GPU Usage

[jp1018 0]

I'm hoping to see a more GPU based program in Flight, with better video cards, not just whole computers needed to up performance. Currently, FSX with Acceleration on my computer uses only 50% of my GPU on max settings...Is there any way I can make it use more? What else besides GPU should I upgrade?Specs: Windows 7 64-bit, 2 GB DDR3 (About to upgrade to 4GB- will that help?) AMD Athlon x2 2.8 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GT 430 1GBI'm getting 15 FPS on max setings FSX Acceleration...but only 50% GPU usage?? Any thoughts on how this will fare with Flight?

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Any thoughts on how this will fare with Flight?

Flight has not been released and we have no information on what type of computer is needed other than one from "today," so we don't know for sure yet. Of course, this thread will probably be filled with tons of speculation and pointless talk of tea in no time.

[ViperPilot 81]

jp,4Gb of RAM would help to some degree, but there are many variables...Your CPU could be causing the bottleneck; take a peek at the Hardware Forum and see what kind of FPS they're gettingwith a faster CPU; I have read various posts on different Forums commenting on the fact that FSX/ Accel is very CPU ANDGPU intensive.It could also be dependent on where you're flying and what, add on scenery, etc.. Again... the 2.8 AMD CPU might be the culprit.Of course, RAM is cheaper than a new CPU/ MoBo, but you're at the point where giving it a try might be the only sure way you'llknow (or see) a difference.I will not comment about what Flight's requirements are because as Brandon said above, no one knows (except the folks at Camp Redmond).Alan

[JSkorna 137]

FS has always been CPU driven/limited.My tea is tasting mighty fine tonight.

[Fsau 0]

Jp don't upgrade anything in the hopes of achieving better performance in FSX, it's an endless race chasing a carrot on a stick. If anything you might want to think about overclocking that Athlon to a real mans frequency More ram is also a relatively cheap upgrade that might give you a small improvement. Just don't expect too much.

[jp1018 0]

Jp don't upgrade anything in the hopes of achieving better performance in FSX, it's an endless race chasing a carrot on a stick. If anything you might want to think about overclocking that Athlon to a real mans frequency More ram is also a relatively cheap upgrade that might give you a small improvement. Just don't expect too much.

I'm getting the ram anyway, not just for FSX but I hope it will help a little. How much if I did, should I overclock the CPU? I know like nothing about overclocking CPUs and I would need to know the risks vs. benefits, etc

[Highmike 68]

I've never o'clocked either because I live in a warm climate so it's not worth the risk. I know you have to be reasonable about it if the climate happens to be doubtful. I've heard that serious o'clockers routinely expect to fry their chips, which may be want you want out of a fish store, but if you've spent several thousand dollars on your rig then you'll probably want to look after it.

[Fsau 0]

There is little to no risk provided you educate yourself, of course whether it's worth it or not is up to the end user, some don't want to get too personal with their hardware. Like mike pointed out the biggest hurdle (hurdle not risk) is the extra heat production (where I live we have 95 - 100F summers) but an aftermarket cooler is dirt cheap for the gains. I switched to water cooling about a year ago but before then I ran a $90 air cooler.If you are up to doing a little self education on the subject it's well worth it, I achieved the biggest performance gains from increasing the stock clock speed. I don't know much about AMD, I'd aim for 3.5 GHz, it would depend on your ram and other hardware. Tons of material out their to help you learn.Mike where did you hear that disinfo? lol "serious overclockers routinely expect to fry their chips" is a ridiculously untrue statement. Don't be afraid of your hardware, it's there to be used to the fullest not babied because you spent X amount of $ on it.

[Highmike 68]

Yeah, sorry for the bum steer FS, I should have said "extreme" overclockers fry their chips. I read it somewhere on that vast repository of falsehood we affectionately call the internet! (I did too, I don't make this stuff up you know!)

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I'm hoping to see a more GPU based program in Flight, with better video cards, not just whole computers needed to up performance.

If MS Flight does not take full advantage of GPUs and multicore CPUs, I will be astonished.

[jp1018 0]

I know this is a stupid question but does fsx use both processor cores on dual core processors? I checked task manager while running fsx and it says it is. Then why do people online say it doesnt?

[JasonD210 0]

I'm hoping to see a more GPU based program in Flight, with better video cards, not just whole computers needed to up performance. Currently, FSX with Acceleration on my computer uses only 50% of my GPU on max settings...Is there any way I can make it use more? What else besides GPU should I upgrade?Specs: Windows 7 64-bit, 2 GB DDR3 (About to upgrade to 4GB- will that help?) AMD Athlon x2 2.8 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GT 430 1GBI'm getting 15 FPS on max setings FSX Acceleration...but only 50% GPU usage?? Any thoughts on how this will fare with Flight?

I wouldn't be too optimistic about Flight.GPU performance depends on how many polygons are being displayed at once, but textures on the 3D objects depend on the video card memory. If you have some serious add-ons like a heavy duty airport and the PMDG 737NGX, then you might find there isn't enough video memory and buildings, textures and parts of the aircraft will disappear.Memory is vital, both on the Video card and in your PC. 4 GB is the minimum internal you should have on a games machine, and your graphics card should have at least 1GB memory.Make sure you don't have too many programs running in the background in Windows also.

[JSkorna 137]

I know this is a stupid question but does fsx use both processor cores on dual core processors? I checked task manager while running fsx and it says it is. Then why do people online say it doesnt?

With SP2 or higher it does, but it is not an exact 50/50 split. The second core gets used less. Those people on-line don't quite know what they are talking about.

[jp1018 0]

I have no addons on fsx, and I benchmarked my gpu which seems up to the task. But what speed cpu is reccomended for fsx?

[JSkorna 137]

4.0 + GHz.