P4 and Hyperthreading.

[Guest mdavis]

I have to agree with BC here, that programs that don't work as well are to blame for problems, not HTing or FS9. Whether or not you "need" to disable HT is up to you and your system. I prefer to leave it enabled all the time to accomodate all the auxilliary programs that run with FS9 while online (SBRelay, SBHost, Squawkbox, Roger Wilco, Jeppesen simCharts, ServInfo, etc.) I don't need any more framerates. If you monitor the CPU activity graphs, you can see where your CPU is putting various application tasks by the load. My CPU load on CPU0 has never exceeded 55% with FS9 on a 3.2GHz box.MDavis

[greeneg 0]

I almost wonder in reading this thread if we have another one of those situations here where the interaction of the individual, the machine, and the perceived responses of the the Simulation are almost unique; which is why there seem to be variable results with regard to hyperthreading. My 3.06 HT enabled machine runs FS9 beautifully, now that most of the Radeon issues have been addressed by the newer drivers. It has no trouble with the Add-ons that I own and use which are FSMeteo, FDC,Ultimate Traffic and Ready for Pushback. When I add Radar Contact to the mix, no problem. Disabling HT as noted above made no difference to the Sim's performance ON MY MACHINE, either way ( emphasis intended). In my humble, this is one of those recommendations that certainly must have worked for some people, does not work for everyone. I think that if you feel that you have a performance issue, it is worth trying, if it helps, great; if it doesn't well leave it and go on.My solution to the performance issue is to leave the Frame Rate counter OFF unless I have a very specific reason to have it on ( testing, etc) and simply go fly and enjoy the sim. The bottom line for me is to have fun with this thing, there are sufficient other hassles elsewhere......Best Regards to AllEd Green

[Guest JeanLuc_]

BC, you certainly have a knowledge that few of us have then and I can assure you we are a lot who would be grateful to share it with us, instead of bashing to developers like you insist to do.Let me illustrate what I just wrote: do a search on HT in the AVSIM Forum, and you will read reports from many users, which are experiencing up to 100% FPS increase (x2) when disabling HT, and running the Sim alone (no add-on). Now here is the question: how could a supposedly HT-designed game (FS9 - as advertised by MSFT) be running twice as fast with HT disabled? are you considering MSFT does not have the necessary knowledge from Intel to design a real HT oriented sim?Here are some ideas to answer: advertising HT enabled FS9 is only a marketing driven feature, since as Intel sells it: any application benefit from HT and there is no particular things to do on the program side (and don't forget that the only compiler that i know of which is about to implement HT oriented optimizations and code rearrangement is the Intel Compiler....). All this to just let me think that for a developer to HT enable an application, it requires a compiler which support this, not a programming skill in C or C++. And it really looks like the FS9 code as been compiled with something close to the Intel compiler... now you see why FS9 is HT enabled? Well, on the paper if reading properly the various posts here.Last but not least, your mileage may vary of course, but here are some info straight from Intel which would also help you understand why HT is not relevant to a game:here is the thread from the past:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=137716and some "dev" info I've posted there:===============================================================Also, don't expect much from Windows XP Home:The processor limits which result from this licensing model for 32-bit versions of the Windows Server 2003 family and Windows XP are shown in Table 2.Windows Version Maximum Physical Processor Limit Maximum Logical Processor LimitWindows XP Home Edition 1 2Windows XP Professional 2 4Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition 4 8Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 8 16Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition 32 32Table 2. Processor Limits for 32-bit Versions of the Windows Server 2003 family and Windows XPAlso note there are 3 topics covered with HT:As a result of the HT processor identification support, the following HT-aware features are included in Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003 family.

[Guest sb55mv]

Guy's.Firstly,may I say a big thank you to all of you that replied to this posting of mine, I was suitably impressed with all that responded and took the time to give me their input, now secondly let me say a big Sorry to all of you at the same time, as I beleive that a good portion of you will now probably think ''why did I try and help this guy'' because I feel that I am now no better off than when I started the post, why!. I will tell you, I thought that I was fairly up on the workings of a PC in respect that I build my own.not to be a tight person but because I enjoy the satisfaction I get from making/creating something myself and because whenever you go to these shops that I am not going to mention any names (you know who they are) they will sell you a piece of plastic leaning up against the wall if they think they can get away with it!, secondly because I like to have a system for what I want to use it for, I am into gaming in a big way, FS9, EA Games Medal of Honor Allied Asault etc,(I can't wait for LOMAC)I just thought that by up-grading my Asus A7N8X Deluxe2 mobo and AMD XP3000 CPU to an Intel High end Board and an Intel P4 3ghz CPU I might be able to get things to run faster and better, and would handle things somewhat smoother, as most of you are aware we use other things when FS9 is running such as FS Nav,Squalk Box,Roger Wilco,Servinfo,FSUIPC is running within FS as well. then theres those lovely addons such as the UK2000 scenery of which I have every single one from Part1 to Part6. I think they are stunning. basicaly I just thought that by making the changes that I had planned to go for might make everything run just as good as it does now,but that bit smoother and be able to handle them all at the same time better than what it does right now,I realise that this is a bit long winded but hope that you know exactly what I mean. I mean no offence or disrespect to the ones who are truly technicaly minded in some of the replies,the truth is guy's that some of you have completely lost me.I don't consider myself an idiot of ignorant to computer topics,but that having being said I have to admit to a good portion of the replies going right over my head.thank you all once again,sincerily.PS. I have included a notepad file of my current specs just in case anyone wanted to see what I was trying to up-grade from.Steve.