Are you saying VRAM is not a part of the 4gb vas limit? I have to disagree with that. Maybe in the 64-bit world, but we're talking about dinky little fsx, some parts of which date back 10 years or more.

yeah dude, that's pretty much what i'm saying. it doesn't really have anything to do specifically with fsx, it's just how vram works. it was the case even back in the day when a system had 256megs and the voodoo cards had 32megs...once you upload you dont need to keep it allocated..... i think you could make a case that fsx could only upload to the first 4Gb of vram, although i'm not even sure that would matter with a 64-bit card driver and i'm not familar enough with the api's.. a lot of apps use their own caching algorithms for how they decide what to upload and when, and there's different approaches.. you're right that fsx certainly does some things in mysterious ways so hey anything is possible, i guess they could allocate a mirrored copy of vram in system ram but i can't possibly think of any useful reason why. and your own numbers don't really seem to bear that out? on your huge system display version it's got 4gB commited for the gpu which by your reasoning would mean that fsx wouldn't be able to allocated any ram at all, but there it is with 3gigs of it's own.. ... :) cheers ! -andy crosby

Are you saying VRAM is not a part of the 4gb vas limit? I have to disagree with that. Maybe in the 64-bit world, but we're talking about dinky little fsx, some parts of which date back 10 years or more.

oh also, since you're curious and i'm greatly oversimplifying thigns. here's a much more detailed articlethe 'aperature' is what gets allocated in system ram, and lets cards address into the vram http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3602/sponsored_feature_ram_vram_and_.php?page=3 anyway it's quite an interesting issue. it could prove interesting to try artificially limiting it and looking at the processes just to see. as you say, fsx does some wacky stuff so there are probably other interesting details to discover. cheers,-andy crosby

oh also, since you're curious and i'm greatly oversimplifying thigns. here's a much more detailed articlethe 'aperature' is what gets allocated in system ram, and lets cards address into the vram http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3602/sponsored_feature_ram_vram_and_.php?page=3 anyway it's quite an interesting issue. it could prove interesting to try artificially limiting it and looking at the processes just to see. as you say, fsx does some wacky stuff so there are probably other interesting details to discover. cheers,-andy crosby

Ok, I'll have a look. It's 10pm here however and I'm inebriated. We'll have to continue the discussion tomorrow

So whats the final conclusion here guys? I also have a 580 GTX 3G card arriving tomorrow, did i make a mistake, or not? Should I stick with the 1.5 G instead? I'm also upgrading to a SB i7-2600K at the same time.Im only running FSX on a single 27" .

"did i make a mistake" I doubt that please let me know what you think of it, thanks.

So whats the final conclusion here guys? I also have a 580 GTX 3G card arriving tomorrow, did i make a mistake, or not? Should I stick with the 1.5 G instead? I'm also upgrading to a SB i7-2600K at the same time.Im only running FSX on a single 27" .

My conclusion is that the 3GB won't perform any better than the 1.5GB card, but it won't be more likely to run out of memory either.Maybe you could do a comparison like Ken did of both GPU's in the same system?

My conclusion is that the 3GB won't perform any better than the 1.5GB card, but it won't be more likely to run out of memory either.Maybe you could do a comparison like Ken did of both GPU's in the same system?

That's what we really need, someone with similar specs doing the same test (even only one scenario) with a 3gb 580 at ksea with orbx pnw installed

Making a mistake I mean, that I've spent some extra money on sg, which might cause problems with the NGX, since the rig is dedicated to FSX, though I also happen to play some other, new games as well .

My conclusion is that the 3GB won't perform any better than the 1.5GB card, but it won't be more likely to run out of memory either.Maybe you could do a comparison like Ken did of both GPU's in the same system?

Thanx, that's what I meant with the question, no extra performance for FSX (compared to the 1,5G 580), but no headaches and extra issues as well...Sticking to the 1,5G was a GTX 480, so the comparison wouldn't make sense.

iknow it sounds strange cause I was going with a 3gb 580 gtx for ngx speificially rather than 1.5 gb and I posed that question in the driver section yes it sounds more is better but fsx remember came out in 2006 and badly coded and will not takeadvantage of the 3gb 580gtx thus went recently with 580gtx 1.5 gb and golden smooth and run beuatifully and no bsbod's.i

 

100% Correct. FSX is a 32 Application, and as such can only uses 4 Gigs, on a 64 Bit OS.However, it can use ALL that 4 Gigs, as it does not need to share any with the 64 Bit kernal.( on 32 bit machines, FSX + Kernal use 4 gigs )

HiVery interesting thread!My monitor setup is: Matrox THGO2 at 5080x1050 (3x22") and I will buy a Asus GTX580 CUII, 1536MB but I have read if you are with high res... you should go for card with 3GB!I have read in this thread that fsx can only use 4GB of system ram even in 64-bit OS like my computer. With a 3GB VRAM you can get some big graphic problem, like I have had with MSI gtx560ti, 2GB VRAM!I have PMDG 737ngx and I will not get any problem os so!The issue for me was I have had like a thin symbol in the graphic together with MSI 2GB´s card, I have not had the problem in the graphic with the 1GB card so it is why I am pointing at the graphiccard and the problem with VRAM. Can someone confirm it with the 3GB of VRAM even in 64-bit?Best Fredrik

recently went from gtx 285 to evg 580 GTX 1.5 GIGS and has been mentioned in other forums here not sure specifically video card one that 3 gig of video memory would not be benenfical for fsx, no need for it as along as you have 6 gigs of memory like I have which is 1600mhz. Read up that this for fsx would be overkill, plus in addition you willl save a couple of bucks. Besdies very pleased with myu new video card smoooth as ice, and my setting are pretty high, and no need for me to overclok vdeo card, fast enough. take a look at some of my pics that I recently left about the United ngx thatRich put out.Good luck, Ronny