Of course i´m running a 64 bit version, everything else wouldn´t make much sense.If I want to have 8GB and I allready have 2 x 2 GB DDR2 RAM, should I only buy two additional 2 x 2GB RAM or does it make more sense to take 2 x 4GB instead?

I repeat, FSX is a 32bit application. It only uses 4Gb ram max! Adding more ram will do nothing for FSX!

Actually only 2 gigs for a 32 bit application and only within the first 4 gigs of system ram.

This reply addresses FSX SP2/Acceleration RAM usage.For 32-Bit Windows:FSX can actually use up to 3 GBy of RAM of a 4 GBy address space allowed for a 32-bit application. The OS + FSX must fit into 4 GBy, so if FSX is using 3 GBy the OS has only 1 GBy left available.For 64-Bit Windows:FSX can actually use up to "close to" 4 GBy of RAM of a 4 GBy address space allowed for a 32-bit application. The OS places its 32-bit compatibility code inside the 4 GBy address space used by FSX. Note: I have yet to find out the size of this 32-bit compatibility OS stub (anyone in the know please chime-in!)Cheers,- jahman.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspxFSX isn't 3gb switch aware...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspxFSX isn't 3gb switch aware...

You're right. But FSX SP2/Acceleration is! (Which is why I made the clarification in my post...)Cheers,- jahman.

You're right. But FSX SP2/Acceleration is! (Which is why I made the clarification in my post...)Cheers,- jahman.

Really because I've never seen it go over even 1.5gigs.Then again I don't have a 2 gig video card.http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/15/fsx-and-win32-process-address-space.aspxQuite well could work... but still nothing seems to be coded to take advantage.

This reply addresses FSX SP2/Acceleration RAM usage.For 32-Bit Windows:FSX can actually use up to 3 GBy of RAM of a 4 GBy address space allowed for a 32-bit application. The OS + FSX must fit into 4 GBy, so if FSX is using 3 GBy the OS has only 1 GBy left available.For 64-Bit Windows:FSX can actually use up to "close to" 4 GBy of RAM of a 4 GBy address space allowed for a 32-bit application. The OS places its 32-bit compatibility code inside the 4 GBy address space used by FSX. Note: I have yet to find out the size of this 32-bit compatibility OS stub (anyone in the know please chime-in!)Cheers,- jahman.

Careful!You are mixing RAM and address space here!!These are two totally different things 4 GB RAM is fine for FSX, but not for the reasons you quote.

Really because I've never seen it go over even 1.5gigs.Then again I don't have a 2 gig video card.http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/15/fsx-and-win32-process-address-space.aspxQuite well could work... but still nothing seems to be coded to take advantage.

Check the date of Phil Taylor's post: Way before SP2/Accel. FSX now is "LargeAddressAware".Nothing needs to be coded in the app itself once it is LargeAddressAware: All this means is the OS will raise the max RAM limit the app can use past 2 GBy.BTW don't worry about the Video RAM as it is internal to the video card and does not impact FSX RAM usage, except for the size of the RAM-to-Video-RAM window that is used to pass data by FSX to the video card. (I have no idea what the size of this window is. Anyone know?)

Careful!You are mixing RAM and address space here!!These are two totally different things 4 GB RAM is fine for FSX, but not for the reasons you quote.

I don't think I am mixing them: I am trying to be quite careful as to when I mention RAM and when address space. If I am making a mistake, please feel free to correct! :-)Cheers, -jahman.

I don't think I am mixing them: I am trying to be quite careful as to when I mention RAM and when address space. If I am making a mistake, please feel free to correct! :-)Cheers, -jahman.

You are using RAM and address space in the same sentence several times over..."3 GB of RAM out of a 4 GB address space" is, no disrespect, like comparing apples and oranges Better would be: "3 GB Partition out of a 4 GB address space"RAM is physical chips that you stick in your computer. MS calls this "Physical storage"Address space is a mapping construct that is internal to the OS.http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366912%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

I´ve allready overclocked my CPU, more than 3,00GHz won´t come out.

It looks to me that you have a well balanced 3 GHz system. No single item is going to give you more performance.Better, enjoy the system you've got and plan for anew system in a couple of years when 5 GHz processorsactually exist, complete with the motherboards thatcan run them at full speed.

Well i guess you could always show us your running FSX.exe thats 2gig+...? Phil clearly states DirectX was never compatible with 3gig hence why it never was worked into any version of FSX. I think you'd be hardpressed to find ANY DX9 game working over 2gigs.. but obviously this works so you will post the pics right?

Well i guess you could always show us your running FSX.exe thats 2gig+...? Phil clearly states DirectX was never compatible with 3gig hence why it never was worked into any version of FSX. I think you'd be hardpressed to find ANY DX9 game working over 2gigs.. but obviously this works so you will post the pics right?

It may depend on what level of scenery you run. In complex scenery,a number of users, myself included, have run into OOM errors that were curedby setting the /3GB flag. So, I for one, am convinced that this is real andnot snake oil

Back on topic, the OP is asking whether or not upgrading to 8GBy of RAM will make a difference in FSX, the answer is no, not a significant change.

I think you'd be hardpressed to find ANY DX9 game working over 2gigs.. but obviously this works so you will post the pics right?

happy new fail