I have set my system up per Nick N's setup guide and then my bios per SpiritFlyers thread above. The system is stable and rarely goes over 55C when maxed out.HT is off and while running FSX, Core#2 runs maxed out most of the time. My frames are acceptable but I wonder if that could hurt the chip? And, is there a way to distribute some of the load? The other cores have very low usage most of the time.ThanksRick S.

I have set my system up per Nick N's setup guide and then my bios per SpiritFlyers thread above. The system is stable and rarely goes over 55C when maxed out.HT is off and while running FSX, Core#2 runs maxed out most of the time. My frames are acceptable but I wonder if that could hurt the chip? And, is there a way to distribute some of the load? The other cores have very low usage most of the time.ThanksRick S.

I don't think that will hurt the system in any away, but you might try setting an affinity mask in your fsx.cfg so more cores will help with fsx.

I have set my system up per Nick N's setup guide and then my bios per SpiritFlyers thread above. The system is stable and rarely goes over 55C when maxed out.HT is off and while running FSX, Core#2 runs maxed out most of the time. My frames are acceptable but I wonder if that could hurt the chip? And, is there a way to distribute some of the load? The other cores have very low usage most of the time.ThanksRick S.

That is all good. If FSX is running Core2, then it's the third core. There are basically Core0 - Core3 for Cores 1,2,3 and 4. Please define which one is it.It won't hurt it, you only could optimize a bit. You won't get higher frames, but possibly better textures loading.Distributing is not possible when it comes to frames (or better said fibers). But all texture loaders come after fibers and the main thread (which is for you the Core with 100%).

That is all good. If FSX is running Core2, then it's the third core. There are basically Core0 - Core3 for Cores 1,2,3 and 4. Please define which one is it.It won't hurt it, you only could optimize a bit. You won't get higher frames, but possibly better textures loading.Distributing is not possible when it comes to frames (or better said fibers). But all texture loaders come after fibers and the main thread (which is for you the Core with 100%).

Core#2, third core, is always hammered. Wasn't sure if there was a way to spread some of the "love" around.Rick S.

Sadly FSX doesn't take advantage of more than one core- that's why we're always telling people to get the new i5 2500k because if we can only use 1 core, what are we going to do with the other 3 and virtual 4 on the i7! ;)

Sadly FSX doesn't take advantage of more than one core- that's why we're always telling people to get the new i5 2500k because if we can only use 1 core, what are we going to do with the other 3 and virtual 4 on the i7! ;)

Untrue. FSX has used multiple cores since Sp1. The program runs mainly of the first core but scenery loading and other tasks are relegated to the other cores. FSX does NOT use HyperThreading. Perhaps that's what you meant. My 980X has 6 cores and I guarantee that all 6 are being used at various times during a flight.Vic

I stand corrected, that is what I mean (however that's what I was told on flightsimforums).

FSX is going to use one, and that's the main thread for all the fibers, calculcations and all.And it's going to offload to all other available threads texture loading.For example: on a quad core with HT off, you set Affinitymask to 14, it's gonna use Core1,2,3, with Core1 maxed out, and other cores as is texture loader needed. It will not spread other calculations to other cores, which would mean increase in FPS. FPS doesn't change.But you can measure how fast a flight loads with more or less cores. I tried this with one core in use, two, three and four. All different loading times, faster as I added more cores.But FPS remained the same every time, if I didn't load some heavy scenery which would pull CPU cycles to texture loading away from frame fibers.

I have a 2600k as seen in my sig. What affinity mask would I use for that?

I have a 2600k as seen in my sig. What affinity mask would I use for that?

HT on or off?

Are you running SP2 / Acceleration?

I decided to change my Affinity Mask from 84, not sure how it was set to begin with, to 14 based on the above post. HT is still off.Big change in core loads. Now Core#2 & 3 stay at 100% a fair amount of time; Core#1 is above 85% most of the time and Core#0 bounces from 35% to 80%. Temps are higher running in the upper 50's to occasionally low 60' on 1 through 3 and 40's and low to mid 50's on #0. Before core#2 was at 100% most of the time and the other stayed below 50, if not lower, most of the time.I don't see much difference in frames or scenery, maybe a little better, but it was fairly good to begin with.What did I do, and why has it changed so dramatically? Have I helped the system balance or is this a placebo?ThanksRick S.

I decided to change my Affinity Mask from 84, not sure how it was set to begin with, to 14 based on the above post. HT is still off.Big change in core loads. Now Core#2 & 3 stay at 100% a fair amount of time; Core#1 is above 85% most of the time and Core#0 bounces from 35% to 80%. Temps are higher running in the upper 50's to occasionally low 60' on 1 through 3 and 40's and low to mid 50's on #0. Before core#2 was at 100% most of the time and the other stayed below 50, if not lower, most of the time.I don't see much difference in frames or scenery, maybe a little better, but it was fairly good to begin with.What did I do, and why has it changed so dramatically? Have I helped the system balance or is this a placebo?ThanksRick S.

No, it's not a placebo.84: 0010101014: 0111No affinitymask: Core0 Windows and Processes + FSX Main Thread and Fibers, Core 1+2+3 Texture Loaders. HT cores are doing nothing (forget task manager).Numbers represent threads visible in task manager.84 should be used for HT on, 14 should be used for HT off.If I didn't mix something up, this means is that Fibers always remain on the Core0, no matter the affinity mask, they can't be moved. Main thread can be moved, this is by assigning Core0 a zero. 0111 means Core1 will take up the main thread, and Core 2+3 will be used for texture loading.So basically what you did here, you put FSX main thread on the Core1, which should be less used by windows, which should in the end cause less stutters.At least, that is the theory.

No, it's not a placebo.84: 0010101014: 0111No affinitymask: Core0 Windows and Processes + FSX Main Thread and Fibers, Core 1+2+3 Texture Loaders. HT cores are doing nothing (forget task manager).Numbers represent threads visible in task manager.84 should be used for HT on, 14 should be used for HT off.If I didn't mix something up, this means is that Fibers always remain on the Core0, no matter the affinity mask, they can't be moved. Main thread can be moved, this is by assigning Core0 a zero. 0111 means Core1 will take up the main thread, and Core 2+3 will be used for texture loading.So basically what you did here, you put FSX main thread on the Core1, which should be less used by windows, which should in the end cause less stutters.At least, that is the theory.

And the theory works!Kind regards,

No, it's not a placebo.84: 0010101014: 0111No affinitymask: Core0 Windows and Processes + FSX Main Thread and Fibers, Core 1+2+3 Texture Loaders. HT cores are doing nothing (forget task manager).Numbers represent threads visible in task manager.84 should be used for HT on, 14 should be used for HT off.If I didn't mix something up, this means is that Fibers always remain on the Core0, no matter the affinity mask, they can't be moved. Main thread can be moved, this is by assigning Core0 a zero. 0111 means Core1 will take up the main thread, and Core 2+3 will be used for texture loading.So basically what you did here, you put FSX main thread on the Core1, which should be less used by windows, which should in the end cause less stutters.At least, that is the theory.

Seems cores#2 &3 must be doing the scenery etc and 1 is FSX main.Have I got that right?Anyhow it seems better, smoother even.What was 84 doing then?ThanksRick S