P4 and Hyperthreading.

[Guest sb55mv]

does anyone know if this hyperthreading technology does anything for FS9 in the way of performance increasing etc,cheersSteve.

[michal 44]

NO. nothing. (use search - this has been extensively covered on this forum).Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Guest mda]

Try disabling it through BIOS and note the difference.

[Guest B52Drivr]

Hello All,You don't have to disable it through the BIOS, if you are dealing with XP, (and why shouldnt' you be), you hit ctl, alt, del, and up pops the manager . . . click on fs9 after its running, and make the priority high and eliminate one of the cpu's running, works great.Clay

[Guest sb55mv]

I'm very confused now guy's, why should i have to disable / un check one of the cpu's !I want to up-grade my board and cpu to an intel set and a P4 3.2ghz chip, but I'm confused by all this un-checking/disabling/bios stuff, I just thought it would run my machine and FS9 faster/better, thats all I wanted to do with the up-grade,sorry to sound stupid but can one of you please explain in NODDY format please,thank youSteve,

[michal 44]

Steve,I hope I make it very clear: hyperthreading doesn't get you any extra boost in FS9, as a matter of fact in selected FS9 add-ons (say Flight's Meridinan aircraft) it will actually lower the performance. So you have to disable hyperthreading and there are different ways to go about it. This is what people are describing here - different ways to disable hyperthreading.I don't think I can make it clearer than that.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Guest JeanLuc_]

"click on fs9 after its running, and make the priority high"Clay, as long as the only program you run is the stock FS2004, raising the FS9 process priority is your decision. But it may lead many simmers to problems in saying to raise the process priority if they run third party add-ons / softwares at the same time.As always, remember / note / write down your tweaks. If a problem arises, you know were to start from to revert back to a normal and default installation...Hope this helps!

[Guest touradg morassaei]

Hi SteveIn a very simple word, Hyper threading Allow You to Divide the power of your CPU Between two or more applications. And this is very important for example when you are capturing a video file or when you are listening to the music while flying. So I highly recommend this ability not only for FS.Touradg

[Guest B52Drivr]

Sorry Guys,When I wrote that I was VERY pressed for time. If you have XP, (and I think this only works with XP), you can disable hyperthreading and gain performance. HOW IT IS DONE.1. Click 'Ctl, Alt, Del' after FS9 is running.2. this will be the windows task manager.3. click on processes4. find FS9 in that list. left click on it to make it bold, then right click.5. on the right click you will find Set Priority, click on that and set priorty for high.6. click on Affinity, and unclick one of the cpu's listed, you will see cpu 0 and cpu 1, unclick one and then leave the task manager.what this will do, (or so I have been told, and it works for me,) is to make FS9 the priority program of XP and lests it use all the CPU power it can handle.Anyone out there correct me if I am wrong, please, but it works great for my system.Best to all,Clay

[Guest BC_KBOS]

Actually, if you experience a performance drop with an add-on program while hyper threading is enabled, the problem lies with the ADD-ON and how it deals with hyper threading. This was proven with an add on .dll from Pete Dowson and his pfc.dll. He fixed the problem with the dll and HT no longer had an impact. Or so I should say, pfc.dll no longer pulled down performance with HT enabled.A pure install of FS2K4 should experience no difference with HT enabled or disabled. This is because the sim doesn't implement the advantages of HT. If you then start up an addon and performance drops, it is the add on that is at fault. You *can* work around this by forcing FS to run on only one virtual processor, but this only works per session. There is a way to make FS2K4 always run on one processor, but this is going to mask the real problem and you have to *technically* modify the FS exe file to make it permanent.If M$ could figure out how to do it, and did, why should any of us have to modify the original program (FS) to make it work with someone else's add on?I would suggest that you write to the author of the offending program and tell them that THEIR program causes a performance drop with HT enabled.If they come back to you and tell you to do the workaround, lazy programming could be suggested, but the "newness" of HT is something that many are not up to speed on programming wise. In other words, insisting the problem lies in FS would be blaming FS for a problem in their software. (blaming the hammer for bad nails)A search of the M$ knowledge base should point them to a fix for their software.Again, HT makes no difference to FS. If the degrade in performance happens after the add on, it is the fault of the add on.This does actually get into geek stuff and nobody should have to go that far to get the sim to work. Go back to the add on people and get them to sort it out.Happy Contrails!BC

[michal 44]

>I would suggest that you write to the author of the offending>program and tell them that THEIR program causes a performance>drop with HT enabled.>>If they come back to you and tell you to do the workaround, I>would suggest lazy programming. In other words, they would be>blaming FS for a problem in their software. (blaming the>hammer for bad nails)The author doesn't have to be 'written to' since he is keenly aware of the problem. We are talking about Reality-XP's GNS530 emulator which in turn depends on Garmin's trainer. So ultimately I would probably have to write to Garmin but I don't think it would do me any good (it is freeware). I don't think you can accuse Jean-Luc of 'lazy programming' either since there are few around who can match his creativity or contribution to the flight simulation. Moreover, contrary to your assertions, many people report that FS9 does run better with HT turned off which has nothing to do with the 530 gauge. Also if you dig into some internet hardware sites you will find reports that HT can indeed be harmful to some applications and this has nothing to do with those applications having flaws in their implementation. Even Intel, inventor of HT admitted it won't necessarily be 'neutral' for selected class of applications.Michael J.

[Guest BC_KBOS]

I edited my post in an attempt to back off of the "lazy" thing. HT is rather new and programs *can* be made to get along with it.Adjusting FS to make up for the shortcomings of another program should not be the end all fix. Short term, fine. Long term, well, the offending program needs to be fixed.I am not implying anyone is actually lazy. I just see too many instances of blaming FS and HT for problems that are actually caused by an add-on.I hope this makes sense and I don't inadvertantly step on any toes, but the HT thing needs to be demystified, or un-demonized.BC

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Hi,Just to add a couple cents(if that) to add to this thread. When it comes to the RealityXP GNS530 I think the Garmin Trainer is only partially at fault when it somes to having trouble with WinXP and Hyperthreading. I say this because it's too bad that it's a 16-bit program. Now, there wouldn't be anything wrong with that, but it calls up the 16-bit subsytem in Windows XP, 'ntvdm.exe'. And I think that it's this component of WinXP that doesn't like Hyperthreading and causes problems with performance in FS2004. I love the RealityXP 530 and so I just disable HT in my BIOS and leave at that. A little unfortunate as there are a number of advantages to having HT enabled. But then again, I don't run a lot of apps all the time where I really need or would be taking advantage of HT so not too big a deal for me. Now, if FS2004 itself had a signifcant performance gain with HT enabled then I'd be bummed. ;)Regards,Jim

[Guest BC_KBOS]

Jim, you just hit the nail on the head!FS2K4 has no problem with HT, it's the add-ons that are the problem, and that is my point.BC

[michal 44]

> it's the add-ons that are the>problem, and that is my point.rather strange FS2004 add-on if it is called WinXP *:-*Michael J.