I see references to DX10 being able to off-load some CPU workload to the GPU.  Is this true?  Does having a 1, 2, 3, or 4GB card make a difference?

 

I ask this as I keep having OOM dings and eventual closing of FSX.  I do have a GTX-680 with 2GB of memory.  Does that mean I should have 4GB of VAS and another 2GB for FSX to play with giving me 6GB total for FSX?  Would a 4GB card be the answer?

 

Sure, I could turn some things down, and have, but I was just wondering?

 

Also, I see no difference in Bufferpools being in my CFG or not with or without usepools=0; maybe I don't have something set right?  When I load FSX; Process Manager show over 3GB of VAS to start and it doesn't take long to rum out.  PM doesn't show but 200K of GPU Max Working Set and 0 GPU Committed Bytes.  Now I am new to PM , so I may be talking garbage.  Needless, I don't see my GPU taking any load?  Am I looking in the wrong place?

 

Thanks

Rick S.

Virtual Address Space is a concept that many people, including me have difficulty understanding.

 

You might like to read this http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366912%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

but you may, like me, find you are little wiser after you have.

 

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with RAM, therefore, increasing the amount of available RAM will have no effect at all, whether it is system RAM or on a graphics card.

 

Essentially, on a 32 bit Operating System, any 32 bit process has access to only 2 gb of VAS.

This can be increased to 3GB.

 

On a 64 bit OS, a 32 bit programme can access only 4GB of VAS, actually 4096 MB.

 

In either environment, once the available VAS is used up, the programme will stop working with an Out Of Memory error.

 

If I have grasped the concept at all, VAS is essentially like a series of doors that give a programme access to the computer.

Once they are all open, then there is no further access available and the programme cannot continue to function.

 

Just to reinforce the point, this will happen at exactly the same point on a PC with 32 gb of system RAM and a graphics card with 6 gb of RAM as on a system with 4GB of system RAM and 1GB of RAM on its graphics card.

 

If, as you say, you are starting with 3 gb of VAS already used, you will need to look to just how much FSX is loading before you start.

A nice little piece of software call the Scenery Config Editor can be used to limit the scenery loaded to that which you plan to fly over and this can massively reduce the amount of VAS consumed.

 

You might also consider the use of Direct X 10 which appears to manage the available VAS much better than Dx9.

 

As to Process Explorer, the only figure that relates to VAS usage is Virtual Size and this is only measured for programmes that are running.

 

Anything related to the graphics card, memory and processor is a measurement of their workload and memory usage, once again, NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH VAS.

Thank you, your explanation does a lot to help me understand better.  I was justifying a new 3GB GTX-780 for the memory, but then there is the power!

 

As for the dup, it seems here lately that when I post something I get a server busy now, try again later type error and then I wind up with a dup post.

 

Thanks

Rick S.

 

 

I was justifying a new 3GB GTX-780 for the memory,

 

An extra GB should help with a tripple monitor setup.

 

gb.

An extra GB should help with a tripple monitor setup.

 

gb.

 

How so?  Curious, looking for justification.

 

Thanks

Rick S.

How so?  Curious, looking for justification.

 

Thanks

Rick S.

 

HI Rick.

 

Sorry, was a reflex responce and probable wrong.

Certainly will not do any harm.

 

I've seen a few 4K gaming reviews where video memory does start to become a factor.

But only in certain games anyway.

 

Would be good to find a FSX benchmark somewhere.

 

gb.