Sign in to follow this  
Guest JacobKoziarz

FSX on Dual Quad Core System ???

Recommended Posts

Is anyone running FSX on a dual quad core system ? SP1 allows for multi-core utilization, but does it extend to more than one quad core ? Does anyone know if FSX would utilize 8 cores ? I really want to break this game - if top of the line single quad core won't do - I'm wiling to build a dual quad core system.I'd appreciate any comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

SP2 fixes some problem such that it will utilize 8 cores on a "dual quad" system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about multi processors? Like a Server with two seperate CPUs?I was wondering about that too.Why not use 2 XEON Processors.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right:http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardware/C...Q_22490885.htmlhttp://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2080511,00.asphttp://www.gamepc.com/shop/systemfamily.asp?family=gpgx2I'm looking for a confirmation that it will finally eat FSX, I am sick and tired of being abused by FSX - it's payback time. The question is - will FSX take full advantage of all 8 cores and will this finally bring it to its knees for once for a change ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you notice the memory on those servers are very slow.Recently a buddy of mine came to me to help him with a system that he wanted for Video editing. And the software he was using were all certified to work with Servers and Quadro Video cards. So I was not much helpful to him. And during that time I noticed, inspite of using the hot shot CPUs the memories were of considerable slow speed. I didn't get that.BTW.. This thread is probably set to be moved to the Hardware section.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That becomes another consideration I guess.I placed it under MS FSX as that is where I found most threads on FSX, quad and performance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like there are no motherboards for dual quads yet, which explains why there's nothing on it anywhere, except for these xeon server systems...too bad...i wonder how long before someone comes out with one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do it with this, just run Windows on it with Bootcamp.http://www.apple.com/macpro/You can get it with the NVidia 8800GT or you could replace that with an 8800 Ultra. I believe you can put up to 32GB of RAM in it. It wouldn't be much more expensive than building a dual quad core, it might even be cheaper. Plus this way you don't have to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I also mention a Win32 limit, which is 32 cores that can be explicitly scheduled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess: "what was i thinking ???" Is anyone running hi-def addon-as like Aerosoft's Heathrow on Q6600/NVidia GTS ? As soon as I enable it - the fps drop exponentially. What's the point of having it if even a quad/gts can't handle it, especially since most of us have even lower performance systems ? I mean, who runs it ? Skynet ??? Hahhaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I guess: "what was i thinking ???" Is anyone running hi-def>addon-as like Aerosoft's Heathrow on Q6600/NVidia GTS ? As>soon as I enable it - the fps drop exponentially. What's the>point of having it if even a quad/gts can't handle it,>especially since most of us have even lower performance>systems ? I mean, who runs it ? Skynet ??? HahhaahKeep in mind that adding more cores doesn't really affect your frame rate, rather it helps terrain loading and to reduce stutters. You can see from these benchmark going from 2 to 4 cores at equal clock speed has no impact on frame rate. http://sio.midco.net/FTP4/IMG0021312.gifhttp://www.behardware.com/articles/691-7/i...eme-qx9650.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care what any benchmarks, tests or reports sayI would not fly FSX on anything less than a quad running a minimum of 2 gigs (I run 4 on x64) DDR3 memory at 1600MHz or above ( I run DDR3 2000 on a 500MHz FSB) and a matching 768MB+ video card which can feed that systemIt's that simple :)Although I do divert all 3rd party addons such as weather, etc to the last core of the quad using the Windows task manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not that simple... most people can't afford that kind of setup. I had FSX on an AthlonXP 2800/1GB Ram/Radeon 1950 Pro... worked well enough for me. Some people cannot accept anything but the very best, and thats their right, but the rest of us make the best of what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the OP asked about using a dual quad That appears it means he may be able to afford it if the results are worth the investment. I agree that if one goes out and throws a massive processor at a cheaper video card and memory system they are not going to get what they paid for, simply because the CPU must be balanced to the rest of the system, but, it the right choices are made the quad will always provide the greatest return and because its a quad it will also have a much longer use lifeand therefore my answer when one has a choice, a quadits that simpleAt the same time a dual quad is more in line with a next gen video adapter so throwing a current dual-quad at FSX is going to net limited resultsstillBenchmarks and test results are only as reliable as the system running them, at that's it. They do allow one to consider indications of limits, but they are not set in stone for every system out there. I have proven more than once the defined benefits of using a quad over a dual even if both produce the same frame rate. Everyone focuses too much on frames. The fact is, you lose CLARITY and image depth on slower hardware even with equal frame results.FPS are not the issue with FSX, its resources, the more you have the better it runsits that simpleI would not use anything less that a quad on DDR3. FSX was designed for that type/generation of hardware:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I checked DDR2 was outperforming the much more expensive DDR3. My prefered approach is to buy a highly clocked dual core, such as 4.2GHz+, and redirect the extra power to terrain loading. Buying a quad that will reach those speeds will cost a great deal more than the $300 or so that it will cost me for a dual. I'd be interested though to know how much the extra two cores improve terrain loading. I know on my dual I've flown from one end of Oahu to the other at 1300knots and still had sharp phototextures the when I got to the other side.I'll be updating my CPU shortly for around a 30% performance gain over what I have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a retired electrical engineer and I would not run FSX on anything less than DDR3, regardless of what the silly benchmarks and techy websites postI also test hardware too.And yes, when DDR3 was first introduced there was a lag in performance until the MB and chipsets got with the program however that was resolved within 3 months. DDR2 will not run 1000+MHz true clock, and never will.http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=24836gosh darn it, I hate that slow quad and DDR3 system :DThere is only one thing I can't stand, worse, than a slow DDR3 system and thats flat photosceneryI prefer to pop mach1+ over somthing I can sink my bus intohttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=24741:)Enhanced textures or not, DDR2 will struggle with that kind rendering over DDR3 If i was going to purchase a system today, to go with anything that would restrict my bus when the next generation of VC hit the market, would be throwing my money down the drain, and, my FSX expereince. Even at 100% slider and every tweak you can throw into the FSX.cfg file to increase scenery, FSX is throttling yours, mine and everyones expereince based on the hardware installed. As the next gen of cards, MB/CPU's are released they will need that DDR3 bandwidth to allow FSX to raise your experience up as it will do automatically if it sees the bandwidth available to it.:0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may find that FSX is Still primarily a single core app. The dual v quad comparisons show there is not much difference in the FPS metric. I expect that even a (clock for clock) performance matched single core Athlon at 2.8 and a Octi-core Skulltrail at 2.4 would not show much FPS difference in FSX. It seems that the FPS stuff (including autogen and AI) is still handled by a single core. That said, the texture loading function seems to have been successfully offloaded to the multi-cores. Ground textures load Much more quickly with multi-core machines, but there is No increase in FPS. It's gonna take SP3 (or FS11) to allow an Octi-core (or even a dual core) to make a significant difference in FPS performance with AI/Autogen (and PMDG's FMC) cranked up full blast. The only thing that will actually help FSX performance is a single core cranked up to 6Ghz. If you've got the dough, get a cascade.http://www.under-the-ice.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=690

