into this properly, Nick. I look forward the results.Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK...spent most of all day playing...testing this out. I have an i7 920.....Thermaltake CL-P0508 110mm CPU Cooler.........6 gig DDR3 1600 Mem...two 500gig HDD with one dedicated to FSX.....9600GT video card.....Asus P6T Deluxe M/B. The 920 is clocked right now to 3.6GHz...with a very basic use of the M/B settings.....the BCLK is at 180 and the DRAM freq is at 720MHz.....NB freq 2880MHz tripple channel....Win XP 32 bit. My system is setup according to Nicks setup and use guide for FSX exactly except for the defragger....I use Ultimate Defrag and imho I have the defrag setup correctly. Before I started this I had a sound problem that caused stutters at certain times. I can say after todays findings that is now gone and the only stutter I get now or the past several hours is on the rare touchdown. My FSX settings are pretty much maxed out except for autogen=normal for this test.....both traffic sliders at 54%...water at Low 2. Weather was set at Fair weather. My test locations were Seattle....GEX....FEX.....FSGenesis....Alice Springs...with FTX. When turning on HT and setting Affinity Mask at 255 all cores...threads..were in use with thread 0 always being maxed out with the load spread evenly out over the remaining threads with CPU usage showing on average around 80% with a low of 24% and high of course 100%....which is where the stutters were at the worst....as one guy said when i7 stutters it stutters hard. The same happened when plugging in the different masks. The next set of numbers would drop off thread 0 and thread one would be maxed out and the rest spread out over the remaining 6 threads. It was the same result as I went down the threads until I got down to using 3 threads and it was just not usable to me. As a matter of fact with HT on and the mask set at 255 I created lots of hard stutters at 3000 ASL just cruising along with no ATC...just flying. All of my tests with HT caused me stutters....bad ones. So to try a more level playing field I took the clocking out and set all settings in BIOS to default and ran everything again. Same results....stutters....not all the time clocked or not clocked but you did not have to wait long for them to come along. The FPS did not change in any of these test except when the stutters started and then they were all over the place. I stayed locked at 30. So I clocked again and tried one more time...same results. Then I turned off HT and set up the mask for 4 cores....15 being the number I use for all four. Without the Affinity setting the 920 would use all 4 cores with core 0 being usually maxed but the remaining 3 would be giving low usage most of the time. There were times that I would hit 100% but rare and usually 24% to 46% but no stutters....still locked at 30 FPS. Then when I used the Affinity mask it was a whole new ball game. My total CPU usage very rarely dipped below 50% and most of the time staying between 65% to 80%. It would hit 100% at times but not much...but here is the thing...smooth as silk. Raised FPS to 60 and locked. Making turns at Alice Springs and not even a micro sttuter..same at Seattle. Now my FPS did not stay at 60 but varied between 45 to 60 but as one knows that bottom number could be a lot lower but it happens so quick one cannot see it...but the key for me is performance. My flying is much better with 4 cores and using the Affinity Mask in the fsx.cfg file than without. Up until yesterday or maybe the day before I had not even thought about Affinity Mask...FSX is supposed to use all 4 cores after SP1...and one can see it does.....but on my PC with Affinity Mask in the cfg file it is showing me with hard numbers that my CPU is being used more than when there is no Affinity Mask in cfg. My load times are faster using the Affinity Mask setting with HT on or off. I am aware of all the myths and have seen a ton of videos on the 920 being clocked on air to 4GHz...but I am never going to try that. I read and saw a lot of so called gurus all over the NET saying how a 920 could save you a 1000 bucks just by clocking to 4GHz. I never bought that even before I bought the chip. I have spent about 12 hours today doing this and these are the facts....I have Nicks guide printed out and went back over my system with it to make sure it was all still set up the same as it was before I started this...and it was. On my PC HT is a no go as it causes stutters. But the Affinity Mask setting has merit for the 4 cores. Now maybe down the road someone can explain why the Affinity setting in task manager is not the same as when you put it into the cfg file. As I said earlier my clock is mostly with everything set at auto...so am not sure where that plays into this but when the CPU was at stock HT still caused the stutters for me. Anyway I need to go back and thank who ever put us onto this because it has helped me. Regards Nick and thanks for all your input that helps me enjoy my hobby.
So to sum up.. HT was a no-go but adding the affinity mask to the config with HT disabled, helped if I read this correctlySo I assume right now your AffinityMask setting is = 15 for 4 cores?As for the affinity mask edit.. I somewhat explained what is happening and why here http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1532737The edit sets the hook for FSX to allow it to select the cores for thread spawn calls. By default Sp2 should do this automatically on all recognized physical cores. Why you would see a difference with all 4 enabled in the FSX.cfg is just one of those mysteries at this point where this is a setting that does not net a linear result in use and can not be classified a good or bad edit to use. Its a try and see setting.So far in the spots I have planted the request for information around this, the same report keeps coming back,.. HT Enabled produces faster load times with absolutely no in-game perf change. The smooth flight issue is also not consistent as most are reporting neutral or worse conditions ensue with HT enabled no matter what the mask setting and essentailly i7 is responding the same as C2/Q with affinity mask and no HT... hit and missWe shall see if that remains the norm as more and more chime in on the testTo be quite honest.. every system I have personally visited (sat in front of) running SP2/Acceleration where stutters were a problem and the person who owned the system had solved most of them through the affinity mask edit, I was able to remove that edit and tune the stutters out of the system using sliders and settings. I have yet to come across a system running SP2 that needed that edit however I can see where the edit is a quicker way for people who may not have a lot of experience around MSFS tuning can use it to basically accomplish the same goal and there is nothing wrong with that.So once I get all the information/reports supplied and go through this I will add the affinity mask use to the tuning guide I posted for all procs.Thanks for looking at this.. every report helps! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent post, thanks for the hard-work and time put into sharing the info.im going to give this a try in a few days, just waiting on a new GPU before i start tweaking things with my new I7.Will of course post my findings Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
excellent post, thanks for the hard-work and time put into sharing the info.im going to give this a try in a few days, just waiting on a new GPU before i start tweaking things with my new I7.Will of course post my findings Regards
Thanks Pete! The more info collected from different users.. the better :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was a bit skeptical about the Affinity Mask entry + HT.But I wanted to know!!I made the same flight, after rebooting the machine every time in order to be in the same conditions.My conclusions on my machine (it can change on another PC!)1) HT doesn't help at all (with or without AMask). 2) Affinity mask (n= 15) does reduce stutters, that's obvious on my machine. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I was a bit skeptical about the Affinity Mask entry + HT.But I wanted to know!!I made the same flight, after rebooting the machine every time in order to be in the same conditions.My conclusions on my machine (it can change on another PC!)1) HT doesn't help at all (with or without AMask). 2) Affinity mask (n= 15) does reduce stutters, that's obvious on my machine. :(
Thank David!Starting to see a pattern appear.. thats the 6th report I have seen now about AffinityMask=15 and i7 and stutters being tamedI did not include the AffinityMask=N without HT in the original request so the fact that it has come up on its own places good merit to the result.I am going to feed this to a few other forums and see if it holds upI have a sneaky suspicion that i7 HT does nothing in FSX but the virtual cores are seen by the software due to the Uncore design.. and it may be causing thread collisions in which limiting FSX to only work with the 4 physical cores in the proc is correcting.When I sit down with this I will force stutters on my system and see if AM-15 makes a difference too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) Affinity mask (n= 15) does reduce stutters, that's obvious on my machine.
It reduces stutters with HT on , off, or it does not matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.