I have 2 gig of Kingston HyperX DDR3-1800 and want to know if an extra 2 gig of this same ram would help with FS9 frame rates. My processor is a Q6600 operating at 2.6mhz. I think I read somewhere that you can only use up to 3 gig of ram and that's all that FS9 can utilize. Do I need to go in and change anything in fs9 for me to take advantage of the extra ram!? Anybody shed some info regarding this?jack

Regardless of whether a program can utilise lots of RAM or not, generally speaking more RAM is always a good thing, because other programs and the operating system also make use of it, which - if you stick more RAM in your PC - will mean more free RAM for FS to utilise instead of having to share it with other programs and the OS. More RAM also keeps your system cooler in most cases, since there is less data transfer going on when you have more memory to store stuff in and consequently less heat generated. The cooler things run, the more stable they are and the longer the component life, also if you have your CPU and other fan speeds set to adjust to how much heat is going on inside your PC, if it runs cooler you'll use less power (not by much, but then again, it all adds up). Probably the only thing you would need to tweek on your system is a quick look in the Control Panels to ensure you operating system has detected the RAM and is making use of it.Be extra careful when buying RAM though, and make sure that you buy the exact same spec stuff as you're already using, because some RAM brands do not like working with other brands, even though theoretically they should have no problem doing so when they have the same specs, so in order to avoid that, getting the same stuff is usually a wise move. It seems like you know exactly what RAM you have, but I always like to check stuff like that out with CPUz, which is a little utility you can download which tells you all about the bits and pieces in your computer by running a check on it. Do a search on Google and you should find that easily enough.One thing that is also worth doing if you buy more RAM, is to put the biggest RAM chip (i.e the one with the most Mb) in the RAM slot on the motherboard which is nearest to the CPU. As mad as it sounds, that will actually make your system run a bit quicker, since the trip the electrons have to make between components will be a little bit shorter.Al

Hello,

As mad as it sounds, that will actually make your system run a bit quicker, since the trip the electrons have to make between components will be a little bit shorter.

Regards.

Thanks for your informative reply.Regards,jack

I have 2 gig of Kingston HyperX DDR3-1800 and want to know if an extra 2 gig of this same ram would help with FS9 frame rates. My processor is a Q6600 operating at 2.6mhz. I think I read somewhere that you can only use up to 3 gig of ram and that's all that FS9 can utilize. Do I need to go in and change anything in fs9 for me to take advantage of the extra ram!? Anybody shed some info regarding this?jack

If you want to boost FS9 framerates, you would be much better off clocking your CPU higher. RAM >2GB does not hurt, but I very much doubt if you see 1 fps difference.What about clocking your CPU at 3.0 or 3.2 GHz? I run mine at 3.2 with factory cooling..

One thing that is also worth doing if you buy more RAM, is to put the biggest RAM chip (i.e the one with the most Mb) in the RAM slot on the motherboard which is nearest to the CPU. As mad as it sounds, that will actually make your system run a bit quicker, since the trip the electrons have to make between components will be a little bit shorter.Al

Given that electricity flows at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, I would suggest that unless the OP has an ultra-accurate atomic clock handy with which to measure the speed, putting the RAM closer to the CPU is going to have absolutely no noticeable effect whatsoever.In response to the OP's original question, extra RAM will only improve frame rates if the current 2 gig is being exceeded. Unless they have lots of memory-intensive tasks running in the background this is fairly unlikely. As has been said, a faster processor is much more likely to improve frame rates.

Given that electricity flows at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, I would suggest that unless the OP has an ultra-accurate atomic clock handy with which to measure the speed, putting the RAM closer to the CPU is going to have absolutely no noticeable effect whatsoever.

Then you'd be incorrect. Why do you suppose computer component companies strive to make components ever smaller? Moreover, why do you think microchip developers have switched to creating multiple core processors?Well I'll tell you: It's because if a chip is smaller, the electrons travel a shorter distance, and over the millions of calculations a processor makes, the shorter distance the electrons have to move has a cumulative effect on how fast the thing processes stuff. Similarly, because computer companies have run into a brick wall in terms of having materials that do not suffer from quantum mechanical tunnelling (i.e electrons skipping through insulation), they have started using multiple cores to gain more speed and will continue to do that until they have a new material that can be made smaller and kept cool enough to avoid QMT.Like I originally said, 'as mad as it sounds' it is nonetheless true. It won't make a P2 into a P4 by moving things nearer to where the info has to go, but common sense dictates that the shorter a journey is, the faster it will be and the less energy (i.e heat generated) it is likely to require.Al

There is true that the shorter the distance traveled the better. Even though a one way trip for data is insignificant, data travels back and forth uncountable amount of times, so that adds up. This applies to all electronics, which is why it's always best to use the shortest possible cords for anything electric.About more memory, I have 2 gigs for 1200 DDR2 and never get close to using it all. Used to have 4 gigs, didn't make any difference really. Anyways, if running 32bit OS, stick with 2, thats plenty. by the way, I run fs9 with all the popular add-ons.

If you want to boost FS9 framerates, you would be much better off clocking your CPU higher. RAM >2GB does not hurt, but I very much doubt if you see 1 fps difference.What about clocking your CPU at 3.0 or 3.2 GHz? I run mine at 3.2 with factory cooling..

Hello,Being a little computer illiterate, how do you overclock a P5Q3 motherboard with a Q6600? If there is an easy method, I'll go for it...:)jack

Hello,Being a little computer illiterate, how do you overclock a P5Q3 motherboard with a Q6600? If there is an easy method, I'll go for it...:)jack

Suggest you browse the hardware forum and look for overclocking guides... it is not hard, but takes a bit of knowledge to doright.Basically you raise the value of the FSB (Front Side Bus) frequency a bit at a time and back off if the system shows signs of instability or over-heating.Best is to keep the PCI bus constant at 100 so the video card and hard drives are not affected.For a Q6600 with a 9X multiplier, the standard FSB is set at 266. (9X266 = 2.4 GHz)With a bit of luck you might get to 356 without instability.... 356X9 = 3.2 GHz.

Suggest you browse the hardware forum and look for overclocking guides... it is not hard, but takes a bit of knowledge to doright.Basically you raise the value of the FSB (Front Side Bus) frequency a bit at a time and back off if the system shows signs of instability or over-heating.Best is to keep the PCI bus constant at 100 so the video card and hard drives are not affected.For a Q6600 with a 9X multiplier, the standard FSB is set at 266. (9X266 = 2.4 GHz)With a bit of luck you might get to 356 without instability.... 356X9 = 3.2 GHz.

What's the next step up on the FSB from the 266 setting? jack

What's the next step up on the FSB from the 266 setting? jack

267 :( But try going in steps of 20 or 10..

Suggest you browse the hardware forum and look for overclocking guides... it is not hard, but takes a bit of knowledge to do right.With a bit of luck you might get to 356 without instability.... 356X9 = 3.2 GHz.

----------------Bert- At age 77, I'm already overclocked and it is not necessarily a good thing. Are you aware of any way I could be underclocked?Some people have said they would like to 'clean my clock' - would that help?(One of these days I'll get up to MB to see your system- not forgotten!)Cheers Alex Reid

in regards to overclocking...I HIGHLY suggest you make sure you know what you're doing before you start messing around with settings. It's an easy boost to the system, but it's always easy to fry something.I don't know much about overclocking, so i kept my overclock modest with a e8500 running at 3.4, up from 3.16