Is there a relationship between OOM and CPU speed?

[RickSinGA 1]

I ask this because I would like to run more "eye candy" than I can currently.  I have my system tuned at the moment to where I get really good performance but I am just shy of OOM error's.  I would like to go further and realize my system has limitations.

 

So, the question is: If I OC further or get another, faster, CPU; will that lower my VAS needs, because the system is getting things done faster and doesn't need to put so much into VAS?

 

I hope this makes sense and is not one of those "dumb questions".  I do that from time to time.  I have O.L.D..

 

Thanks

Rick S.

[ryanbatc 12,800]

Not in that sense. The vas is 4 GB limited regardless of what clock speed you're at. There is still some sort of relationship though: say you OC more, and crank up sliders. You'll get an OOM faster. FSX really has hit a performance wall. Even if we get better hardware we can't really crank everything because the VAS limit will be reached.

 

What you can do is download Process Explorer and monitor your VAS as you fly. You'll see how certain settings affect VAS. If you have any setup questions for that program just ask me.

 

I have multiple saved configs for flying in different areas. When outside of Orbx areas I generally run LOD at 5.5 or 6.5. With Orbx and payware I drop down to 4.5 LOD and drop autogen two notches, as well as clouds down to normal.

Edited February 23, 2014 by ryanbatcund

[JetPilot13 6]

Hi Rick,

 

The way I understand it, no.  VAS is used up because of the scenery (and settings) and aircraft resource demands and no matter if the CPU is fast or memory is fast it will still get used up and I believe a big reasons, aside from not enough VAS, is that FSX will not unload VAS once it's occupied.  In other words once you use VAS flying into and through an area, flying out of that area will not free up VAS, the data stays.  And it all gets filled up like a bucket (and the bucket is too small) until you approach 4Gb then it kick you out with a OOM error.  The higher your scenery and aircraft demands the faster this happens.  The ONLY thing that will really fix it would be if FSX could be a 64bit application, and I so wish that could happen. 

Edited February 23, 2014 by JetPilot13

[RickSinGA 1]

Thanks Ryan, I already use Process Explorer and I can get away with LOD_RADIUS of 6.5 around Portland with FTX PNW; higher in non FTX areas.  I don't really use any high end payware so I don't have that problem, yet.  I kinda figured that was the limit but it never hurts to ask.

 

Thanks Jet, yeah- we know FSX will never get to 64bit and I have real reservations that P3D will ever get there, either.

 

Thanks

Rick S.

[wiltzei 15]

[Kattz 132]

You are incorrect.

 

I've never had an OOM, and can play other high end video games while running a flight using the PMDG add-ons and a whole plethora of other payware add-ons and never get close to VAS limits.

 

It has little to do with OC, and yet, everything to do with OC.  There is a solid retlationship in that OC is useless if your data stream is slow.  All you're doing is crunching numbers faster.  If they can't get through the processor and RAM faster, and throught the GPU's faster, you're bottlenecking the system.  Most people OC the CPU and forget about everything else.

 

You have to run SSD's, solid RAM, and a superb mobo.  For me, if it's not ASUS ROG hardware, it's junk.  Sorry, my personal opinion based on building gaming systems since 1991.  Some people don't use solid hardware and have success, but my type of success would be unachievable without 2 SSD's feeding the OS and FSX each on it's own core, OC'd RAM, and OC'd SLI video.  The data stream bandwidth is the bottleneck in the system.  If your mobo is carp, or your RAM is cheap and slow, or your drives are mechanical, you can get good performance but not with all of the eye candy.  You also have to have the SSD's on the right hardware path on the mobo, or you don't gain any advantage.

 

My PC's are dedicated to gaming, and this particular computer was built for FSX.  Yes, it can run Office very fast...  I'm now up to 4.95GHz on my i7-3770K on water cooling.  An AutoCAD drawing that takes almost a minute to open on my Core i7 workstation at the office takes approximately 3.2 seconds on this beast. 

Edited February 23, 2014 by Kattz

[JetPilot13 6]

"if it's not ASUS ROG hardware, it's junk"

 

With all due respect. 

 

Not true at all.  ROG is for the professional overclockers who are out to win contests and need every little voltage/frequency/power management tweaking setting option available to run extremely high overclocks under exotic cooling solutions and run that CPU and RAM within an inch of its life to win that trophy, sometimes even for suicide runs to get that top spot.  For the majority of people who overclock just to get more gaming performance or FSX simulator performance ROG is not needed.  Especially for us FSX folk.  I'm not saying cheap hardware will get you where you need to be but for most of us ROG is marketing and a way to empty our wallets faster.  ASUS Professional or Deluxe or Sabertooth series motherboards are perfectly fine.  So are upper end MBs from other manufactures.  A $75 MB probably won't do it well but a $350-$400 MB will drain your wallet and give you nothing in return but flashy colors and pretty LED lights.  And SSDs are nice to have and will provide a benefit but a fast HDD like a newer Velociraptor or WD Caviar Black will do the job well too.

