frame rates again

[frankla 45]

LOL at your FSX machine!

[Guest FxF3]

Wow this thread has gone off track like all threads asking for help.

[frankla 45]

Where did you read this posting about ACES having more information after the holiday?

[Guest smarti05]

>The bus speed is quad pumped, so that 266mhz becomes>1066mhz.>>Your 800mhz is also quad pumped, so divide that by 4 and you>get 200mhz, which is what the BIOS will actually report.>>There is absoloutley nothing wrong with the FSB speed.>>Your memory advice is also baloney, as in fact your 800mhz>memory is not even being pushed close to it's rated speed.>>You have DDR2 memory. So, your 800mhz memory actually runs at>400mhz max (without overclocking)>>As your FSB is 200mhz (800mhz effective) your memory, unlesss>you change the dividers, is also running at 200mhz in a 1:1>ratio, giving an effective memory speed of only 400mhz, or,>half of it's rated speed.>>To max out the memory which you have purchased at a 1:1 ratio>(and 800mhz rated DDR2 is not cheap for this reason) you would>have to run your FSB at 400mhz which when quad pumped is>effectivley 1600mhz FSB.>>Man....and you were an FSX Beta tester????>>So forgive me, but what actually is the default speed of memory on a conroe board is it different to the fsb.I'm using an amd board at the mo, HT 1000 cpu clock 200 mem clock 200presumeably my mem is running at 400 which is 2*fsb and the ht is 5*fsbso on the intel it is 4*fsb and the mem runs at 2*fsb so i assume ddr2 has a higher clock speed before you multiply allowing you to run a higher speed ie 266 so 266*2=533 mem speed, so presumably a conroe has a fixed fsb of 266 which will be 4* all the time but the memory can be run at different ratios to this allowing the use of faster memory, must take some clever adjustments to make it run slower then, or i could have got it all wrong.So as you said to run the mem at 800 using a 200 multi thingy, you need an additional 2* increase somewhere. Is it possible to do this on a conroe board.or... can a conroe run at 400fsb leading to 2* =800 for the memory and 1600 for the final fsb.

[GHarrall 494]

Ok,I will try and explain:Conroe and Allendale motherboards stock speed is 266mhz (quad pumped effective 1066mhz)Therefore, the minimum memory required to run at 1:1 ratio is DDR2-533mhz. (266x2)I can, however, run at the stock FSB of 266mhz but use a divider to run the memory at a higher speed. So, if I purchased 667mhz DDR2, I could use a 5:4 divider to run the memory at 333mhz (667 DDR2) whilst maintaining the original 266mhz FSBOR, I could overclock the FSB to 333mhz and still maintain the 1:1 mem / FSB ratio (as I have done with this system)If I had purchased a better motherboard and 800mhz DDR2 memory, I could in theory have run this system overclocked at 400mhz FSB with 1:1 memory ratio, giving a CPU speed of 3.2Ghz (400x8) where '8' is the CPU multiplier.OR, I could have kept the FSB at 266mhz and used a 6:4 memory divider which would give me the memory speed of 400mhz (x2 for DDR2 = 800mhz)Obviously, overclocking the FSB is the better option performance wise and really why is only worth buying high rated DDR2 like this in the first place. If you aren't going to overclock you may as well buy 533 or 667 RAM with tighter timings rather than go for 800mhz or higher speed rated RAM.Make sense?Glenn

[Guest babua]

I tested 4 systems, 2 intel based and 2 AMD based. AMD FX-62 overcloked gave me the best performance in conjunction with 7950 with 1Gb memory. Have not tested the new 8xxx series cards. Even in the fastest one the performance has been lousy. The fact is FSX runs equally lousy from a 3,0ghz pentium to the latest CPU. There is absolutely no performance scaling worth the mention irrespective of what system you throw at it. Thats why its a lousy software.The problem is, like in any big organization, each department works in a silo. The graphics guy produces what he feels the ultimate graphics, the weather guys does the same, the autogen follows suite and nobody is ready to compromise their piece when its all put together. Personally, I was shocked when I read performance tweaks coming out of ACES after the demo was released and as last hour as 2 weeks before launch!! ACES themselves have admitted to performance problems and are now in damage control mode dangling out the proverbial patch carrot. In this context posts claiming fsx run great on my system are indeed redundant and silly to say the least.

[Mike T 220]

Seek and ye shall find. It's been posted repeatedly by Phil.

[Bob Scott 7,770]

From the original post:>>Volume0 (300.07 GB) -- drive 0 2048>Megabytes>>Installed Memory>>>>Slot 'DIMM0' has 1024 MB (serial number SerNum0)>>Slot 'DIMM1' has 1024 MB>>Slot 'DIMM2' has 1024 MB>>Slot 'DIMM3' has 1024 MBSure looks like system is reporting 2GB installed memory while still listing all 4 1GB DIMMs. (??)RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

[Mike T 220]

Glenn:Now this is the type of hardcore (and credible) hardware knowledge that cuts through the "pretty, pretty, princess" posts. I could kiss you :-badteethWhat kind of FPS differences are you seeing between your tweaked system specs and out-of-box system?For me, if I shut down all the bells and whitles, I get absolutely no performance increase or decrease at all in an area like Seattle...which seems like the best place to benchmark.

[Mike T 220]

Yes, because he does not have the +2GB momory tweak for WinXP. 4GB of memory in XP is a waste of money

[Guest smarti05]

Thanks Glenn nice explanation

[GHarrall 494]

Hi Mike,Thanks, but I can live without the kiss!!!! I have never actually run this PC with any version of FS at it's stock speed.After I had installed XP and drivers etc, I went straight into overclocking it. Unfortunatley I backed the wrong horse for my motherboard as it is locked at 333mhz FSB. It actually worked out ok though with the 667 RAM at 1:1 ratio. The benchmark performance of this E6400 at 2.66Ghz is about on par with an E6600 at its stock speed of 2.4Ghz. I'm still better than an FX62 though for $200!!As for FS, well FS9 runs amazingly well. I have ActiveSky, UT, FE, GE, LVLD767 and various sceneries running and the FPS never drops below my lock of 30 FPS.FSX is a different story. I have the FPS locked at 20 and I am lucky if I can hold it around built up areas. Bush flying is fine. I can hold 20 easily. I can get 20FPS (just) in cities if I turn off autogen, but I really like the trees! Can live without the buidlings though.......(Cities with Autogen = 15FPS or less!!)FSX is a performace nightmare. I am fed up of tweaking and with a baby girl on the way next Tuesday, I need to fly NOW! Back to FS9 for at least a few months for me. Maybe ACES will have fixed it by then???..........

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

What about 3GB with XP? The reason I ask is that I'm thinking of upgrading from 2GB to 3GB to populate my mobo with exactly the same brand and speed of memory now rather than wait until Vista in a year's time and find it's no longer available.Gary

[FTD1949 0]

Prove it.

[FTD1949 0]

Here they are again: ASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT Tech 512 Cache Venice LG GWA-4161 DVD/CD200GB Maxtor SATA 150 8MB Cache80GB Maxtor Ultra ATA 133EVGA 7900 GT KO PCIe nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/SRunway 34R KSEA FR 14-16. Once airborne 21-251280 X 1024 X 32Target Frame Rate - 25Global Texture Resolution - Very HighAdvanced Animation - checkFilter - TrilinearAA - checkedAircraft: Default 7373-D Virtual CockpitHigh Resolution 3-D checkedaircraft casts shadows on ground -checkedScenery:LOD-LargeMesh Complexity: 100Mesh Resolution - 10mTexture Resolution - 1 mWater Effects - high 1.xland detail - checkedScenery complexity