February 20, 200818 yr Does FSX typically use no more than 1.47GB of memory? I noticed in the performance section of the task manager that memory usage rarely wavers from 1.47GB thru the duration of a flight. I have 4GB w/Vista32. Runs really well and I have no complaints but I thought I would ask.Thanks,Mark
February 20, 200818 yr I have 4GB in XP, (running with the 3GB boot.ini switch), and last time I checked I was using about 1.75-2.0GB of RAM, depending. As I am running 4GB in XP, my computer OS only recognizes 3.17GB instead of the full 4.
February 20, 200818 yr MarkI use a Pertelian device and the memory usage on my machine rarely exceeds 1.5Gb even in dense areas where the frame rates fall to single figures. (I have 2Gb RAM). The big worry is CPU usage in very dense areas it will stay at 200% (2 x 100% AMD dual core) for long periods. However, in less dense areas this drops to around 90%. On loading it usually peaks at around 800Mb with up to 190% cpu usage at various loading points. I'm trying to get the pertelian to produce a log file so that I can see the stats for various types of flights.RegardsPeterH
February 20, 200818 yr I have 4GB in XP x64 and I have seen as high as 2.8G peak useageThe x64 system has no true memory limit in the sense of what a 32bit OS has. No patches or switch is required, only the marked FSX sp2 exe file which allows more than 2GB use.
February 20, 200818 yr I am currently running 2GB of PC 6400 and was thinking of adding 2 more GB to give me a total of 4 GB. I was over at Crucials site and read an article that said running more memory than the system reconizes slows the system down and can cause other problems.XP Home w/SP2, Core 2 Duo E6600 OCed to 3.0 GHZ, 7950 GT 512MB,300GB sata HD, 2GB Corsair 6400 DDR2, FSX w/SP1
February 20, 200818 yr >I am currently running 2GB of PC 6400 and was thinking of>adding 2 more GB to give me a total of 4 GB. I was over at>Crucials site and read an article that said running more>memory than the system reconizes slows the system down and can>cause other problems.>Could you please post a link to the article. This is news to me, but I failed to find the article.Ulf B :-)
February 20, 200818 yr What is the maximum amount of RAM the Windows operating system can handle?That depends on two factors: the amount of memory your computer hardware can handle, and the amount of memory your Microsoft
February 20, 200818 yr Yes, it did :-)So as long as you run XP or Vista, you would be safe installing 4GB memory as long as your mobo can handle the 4GB (and most handle 4GB or more).Ulf B
February 20, 200818 yr ULFB The article does state not to excede the lower of either.make sure that you do not exceed the lower of the two maximums (OS and computer maximums.) Does this not applyXP Home w/SP2, Core 2 Duo E6600 OCed to 3.0 GHZ, 7950 GT 512MB,300GB sata HD, 2GB Corsair 6400 DDR2, FSX w/SP1
February 20, 200818 yr >ULFB The article does state not to excede the lower of>either.>>make sure that you do not exceed the lower of the two maximums> (OS and computer maximums.) >>Does this not apply>?Is my assumption wrong when I say "As as long as you run XP or Vista, you would be safe installing 4GB memory as long as your mobo can handle the 4GB (and most handle 4GB or more)."???Ulf B :-?
February 20, 200818 yr Not trying to be controversial here just trying to figure out if it is a benefit to go to 4GB of memory. I would think you are exceeding the max. for Wondows XP and as per Crucials article is it in fact slowing the system down ?????XP Home w/SP2, Core 2 Duo E6600 OCed to 3.0 GHZ, 7950 GT 512MB,300GB sata HD, 2GB Corsair 6400 DDR2, FSX w/SP1
February 20, 200818 yr >Does FSX typically use no more than 1.47GB of memory? I>noticed in the performance section of the task manager that>memory usage rarely wavers from 1.47GB thru the duration of a>flight. I have 4GB w/Vista32. Runs really well and I have no>complaints but I thought I would ask.>>Thanks,>MarkThat is about what I see with 2 gig of system memory.
February 20, 200818 yr I think the article is superficial, geared toward the layman, and, is not taking into account several things.. it is however correct but only correct as far as typical Windows and software use, and, many motherboards of the past did not deal with all slots populated the way modern motherboards do and usually reduce memory timing to allow all slots be populatedIn that, it
Create an account or sign in to comment