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I am a retired electrical engineer and I would not run FSX on>anything less than DDR3, regardless of what the silly>benchmarks and techy websites post>And I'm a profesional computer tech, system builder, and gamer, and I wouldn't spend a penny of my own money on DDR3 this year. lol But seriously, everybody's buck bangs a little differently.As seen in Phil Taylors blog the pics below show my measly little dual core running on a restrictive DDR2 system doing 1300 knots from one side of Oahu to the other and holding a very nice LOD, with very dense autogen no less. So Dual-core-DDR2 can handle FSX at least semi-good. I get more bang for my buck with DDR2, but your bang is obviously different.I'll get DDR3 when I go Nehalem, but until then I'm sticking with a $300 4.2Ghz E8500 w/ 900MHz 4-4-4-10 1T. If my board was a little quicker I'd get an E8400 as its better value, but I need that 9.5 mult. So once I get the new chip I'll be around 30% more powerful than I am now.I don't see any afterburner in your pics. Surely your Quad-core-DDR3 can manage? ;) All of this goes to show the dual-quad core debate is a matter of preference more than anything else........http://sio.midco.net/FTP4/1300ktsb.jpghttp://sio.midco.net/FTP4/1300kts.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>We may find that FSX is Still primarily a single core app.>The dual v quad comparisons show there is not much difference>in the FPS metric. I expect that even a (clock for clock)>performance matched single core Athlon at 2.8 and a Octi-core>Skulltrail at 2.4 would not show much FPS difference in FSX.>It seems that the FPS stuff (including autogen and AI) is>still handled by a single core. >The scene below is from my single core 2.8Ghz Athlon system with stock memory speeds, and I was able to fly with very dense autogen in the 23-27fps range with RTM. Texture loading was EXCELLENT Pre-SP1, once SP1 was installed texture loading took a dive, and became PATHETIC. Only once I changed hardware did texture loading work correctly again. Seems clear to me the texture loader was more reliable in RTM, though not multithreaded. I hope they can make the loader in FS11 as realiable as the FSX-RTM laoder with better multithreading than FSX-SP2. From my experience a single core CPU works best with RTM, and SP1/SP2 works best with multicore.http://sio.midco.net/111lll/Eurotrip.jpg

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