Update 1 to How FSX works and how performance is affected by different hardware explained

[Chisco 0]

SaabI have followed your posts with great attention and have read them time and time again to properly understand the issues discussed. I appreciate the time and effort you put to experiment and to explain all your findings. Particularly intriguing all the explanation about the AffinityMask settings, t+t loaders and the unloading of fibres to increase Ffps.I just upgraded to a SB-E hexacore, and I am at odds trying to determine which would be my best Affinity Mask setting to maximize offloading of fibres. I do understnad we cannot control where they go, we can just make room for them. I have HT off, W7 64b, 8gb RAM, a large and fast SSD drive and pretty much an untouched FSX.cfg, save for the proverbial Highmemfix and a vsync-on setting (unfortunately do not like the tearing), nVidia Zotac GTX 580 with 3gb RAM and nvidia Inspector AA of 8SQ. My load times are amazing (a bunch of seconds, no matter how heavy the scenery load) but with heavy ORB+REX+VRS Superbug my fps go to the low twenties.Have you performed any analysis on the SB-E processor with six cores? I am curious what where the results. Any suggestion for an affinitymask setting?Thanks and best,ChiscoJust curious what

[Kosta 122]

Any suggestion for an affinitymask setting?

62.

[SAAB340 28]

Hi Chisco, sounds like you have a superb setup for photo scenery using high LOD radious. (loads of threads and fast storage). On your Hex core with HT off these AM all leave one core free for fibre offloading: 31, 47, 55, 59, 61 and 62. They should all give the same result. Slightly slower load times but better FPS compared to no AM entry. Make sure to use the BP=0 tweak.For a Hex core with HT on I suspect AM=4089 would work best for the absolute fastest load times. But leave HT off for FSX unless you go for photo scenery and use a really high LOD.If you are after the highest FPS you could use less t&t loaders. Examples are AM=5 for just one or AM=13 for two. (HToff) But you would also really notice the longer load times.I have never had a chance to play around with gulftown or SB-E myself. But I would like a SB-E to use with my photo scenery to cut load times and have crisp textures all the way to the horizon all the time.

[Kosta 122]

On your Hex core with HT off these AM all leave one core free for fibre offloading: 31, 47, 55, 59, 61 and 62. They should all give the same result.

Where are you getting your numbers from, man? You want to imply that fibers and the main thread are positioned automatically onto one free core? I could never move the main thread anywhere else but onto the next core in use, and fibers always remained on 0.So please do explain those numbers.

[SAAB340 28]

The main thread is always positioned on the lowest numbered core assigned in the affinitymask.AM=31 gives Core#0 main thread, core#1,2,3,4 t&t loaders, Core#5 free for fiber offloading.AM=47 gives Core#0 main thread, core#1,2,3,5 t&t loaders, Core#4 free for fiber offloading.AM=55 gives Core#0 main thread, core#1,2,4,5 t&t loaders, Core#3 free for fiber offloading.AM=59 gives Core#0 main thread, core#1,3,4,5 t&t loaders, Core#2 free for fiber offloading.AM=61 gives Core#0 main thread, core#2,3,4,5 t&t loaders, Core#1 free for fiber offloading.and finally AM=62 gives Core#1 main thread, core#2,3,4,5 t&t loaders, Core#0 free for fiber offloading. (the only one moving the main thread)And yes, the fibers will happily run on other cores then core#0.

[Kosta 122]

And yes, the fibers will happily run on other cores then core#0.

You're (to my knowledge) the first one constituting that. Without me going through many of your posts, do you somewhere have measurements of that?There were repeated tests from Bojote and others, saying that Fibers remain on the Core0.

[SAAB340 28]

Srdan, if you look in my post http://forum.avsim.n...se-of-your-cpu/There you can see in the task manager how the "fibers" actually can end up devided on several cores as well.It's this part I'm refering to, but in the original post you see the pictures as well.

Let’s start with a simple Dual core CPU and AffinityMask=1.Here you can see the MainThread on Core#0 and Fibres on Core#1.If we move on to a Quad core CPU but still keep AffinityMask=1 you can see that the fibres are spread out on Core#1, Core#2 and Core#3.There is no way to control where they end up and fibres can end up on either core including Core#0. It will change during and between flights as well. The important thing to understand is that the MainThread + Fibres = FPS. Restrict the MainThread or the Fibres and you end up with lower FPS.

I don't have any FPS figures handy at the moment. (I'm away from my main computer for a while.) But I have measured no difference between AM=14, AM=13, AM=11 or AM=7 on a quad core with HToff. I'm confident you could see the same results on your own system.Sure, if you have another process running that is locked to use Core#0 you would get a benefit from moving the main thread away from Core#0. (AM=14 Quad without HT)I know I somtimes say controversial things that goes against whats known at the time. (Like being able to make use of Hyperthreading in FSX). During my SSD vs HDD investigation I have finally figured out a good way to measure texture loading in FSX (slew away att full speed and see how long time it takes to fully load the textures), and it confirms that HT does indeed work for texture loading. I'm still working on it but I won't have much time for it the next few weeks. Cross country ski racing, a Sim check and a Honeymoon will take most of my time.

[Chisco 0]

For some strange reason (SSD? w7? SB-e?), my FSX load times are measured in seconds. And yes, the beast is fully loaded with ORBX, REX OD, UT2, EZDOK, VRS Superbug (and some more), and some massive photoreal sceneries (airHispania full, i.e. all Spain). Load times are so ridiculous on any region that they are no longer an issue. In my previous machine it would have taken from 14 to 20 minutes to load the full Spain scenery of over 120+ Gb of scenery. With my current rig it does not take more than one minute. I am afraid to change something and lose such fast load times!I did try AM=62 as suggested by Word Not Allowed and BP=0,But with BP=0 bit did no see a marked improvement in FPS, and in fact minor blurries appeared when flying insanely low and fast. Not sure why, maybe the SSD is too fast for the CPU or the GPU to benefit from BO=0. Will review the previous suggestions in your posts and experiment.OT, but congrats on the honeymoon, although I hear its not compatible with your flightsim hardware...Ps2. correction, BO=0 should say BP=0.

[SAAB340 28]

For some strange reason (SSD? w7? SB-e?), my FSX load times are measured in seconds.

That "strange" reason will be SB-e in combination with a fast SSD :Party:Want to see roughly what kind of load times you would have got with a regular Sandy bridge. Use AffinityMask=14 (without hyperthreading) that is what I belive most people use with their quad cores.Thanks, and yeah, you're soo right that it's not compatible all the time. :P

[RobbieHe 0]

This post and thread is excellent! I can't wait to see what IVY Bridge and PCI 3.0 (along with the upcoming Nvidia generation videocards) have to offer. Since FSX looks like Microsoft's last serious PC flight simulator, and I have been playing this hardware chasing game since I got into this back in 1995 with FS5.1, this next generation of hardware will probably be the last time I have to build a PC. That will be kind of sad, since I enjoy looking at hardware reviews and wondering how it will improve my flight sim experience. However, it will also be a relief since I will then be able to focus on flying. The next generation of hardware should finally be the answer we have all been waiting for (all sliders to the right, light bloom on, full 3rd part airline traffic going full blast and a super detailed and busy airport (KATL comes mind), Xtream Weather full blast - all this with at least 30FPS...Can't wait!RH

[VeryBumpy 272]

Looking forward to see how this new PCIe 3.0 affects FSX.Thing is there are no video cards out with this spec yet I don't think.