 

As for OOM errors it is indeed an issue.  It is well documented across these and other forums, it occurs because of the 32bit nature of the sim and trying to run too much scenery and aircraft with too high settings.  Yes it is very important to balance the hardware and there is a critical relationship to balance fast CPU, fast ram and fast GPU or there will be bottlenecks.  But it won't prevent OOM errors if the user is pushing the limits of the sim too far.

[Kattz 132]

And of course, that's why I said that "It's my opinion." I did not say "It's a fact that everything else except ROG is junk".  My opinion is based on my experience, and my experience is pretty broad.  I don't know everything there is to know, none of us do.   

 

I've ran the Sabretooth boards, I've ran the Pro boards.  I've also ran EVGA, Gigabyte, and MSI.  ROG used to be a lot of hype until about 6-7 years ago.  Other than the OK/NG LED's on my mobo, I don't have any LED's or pretty lights as you put it, but I do have one thing guaranteed out of the box with an ROG board - world class stability.  Voltage stability, bus speed stability, and CPU OC stability.  I am running a Core i7-3770K at just a hair under 4.95GHz.  Stable, no issues, no little quirks.  2 years ago you couldn't do that with an Ivy Bridge board even with delidding the processor, and I'm doing it on a Sandy Bridge board using Ivy Bridge bios updates without turning my CPU or my board into molten slag... and no delidding.  In my opinion, (note that) I could not achieve the data throughput without using an ROG board, and as you said, they are for the professional overclockers.  I consider myself a pretty fair one, but without the liquid nitrogen...

 

The headroom on a 32 bit application does suffer, and if you don't open up that headroom, you will have the dreaded, but as yet unseen by me, OOM.  But with my system, I can play Batman:Arkham Asylum or the like while FSX runs contentedly in the background on the VHHH-OMDB run and never stutters or crashes.  To me that's evidence that the issue with FSX can be countermeasured with hardware and not use the 32-bit vs. 64-bit excuse.

 

My user drive and my library are Caviar Black drives.  In my experience building systems for others, everyone wants something for nothing.  Biggest drive for the least money, minimum ram, midrange mobo, poor power supply, and cheap cooling. 

 

Someone out there thinks I spent $3-4K for this system.  I have $1800 in this gaming rig.  Less if you count that I used the CSX Custom Designs case from the previous system...  I paid $199 for my mobo, NOT $350-400, and $149 each for my SSD's.  $109 for each of my 3 GTX760's, $99 for the RAM.  CPU was $129.  Total of $230 for both mechanical drives.  But my power supply was $300 and my cooling was $200.  Solid power supply, solid results.

 

I'm just sayin'...

[JetPilot13 6]

I am not an expert by any means but based on reading the experience of and consulting with people who are truly experts in both computers and the software code that FSX is written on, and reading the experience of the hobbyists here who have experienced it, I am willing to bet money that no amount of HW power will prevent OOM errors in FSX if the thing is pushed hard enough.   

[ryanbatc 12,800]

You are incorrect.

 

I've never had an OOM, and can play other high end video games while running a flight using the PMDG add-ons and a whole plethora of other payware add-ons and never get close to VAS limits.

 

Not sure if this was directed at me but your statement doesn't make any sense about playing other games while running FSX. The VAS is only for FSX and other applications which run outside of it won't affect the value.

 

If you're not getting an OOM you're not pushing your sim. I'm not suggesting anyone has to but running cfg entries outside of Microsoft created values will cause OOM's, sooner or later.

Edited February 23, 2014 by ryanbatcund

[outofphaze 4]

It's quite simple I believe.

 

To go back and actually answer the question:

 

The better the hardware, the higher slider settings and cfg settings your computer can handle.

 

The higher the settings, the higher the vas in use.

 

I other words, if you overclock more, you can most likely up the sliders a bit more, which will bring you closer to the 4gb limit.

 

That being said, I have a 4.8 clock on mine, with good other hardware, and only really come close to an oom when flying the 777, though I have recently switched to dx10 and don't even come close anymore in the 777, and I have a TON of addons (ftx, rex, asnext, ut, pmdg, a ton of addon airports and many more others)

 

My point being: I would much rather be limited by vas than by hardware, because if your hardware can perform better than the software allowed it, it gives you as the user all the freedom to decide how to set everything up to your liking and make your own compromises, instead of those being dictated by limited hardware.

 

Just my 2c.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Where the hell did you get a GTX760 for $109? They are all at least £160 in the UK (approximately $240).

[flyforever 267]

Only if you overclock the video card or the cpu will stressing them ( as in cpu intensive fsx), will you get a Crash.

tc

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

 

 

've ran the Sabretooth boards, I've ran the Pro boards. I've also ran EVGA, Gigabyte, and MSI.

 

I hadn't ever heard anyone say Gigabyte were bad before.  That true?  I'm getting ready to build out a new system so I'm just asking.  What about other brands?

[ryanbatc 12,800]

There's no way I believe that guy when he writes about the fact he can play another game alongside FSX while referencing VAS -  they have NOTHING to do with one another lol

 

Then he goes to say that all boards except l337 ROG boards are junk - what a pile of poop!

 

You can check the reviews at newegg, tiger, amazon, wherever - and everyone once in a while has a bad board.  My GB hasn't been the best but it's been ok.  I used a Foxconn board I hate but my Asus for my old old old AMD build was nothing but solid.