FSX on Dual Quad Core System ???

[Guest JacobKoziarz]

So what will it take to tame FSX ?

[Snowfalcon 18]

Check out this thread.http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=126626

[Guest Nick_N]

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.

[Deaf Pilot 1]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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:)

[Guest]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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)

[Guest D17S]

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

[Guest]

>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

[Guest]

>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

[Guest]

>>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.>And thats exactly my point with directing my money into raw clock speed. With clock speed I can direct the CPU power into frame rates or into the texture loader at my discretion, and based on the situation. If I'm sitting at Aerosofts Heathrow in PMDG's 747 with traffic cranked up adding more cores isn't going to help me much, but clock speed will. Though if I'm blazing through the mountians in the F/A-18 I'll let those extra CPU cycles go to the terrain loader, as I don't need to run much faster than 25-26fps.I believe Phil once said faster cores is better than more cores.

[Guest Nick_N]

The

[Guest JacobKoziarz]

Let's see Aerosoft's Heathrow and the drop from 60 to 6 fps. Flying over autogen terrain is very nice but I had nice results like that on my single core system before I build my quad. Where Quad/DDR3 fails is major cities and addons like Aerosoft's Mega Airports. And from what I read even the skulltrail and dual quad system might not improve that, considering that it's still server-based architecture and slower memory. But honestly, who's using Aerosoft if my top of the line quad slows to 6 fps ???

[Guest Nick_N]

>>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 boardAs a computer tech you should forget about the DRAM timing FAB-4 and look more closely at the DRAM STATIC READ CONTROL and TRANSACTION BOOSTER and their relation to CPU STRAP and the FSB if your BIOS supports such features. Newer intel processors respond to those settings being in harmony well over lower DRAM timings.The lower the PL, the better the system will run in FSX regardless of the FAB-4 being 4-4-4-10 or 5-6-6-18... 1 ot 2T;)

[Guest Nick_N]

>Let's see Aerosoft's Heathrow and the drop from 60 to 6 fps.>Flying over autogen terrain is very nice but I had nice>results like that on my single core system before I build my>quad. Where Quad/DDR3 fails is major cities and addons like>Aerosoft's Mega Airports. And from what I read even the>skulltrail and dual quad system might not improve that,>considering that it's still server-based architecture and>slower memory. But honestly, who's using Aerosoft if my top of>the line quad slows to 6 fps ???I cant answer your question. It would require I go into your BIOS/system and go completely through it to find the problem and also make sure Windows and the drive system is indeed set up correctly. Also, unlike with FS9, cheap RAID-0 is a very BAD thing for FSX if you are not on a professional RAID card such as the 3Ware 9650SE which uses the PCIe bus with WD Raptors or better in spec drives on that card. Otherwise motherboard RAID eats critical CPU cycles and at the same time the STRIPE needed for FSX is 256K or above in which most MB RAID solutions will not provide. The file access on low STRIPE, no on-card memory MB or cheap PCI card RAID is excessivly high and even over the CPU load it creates, the massive access multiplies the issue and it eats even more resources FSX needs.The professional card will remove the CPU load and allow the right STRIPE based on the average file size FSX uses in random access.