I'm upgrading from a 1.7 with 512 ram to a 2.4, 2.6 or 2.8. 1st, is there an advantage with FS9 to hyperthreading? 2nd, Is there a big advantage with FS9 to going from 512 to 1024 DDR Ram? Thanks B Bjorkman CFI,,,,, but not a computer guru. BTW I have a G4 4600Ti VCard and a 80gig HD

I'm planning on making a decision today so any input would be appreciated. Thanks B Bjorkman

Can't answer about hyperthreading, but ,assuming you're using WinXP, the more RAM is usually better.If you're on Win98 or ME then more than 512 MB can have a retrograde effect in some casesDave

Sorry for not mentioning it, yes I have XP, thanks for the info. B Bjorkman

Well, the memory question is not clear. I have XP with 764 megs of Rambus memory. When flying in MSFS, I have never, I repeat, never seen the program use more than 500 megs of ram, even with a small page file set in windows. I am unconvinced that more RAM than 512 is not money wasted. Would love to hear from others on this.

I have been thinking about this same issue of installing more memory from 512Megs to 1024Megs myself. What I would like to see is not opinions on that its better, but some testing to prove thats its better. I don't have FS2004 yet to test, but I do know that with FS2002 I at the most have seen my memory usage go up to around 400megs. This is with all my add-ons. There is nothing else I run that would need more than the 512Megs I have now. That's why I need convincing proof that more memory would actually be used by FS2004 before I upgrade to more memory. If anybody can shed more light on this that would be great.Thanks, Scott

FS9 flies just fine with 512 Meg... although hyperthreading may not buy you anything, every little bit of processor performance does help.. go for the P4-2.8!My rig: Asus P4PE w [email protected], 512Meg, Ti4200 128Meg, WinXPPro

The question you didn't as is "should I go 533 or 800 FSB?" If you go 800 FSB then your P4 will be HT. I don't believe they make any 800 FSB P4's w/o HT - perhaps the 2.4. The price is so low now, that I doubt it would make any sense to not go to a 2.8. They're very stabile when o/c'd. I'm at 3.3G with no voltage bump and no heat problem.Regarding memory: Leading technology right now favors dual-channel DDR. If I were you I'd go with a two sticks of 512k DDR 400. FS9 favors 1G or more high-speed ram. Buy a name brand - don't go cheap on your memory.You didn't mention a new motherboard. If you're going to 800MHz FSB, then I doubt the board your 1.7G is on will support that. I personally like the Asus P4P800 Deluxe. IMO it's not worth it to go with the P4C800.Good luck!

Thanks for the advice. My daughter's comp power switch failed which was connected to an older P3. Because of that I needed to get her a new mobo and case. Where some see trouble, I see oppurtunity. I'm moving her vid card, hd etc over to my 1.7 and putting my high end goodies into a new case with a new mobo etc. I think for now I'm going with the 800 FSB in a 2.8 so I guess that makes it hyper threaded. I'm also sticking in 512 ddr which, to my understanding I don't have a choice on any other type (rambus etc). The guy I'm going thru has a small shop here so if I choose he'll work with me on trades of ram etc for the future. Because of my already descent vid card (G4 4600ti) I'm hoping for a marked improvement in FS9 as far as frame rates go. I love the new clouds but they kill me if I put up much overcast at all. Makes shooting approaches difficult when your screen jumps all the time. Thanks for the advice guys. I'll let everyone know in the future how it turns out. B Bjorkman CFI and boogy (skydive) driver

Looks like you are aiming for a system almost identical to mine (check my signature below).I can tell you that you won't be disappointed in FS9 with a P4 2.8GHz 800MHz FSB (which has Hyper-Threading).Regarding the memory issue, as you can see I have 1GB of RAM, but from what I've heard from MOST people is 512MB is plenty sufficient for FS. So you make your call.If you are building this system in mind that FS will be the primary use and the most computer intense program you will ever use, then I'd say stick with 512MB. If you do a lot of dealing with graphics, 3D animation, or just want everything in your computer to load instantly, then 1GB is probably the way to go.But for FS alone, all you need is 512MB honestly.You won't be disappointed with your system. I am running everything maxed except the Clouds which are on "High" and I typically get a steady 20-40fps. Very occasionally I drop down to the low-mid teens, but it is still bearable.Regards

I agree with MEA707 that you won't be disappointed with the 2.8 P4. The current Intel technology is way beyond what is required for a 2.8G chip, therefore you'll find plently of headroom to overclock. With dual-channel DDR memory (such as on the P4P800) overclocking via the FSB yields some good improvements in memory bandwidth.I don't, however, agree with 512k being sufficient. From what I've read, 512k should be viewed as the minimum with 1G or more being recommended. For an extra $100 it's an easy decision, IMO. If you go dual channel (and why would you not???), make sure to check that your memory is compatible with your mobo. For example, Asus has a matrix on it's site showing compatible (or "certified") dual channel ddr brands. Any brand "should" work, but by going with the tested brands you'll have a better chance of hitting max performance.Good luck!

Again, can someone please show me the data that FS uses more than half a gig of ram. It's easy to track in the XP system performance utility. I fly with FS Genesis Mesh, PMDG's 737 in VC mode on a 2.6 gig p4 rig, and have never seen RAM useage above half a gig. And I've tracked this a bunch of times.

I asked the same thing in my post above. I know there has to be some people out there with 1Gig of memory and FS2004 that can check the memory usage while running the sim.Anybody..... Please help us.....If anyone needs help in how to check memory use its real simple, perform a CTRL ALT Delete on the keyboard and monitor the physical memory available on the performance tab of the window that comes up.Thanks, Scott

I show 484k available with FS9 and nothing else running. So it's using over 512k, but not by much. On the other hand, I don't believe I've ever seen a system max out physical memory before using the page file. It seems like windows always leaves a reserve (reported incorrectly?). If this was a 512k system and a reserve was held then in theory I would have a demand in excess of my physical memory.In my case, I needed two sticks for dual channel DDR, so the cost of going to 1M was not high enough to be a consideration. I've yet to read someone complaining because they have too much high quality memory.

Thanks for the response. Just a little history here, I just upgraded my computer and trying to keep costs down yet buy high quality stuff I had decided to go with 512Megs of memory instead of the 1Gig. The difference I saved may be used to upgrade my video card. Still have some time to think about changing the ram.Here is a list of components:Asus P4P800Celeron 2.2GHz running at 2.75Ghz (plan on getting P4 3.2Ghz in feb when prices are around $270)Corsair twinx 3200LL 2 X 256 for a total of 512Enermax EG365p-VE 350Watt supplyEnermax CS3110TD ChassisLite On LTR52327S CDR/RWHighpoint Rockethead ide to sata converterFrom my old box I used:Audigy 2 sound cardMaxtor 80 Gig 8Meg Cache Hard IDE driveEVGA Geforce 4 TI4400no name DVD CdromKeyboard, Mouse, blah blahWin XP ProThe cost to get 1gig TwinX package is about 140 more which would go a long way toward a Nvidia 5700 ultra or an ATI 9600XT. That is why I was hoping to get some good feedback regarding memory usage. FS2002 runs pretty darn good with the current set up but I would like to be ready for when I take the FS2004 plunge.