Does FSX benefit much from more than 2GB?

[Kosta 122]

Just couple of days ago, I bought myself same 2 Corsair sticks, same which I have built in, to go from 2GB to 4GB, just to see if there will be any performance increase...Absolutely none, big problems with some programs (non-FS), my scanner driver had a problem with it too, I tested /3GB and /PAE switches, Memory Remap on my P5B Deluxe to be able to address more, nothing really seemed to work, Remap brought only 2GB visible in 32bit Win, XP64 is utter crap, Firefox wasn't even working properly, programs crashing, system unstable.And also, performance increase was close to none with 2,93GB visible without Memory Remap and without 3GB and PAE switches.And as XP doesn't cache applications and Vista does (or so I heard), there was no way for me to use the additional RAM.So I brought it back.

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

I've used FSX with 1, 2 and 3GB memory at various times on Windows XP. Although I didn't run the same FSX benchmark on each, subjectively I can report:1GB - FSX very slow to load up and much ongoing hard drive usage, and hence stuttering, while flying. Windows task manager reported that all physical memory was in use. Had to reduce scenery settings to get the game usable. And this was before starting up addons!2GB - FSX loads up reasonably fast the first time, and very quickly if restarted straight after exiting FSX due to memory caching effect. Settings can be maxed without exhausting available memory, EXCEPT at OOM holes like ZBAA where nothing but the lowest settings will stop FSX bombing out. Addons work fine, again without exhausting memory. Definitely the sweetspot RAM amount for FSX.3GB - Similar results to using 2GB, except the caching effect is much more pronounced ie. you can start and shut down other apps, then reload FSX later and it is still cached. Also, there is a lot of free physical memory left after loading up FSX + addons, often around 1.2GB free. OOMs can still occur, even with such free physical memory, without using any 3GB aware settings. I did briefly try the /3GB switch and the >2GB aware hack for FSX.exe, but that caused my whole system to become unstable and crash-prone, so I undid those changes.Re # of memory sticks affecting performance, I found on my system that any combination of two sticks allow me to OC to 3.5GHz, but 3 or 4 sticks lower my stable OC to 3.2GHz.Re 4GB, XP and Vista 32 bit won't see this anyway, so for those OSs it is a waste. With XP and Vista 64, obviously it will be seen but IMO the benefits would be minor because 3GB already gives a nice memory caching capability. The >2GB aware change in FSX XP2 will likely reduce OOM occurrences on both 32 and 64 bit OSs, however instability may still affect 32 bit OSs as I experienced.Gary

[Guest in_04]

Hi,FSX will benefit only I high settings and places where lot of memory needed.To make full use of 4 GB you need a 64 Bit OS, like Windows XP 64 or Windows Vista 64.If you try too overclock the additional two RAMs can lower your oc results. A successfull oc is harder too get, because sometimes the system crahed only if it use the whole ram. You should use Prime95 (?) to test, it can use all ram.If your system is stable, FSX will normal use up to 2 GB of Ram leave the rest for OS and caching. Esp the Ram for caching will make the flight smoother. Also the Ram for the OS will reduce swapping.Another benefit is, that programs like ASX will use the Ram too.I did not run any benchmarks, but it should be a smoother ride with more Ram.Maybe with the SP2 patch FSX will use more than 2 GB. If they compiled the binaries with the /3GB it could help more than the normal hack.But again, more than 2 GB is only a good option if you go to 64 Bit OS.Just my 2 cents.

[Buckster 0]

not a lot ...I have Vista 64 + 4 gig RAMI've never seen the memory usage go above 800MB ...:(

[ryanbatc 12,773]

try googling Mem Status ver 2.50 and run that while FSX

[pastorpilot 0]

>If you try too overclock the additional two RAMs can lower>your oc results. A successfull oc is harder too get, because>sometimes the system crahed only if it use the whole ram. You>should use Prime95 (?) to test, it can use all ram.>If your system is stable, FSX will normal use up to 2 GB of>Ram leave the rest for OS and caching. Esp the Ram for caching>will make the flight smoother. Also the Ram for the OS will>reduce swapping.>Another benefit is, that programs like ASX will use the Ram>too.Markus, I am using Vista 32. Do you mean that 4 Gigs is a GOOD idea, BUT it will lower overclocking results? Are you speaking of CPU overclocking OR RAM overclocking?Thanks,Steve

[StoneC0ld 5]

Is there any complications in running 32-bit applications (or even 16-bit) in 64-bit Windows XP or Vista?

