Post a screenshot of it.But if you say it's 480, then it's probably at 960mhz. And FSB is not 1600. :-)But to be sure, post a shot of it.

Sure my FSB is up to 1600MHz, how I would otherwise got my CPU overclocked to 3.00GHz (I have a quad core with an clock speed of 333.3Mhz and an multiplier of 7.5 before the oc. and 400MHz and 7.5 afterwards.Then check your maths: 400 x 4 = 1600MHz) and it´s also written on the MOBO packaging.You´d called for some pictures, here they are:Watch the FSB!The CPU-Z memory sections:Hope this helps you (and me).

I wrote it a bit wrong. FSB is 1600, it's for quad normal. Baseclock is 400. Depending on your CPU, base clock is either being doubled or multiplied by 4. But that's not the issue.Your RAM is, according to CPUZ, able to go up to 800mhz. 480mhz is speed of your RAM, effectively it's running at twice that, 960mhz. So if you have DDR2-800, then you pushing the issue here.If you have faster RAM - then it's not an issue. Some RAMs allow for higher clocks, while other crash.

With his system being dual channel, he would be best to upgrade to 8GBy and maintain the dual channel memory, instead of dropping to single channel.

If he puts 3Gb ( 2 on A1 +1 on A2 ) on channel A and 3Gb (2 on B1 +1 on B2) on channel B it would give him full use of Dual Channel.The lowest total value for A or B determines the amount used for dual channel.

jahman - What the hell are you talking about? Does this have any in common with the topic?

Strong words for a fellow simmer wouldn't you say?For starters, just because you asked a question doesn't mean you own the thread. Further, the answer to a question often spawns suptopics that help round out the answer to your initial question, especially when the answer is non-trivial as is the case with your question. Finally, if you don't find one of those subtopics useful, you can just ignore, right?Cheers,- jahman.

Strong words for a fellow simmer wouldn't you say?For starters, just because you asked a question doesn't mean you own the thread. Further, the answer to a question often spawns suptopics that help round out the answer to your initial question, especially when the answer is non-trivial as is the case with your question. Finally, if you don't find one of those subtopics useful, you can just ignore, right?Cheers,- jahman.

Well, jahman, of course I do not "own" this thread, although I´ve started it, but I think for some peope like me, who do no know so much about internal operations of the CPU, it´s a little bit confusing, where yo´re drifting to. I think due to tha fact, that I´ve started this thread, I have some kind of an "admin" right to push this thread slightly in the direction where my queestion is answered. My intension when I´ve started this thread was, that I wanted to know, how much RAM I should have and wheather upgrading makes sense or not. I searched for an answer else where, but got contrary things, so I tried here, hoping to get some clearer ones. This question, I think at least, is an rather important question. Most of us here were facing this question one day and then it isn´t that good, if someone searching a answer for this question gets a threat talking about how tasks are executed in the CPU and so on. I don´t want so say, that this person or I want short anwers, e.g. "Get 8GB, it´s better!" A little bit of backround knowledge, why is this better or not, is imperative. What I want so say is, that I think this all goes a little bít too deep in this matter. I never wanted to critisize you, it´s just a litte bit too deep. It´s not that I do not understand how important it is, to discuss such subtopics and I know that it isn´t that easy to answer this question. It´s not that I´m calling for simple answers.Allthough I have to admit, that I thought, this simple question has a simlpe answer, but now I´m going to understand, that it isn´t that simple. @Word Not Allowed: Do 4 or 8GB of 1066 MHz DDR2 RAM make any difference in performance (Which I can finally notice?)

Let me put it like this: if you are able to turn off your swap file without having any compromise, there won't be a point going to 8GB. This is a thing you have to test on YOUR computer. It all depends on how much your system loads and finally how much FSX requires from RAM.I know for the fact that I hit the 6GB limit (I have swapping off). But it took a lot tell you the truth.There is no point in going from 800 to 1066. You won't see 20% FPS jump. Probably not even 5%... High RAM speeds are only really relevant if you make a decent jump... say from 800 to 2000 (DDR2->DDR3), or if you're overclocking REALLY a lot (like me for instance).

How can I turn the swap file off?

Control Panel - System - Advanced System Settings - Advanced Tab - Settings under Performance - Advanced Tab - Change - (if auto is set in the checkbox, deselect it to be able to set yourself) - Click C partition, make sure no paging file is selected, press Set. Repeat for each partition you have. In the end reboot, go back there and make sure it says None everywhere.

Turned off the page file and tested it with FSX without any problems. In full flight without open clouds enabled, FSX used up to 2900MB of RAM, but I´ve used small aircrafts like the Iris F-16, so I think the result might be somehow arround 3500 MB or like that with some big one (unfortunately I do not own a big one, cause I´m not sure, wheather so switch completly to FSX). Does this result show that I should upgrade or not?

I would say yes to upgrading. You have only 1.1GBy remaining when flying that particular aircraft in that particular environment. If you were to decide to switch to FSX completely, and purchase the PMDG 744x for example, combine that with possible high res. Ground textures, large add-on airports, you're definitely going to use more than 2.9GBy. You also have to remember that the OS and all other background task require RAM as well, otherwise you're going to be seeing OOMs frequently.

Turned off the page file and tested it with FSX without any problems. In full flight without open clouds enabled, FSX used up to 2900MB of RAM, but I´ve used small aircrafts like the Iris F-16, so I think the result might be somehow arround 3500 MB or like that with some big one (unfortunately I do not own a big one, cause I´m not sure, wheather so switch completly to FSX). Does this result show that I should upgrade or not?

I would also say yes to this measurement.

- removed by poster -

- removed by poster -

What the heck should this be?Tested my system without swap file for another 2 h (Open coluds running, 85% ai traffic and F-16 from Comox to MOA Olympic A/B and back) and had only one minor issue with the memory. On final approach in heavy rain an bad sight, the system asked my wheather I would be so kind to close FSX, cause there wouldn´t be enough memory availabe. I denied this and nothin` happened, no OOM, so it´s looking good. Another thing I´ve encountered is, that since I turned the swap file off, I have no microshutters as I had them the time before. This might be, cause the HDD hasn´t to read and write at the same time, but I´m not sure. I will turn the swap file on, till I get some new RAM, don´t wanna have some OOM.

You should definitely get another 4GB if you are so close to the limit. And of course that stutters are gone, turning off swap if you have enough RAM can only be good.

this is old, but the reason why my screenie showed FSX 0% CPU usage was because I inadvertantly shut it down b4 switching to the task manager and I had to rush to hit the print screen key.And how come you guys are now recomending the 8GB upgrade? it makes no sense to me. 4GB is more than enough, come on, I run GB for quite some time with no real benefits over 4GB