I used to switch between HT on and off back when I had an 875K. I would say with HT on it loads the PMDG 747X Navdata in about half the time, loading times before a flight are much shorter in general. I remember this very clearly because it bothered me really bad and it's the only reason I still have HT on.

Are you or have you been using Affinity Mask in fsx.cfg?

Are you or have you been using Affinity Mask in fsx.cfg?

no. tried different settings once, but left the am setting out of my config.i also used to experiment with restricting cores through windows start parameterse,g, start "fsx.exe" /affinity (value in hex)

The question, if it really is a bit faster, you still didn't answer really how much faster, nor is it really measurable - which could also easily make it a placebo - does it really pay off heating the CPU 10 degrees more, compromising that stable overclock many are striving for?

My FSX with the AffinityMask will run like crap. How it runs better is with no mask at all and with HT enabled. If i disable HT i get worse performance (FSX will also load slower). With HT disabled and AffinityMask i get stutters, with HT enabled even worse. Best of both worlds with my FSX = definitely HT disabled and no mask. I get ~50fps everywhere with an external limiter (not the one at Bojote's which performs real bad on my system) and i even have VSYNC enabled on my nVidia 580. The result? Silk :)Search for "antilag" as the frame limiter, it's WAY better than FPSLimiter - Smoother, lighter, the works.

i have a 6core and my affinitymask is set to 1344 and i get much more smoothness consistant frames with vsync on than having my affinitymask set to 14, so say what you want, i see a difference HT works! and yes a stable overlcock is worth the extra 10C

To me it's a case of trial-and-error. I've seen hardware much similar to mine work better with other settings. It's just... weird :)Each computer = New Case Study :(

To me it's a case of trial-and-error. I've seen hardware much similar to mine work better with other settings. It's just... weird :)

I tend to disagree on this one. I've seen all kinds of weird stuff, but computers acting differently - no. Only users.

And i tend to stay away from this type of discussion because of just that: Each one has his own opinion and ideas about it hehe :)

i have a 6core and my affinitymask is set to 1344 and i get much more smoothness consistant frames with vsync on than having my affinitymask set to 14, so say what you want, i see a difference HT works! and yes a stable overlcock is worth the extra 10C

AffinityMask=14 is for HT OFFAnd what does HT have to do with a stable OC? if anything it will make it harder or require more Vcore to get an stable OC with HT onFSX can't possibly use hyperthreading, 12GB of RAM, SLI or 6 cores. Actually SLI makes things worse and often also HT

It's also a good way to learn. I'd rather get into a discussion about something & end up understanding why it is the way it is than to blindly accept what I read in a blog. I've learned tons & been corrected on a lot because of discussions like this.

@ Dazz well you tell that to my pc buddy cuz fsx has never run better with pretty decent settings

AffinityMask=14 is for HT OFFAnd what does HT have to do with a stable OC? if anything it will make it harder or require more Vcore to get an stable OC with HT onFSX can't possibly use hyperthreading, 12GB of RAM, SLI or 6 cores. Actually SLI makes things worse and often also HT

Quick note, 14 is for ht off on a quad core.Edit: didn't mean to quote you specifically dazz, just a reference marker for my post.

Quick note, 14 is for ht off on a quad core.Edit: didn't mean to quote you specifically dazz, just a reference marker for my post.

Well it depends Ken. When ******* Altuve suggested running FSX on 3 cores (giving up one) it was to reduce stutters that were supposed to be caused by thread collisions. With a 6 core processor it's the same idea: 3 cores can handle FSX, adding 3 more may indeed make things worse with more thread collisions

Just a different line of thinking I suppose. I dunno how many texture threads fsx can benefit from. 14 would give 2, leaving core 0 for the fiber thread & core 1 for the main thread. Af of 62 would give 2 more texture threads on a hex-core. (if I understand it right). 14 on a hex should make it behave like a quad as concerns fsx. (this all assumes ht is off)

Well it depends Ken. When ******* Altuve suggested running FSX on 3 cores (giving up one) it was to reduce stutters that were supposed to be caused by thread collisions. With a 6 core processor it's the same idea: 3 cores can handle FSX, adding 3 more may indeed make things worse with more thread collisions

Dario, I tried. More than once, on more than one thread. But I generally give up. I guess times of Bojote are up, there are some newborns here and they have their opinions. I'm not gonna spend any more time educating others on hot water.