Sign in to follow this  
FlyingsCool

Phil Taylor Interview on YouTube!

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

It would have been much more impressive to see the bloody 2d panel, the virtual cockpit, and the a/c in spot view."Newbies" looking at that video would walk away thinking all there was to see are those crap default gauges in the mini-panel!I give it "Five Thumbs Down..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX sucks 8 cores dry. Is it worth spending thousands of dollars for a $70 program? There used to be lots of comments comparing FS???? to a real simulator and how lucky we were to get what we did for such a low cost. Well that real cost has risen and will apparently continue upwards. I wonder when Microsoft will price/function away most of its market?Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interviewer was much easier on Phil and FSX than many are here.When they flashed the CPU graphs were 8 cores being used like the interviewer suggested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FSX sucks 8 cores dry. Is it worth spending thousands of>dollars for a $70 program? There used to be lots of comments>comparing FS???? to a real simulator and how lucky we were to>get what we did for such a low cost. Well that real cost has>risen and will apparently continue upwards. I wonder when>Microsoft will price/function away most of its market?Hmm, my $70 CPU runs the game just fine with dense autogen, and I do not even use SP1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The interviewer was much easier on Phil and FSX than many are>here.>>When they flashed the CPU graphs were 8 cores being used like>the interviewer suggested?>>>>>>>>Looks like all except 2 cores (1 and 6 (Base zero)) are pegged at 100% with overall usage at 80%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree as far as showing more detail! It didn't even look like any Autogen was used, and what's worse is it looks like it had the dreaded blurries also. Not a good show for what suppose to be the fastest system on the block!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Only 1.5 cores in use there :-lolTake another look! I know it's hard to see, but the the green line is pegged at 100% on 6 of the cores. (I have an 8 foot screen from a projector, with the ability to zoom in any location of the screen, so it's a little easier for me to see it). If only 1.5 cores were used, the overall CPU usage would be in the neghborhood of 15% instead of the 80+% shown!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he meant 1.5 CPUs. But that demo was Definitely was using 6 out of 8 cores, maxed out. What's going on here? Our folks have done all kinds Dual to Quad comparisons and found FSX is not taking advantage of the Q's second set of cores, yet . . . but here we see 6 cores fully engaged. What's up with that? A lot of our guys are buying dual cores because our tests have concluded that (at this SP level) Qs are a waste. Is there something different about that demo setup, or are we missing a .cfg line that will enable this capability or . . . . what? This demo Should mean that any Quad owner Should be capable of a quick DOUBLE in performance Right Now . . . but how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understood it, just the amount of cores in use isn't exactly linear in relation to the performance you get....Then again, maybe 8 cores is the magic number...can't wait for 256 ROFL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think he meant 1.5 CPUs. But that demo was Definitely was>using 6 out of 8 cores, maxed out. What's going on here? >>Our folks have done all kinds Dual to Quad comparisons and>found FSX is not taking advantage of the Q's second set of>cores, yet . . . but here we see 6 cores fully engaged. What's>up with that? A lot of our guys are buying dual cores because>our tests have concluded that (at this SP level) Qs are a>waste. >>Is there something different about that demo setup, or are we>missing a .cfg line that will enable this capability or . . .>. what? This demo Should mean that any Quad owner Should be>capable of a quick DOUBLE in performance Right Now . . . but>how? Hmm...interesting, Phil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Is there something different about that demo setup, or are we>missing a .cfg line that will enable this capability or . . .>. what? This demo Should mean that any Quad owner Should be>capable of a quick DOUBLE in performance Right Now . . . but>how? Good question Sam and one I wonder about also. During my tests, I noticed that all 4 cores were used heavily during the initial load but during flight it was the first core pegged with the other 3 fluctuating depending on what was displaying.VicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.6Evga 680i A1 with P30 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioined for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now FSX Multi-core is limited to scenery loading, so you won't see a huge jump in performance, only the time it takes to load the scenery. So in the end you would get a more modest 25% increase, give or take a little. He did hint in the video in the future, AI and other functions like AI, may be moved to more cores. Don't know whether that means FSXI, SP2, or maybe a future patch after SP2. I would guess FSXI. Sp2 would be a nice surprise though! Then we may see a much greater improvement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Is there something different about that demo setup, or are we>missing a .cfg line that will enable this capability or . . .>. what? This demo Should mean that any Quad owner Should be>capable of a quick DOUBLE in performance Right Now . . . but>how? Well I doubt double the performance. But certainly a nice boost if......maybe there is something in the update to look forward to, regarding multiple core usage.Hopeful, anyway...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SP1 and the terrain worker threads will take advantage of as many cores as are there. As you see here.How much that helps frame rate vs stutters is an open question. I think the tests show that while we run jobs on those cores, there isnt a clear frame rate advantage at the same clock rate. When the Wolfdale/Penryn CPUs come out with more GHz, higher L1 cache, and more cores that may change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't there be a diminishing returns after dual or quad core?....I wish..Intel would focus on increasing the core CPU speed to over the 4 and 5Ghz as well as the FSB in MBs.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to composite terrain textures for the entire 64-tile radial grid around the plane. That work has to be done somewhere. Sure, its not 100% parallelizable. But I do not believe the benefit stops at 2 cores, and when Ghz and cache goes up more cores will show a stronger benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, i think that every 2 fold increase of core amount should have real benefit to fps at least 50%.i dont want the terrain engine to sharpen up the terrain on the other side of the world, just show whats closer to the viewer. if the GPU is the limiting factor then its another story.example: you go from 2 to 4 cores then autogen shows twise the distance etc.PS. 4+ GHZ nehalems are coming summer 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression that many folks missed the fact that this is a rather "old" interview. Wasn't this actually conducted just a few weeks after SP1 was released? :)So, there's nothing being seen that is "new" since SP1 was RTW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, based on what has been discussed in this thread, as we saying that a Quad Core will produce better frame rates than a dual core that contains about the same clock speed. Reason I ask is I am just about to order a dual core Intel e6750, but if the quad core Q6600 can give a significantly better result, I would opt for that. I know in the hardware forum Vic provided some results comparing dual and quad, but I am wondering if this information has changed anything. Phil, your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I get the impression that many folks missed the fact that>this is a rather "old" interview. Wasn't this actually>conducted just a few weeks after SP1 was released? :)>>So, there's nothing being seen that is "new" since SP1 was>RTW...Yes but it was just posted yesterday apparently by XtremeQuest themselves. Whether it was posted somewhere else before, I don't know. Also it is the first chance we see FSX running on a Penryn system, a dual Penryn at that! Unfortunately from the apparent settings used, and the appearance of blurries, it doesn't give a good representation of just what kind of performance the Penryn can deliver. Also no framerate was displayed, but I would say it was in the neighborhood of 20+ at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, yes this was shortly after SP1. And any comments I made were about products beyond SP2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this