[Guest in_04]

Hi Steve,no I dont think that Vista 32 and 4 GByte is a good combination. I have this before and the results are not great. I switched to Vista 64 and the results are much better now.So no recommendation of Vista 32 Bit with more than 3 GByte.The OC results of memory and of the CPU could be lower with more than two memory modules. My OC hardware dealer said he could not guarantee that the system will OC. I bought a pretested Core Duo (Stock 2.4 GHz pretested Overclocked too 3.42 GHz) I added good RAM on my own and still can go for 3.42 GHz. The Ram is DDR2 400 MHz and runs at 380 MHz so no OC on this side.If you try too overclock Ram and processor I guess it will be even harder to get success.>>Markus, >>I am using Vista 32. Do you mean that 4 Gigs is a GOOD idea,>BUT it will lower overclocking results? >>Are you speaking of CPU overclocking OR RAM overclocking?>>Thanks,>Steve

[Guest in_04]

>Is there any complications in running 32-bit applications (or>even 16-bit) in 64-bit Windows XP or Vista?Hi,64 Bit Operating systems will not run any 16-Bit application! (see here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896456/en-us)So if you still have 16-Bit Applications you must use a VM-Ware (Virtual Machine) Software like VM-Player and install a 32-Bit Operating System too use the old Applications.

[irocx 292]

Well, this doesn't sound promising. I just built a new rig and have it moderately OC'd to 3.2 GHZ (55C load with stock voltages) and decided to pick up another 2 GB of Crucial Ballistix Tracers (couldn't resist for $17.50 a gig). I guess what you all are saying is it might disrupt my overclock. I hope to run a dual boot with XP/Vista and figured going to 4 Gig's would be nice. Anyone still able to reach 3.2 with 4 GIG's?Regards, Kendall#1: E6750 3.2 GHZ OC'd/Coolermaster HyperTX2 Gigabyte P35-DS3L 2GB Crucial Ballistix PC6400 Seagate 250GB 7200.10 SATA2 Gigabyte X800XT -Cat 6.12's CH Yoke/Pedals/Saitek Throttle Dual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905 #2: Dell 8400 3.2 H.T. 3GB PC4200 Diamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530's

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

It's another one of those luck of the draw things with OCing. You may be lucky and can still run the same OC, but there is also the possibility that those extra stick of RAM talking on the memory bus may introduce instability at what otherwise was stable. One thing is certain though, it won't improve your OC from what you currently get now ;-)Gary

[Guest]

>Well, this doesn't sound promising. I just built a new rig>and have it moderately OC'd to 3.2 GHZ (55C load with stock>voltages) and decided to pick up another 2 GB of Crucial>Ballistix Tracers (couldn't resist for $17.50 a gig). I guess>what you all are saying is it might disrupt my overclock. I>hope to run a dual boot with XP/Vista and figured going to 4>Gig's would be nice. Anyone still able to reach 3.2 with 4>GIG's?I can do 3.4 on my E6600 Asus Commando 8800 combo with 4 x 1 gig Crucial Ballistix DDR2 PC2-6400, it all depends on the quality and matching of memory I guess? best bet if you were buying from scratch and wanted to use a 64bit OS would be 2 x 2gig sticks or sell your current ram and buy 2 x 2 gigs, but I was lucky when I purchased an identical 2 x 1gig Crucial matched set to supplement my original ram.You could also loosen the ram timings a bit to help an overclock, these are not so important with Intel's C2D CPU's as they are with AMD I've heard.

[rich135 0]

My results are about the same. I can easily overclock the E6750 between 3.2 and 3.4 with 2GB Corsair DDR2-1066. No luck with 4GB of same memory. I went back to 2GB since FSX was not using more than 2GB.Regards,Rich

[pastorpilot 0]

Rich,Which operating system? XP, Vista 32, or Vista 64? I have an E6700. I get about 3.6, with an EVGA N-Vidia MB and 4 Gigs of Crucial Ballistics, I think it is the same as yours -- about DDR2-1066. I know its higher than 800. I am using Vista 32, Home Premium. I have thought about taking 2 Gigs out and seeing if I can go faster. Nothing on this thread has yet convinced me that my extra 2 gigs of memory are doing me much, if any, good in FSX.Thanks, Steve

[irocx 292]

Hi again, for the record, I installed my second set of Ballistix Tracers, ran memtest overnight w/o issue and slowly took my CPU back to 3.2 GHZ w/o a problem (for now anyway - only about 3Hrs on Orthos). My temps have stayed about the same too - around 58C Load. I doubt I'll push it anymore, for now. Maybe after a couple hundred hrs or so when the thermal paste hits it max. I doubt the xtra ram will help FSX, but should go good with Vista dual booting XP. Anyone think 64 bit XP or Vista helps with anything - worried about the driver support etc? Regards, Kendall#1: E6750C 3.2GHZ/Coolermaster HyperTX2 Gigabyte P35-DS3L 4GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers PC-6400 Seagate 250GB 7200.10 SATA2 Gigabyte X800XT -Cat 6.12's CH Yoke/Pedals/Saitek Throttle Dual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905 #2: Dell 8400 3.2 H.T. 3GB PC4200 Diamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530's