Sign in to follow this  
awf

Can more RAM **really** help. Going from 512mb to 1024m

Recommended Posts

Am I wasting my time and $$$$ upgrading my Rambus memory from 512mb to 1024mb. Will I really see a difference? FS2k2 is the most graphics intense program I have and it still seems to bog down with certain sceneries and I'm try to get little more bang in FPS so what do you think? Will more memory help? I'm averaging about 25 FPS, but it does bog down to 8,9, 14 FPS at times with alot of scenery going on and this is not with everything "maxed" out! Seems as though it should stay more consistent. My specs:P4 1.8aAsus P4T-e512mb Mushkin Rambus (upgrading to 1024mb)G4 Ti-4600Win XP homeEtc, etc.That's the "juice" of the matter anyway.....Thanks!

Share this post


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

It's your CPU that mostly deems what frame rates you will get.You won't benifit from going above 512MB of RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Windows 98 doesn't recognize more than 512M, but I'm not really sure.NEVER mind, I see that you are using XP. There, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, good point!Win9x doesn't like more than 512MB of RAM. I recall adding 768 and it kept telling me I didn't have enough memory to complete an operation.. :-lolEdit: Ah yes, XP is a memory hog, it eats it like I ate milk duds when in the US.But 512 is plenty as I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bummer........You know it amazes me that some people have boasted that their systems never slows beneath 17-18 fps with everything maxed and their specs are less than mine. So what's the trick? I have played around with all my drivers and have found my sweet spot, but in no way do my FPS always stay above 18. Perhaps these "boasters" have something to hide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're either full of crap or perform miracles. If it's the latter, maybe they can also cure my insomnia. My P4 2.2 with 512Mb RDRAM and a GF4 Ti4600 chokes just like yours with everything maxed out, regardless of the resolution I'm using (currently on 1600x1200). FS2k2 is just a hog, that's all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad, but thanks for the encouragement. It's somewhat of a "relief" to hear someone with a "Fast" machine still getting choked up at times. Perhaps one day the bottleneck will be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jerrycwo4I have a window XP AMD 1800 + and I was told by Microsoft that the reason that I get quite a bit of "Bad-pool spooler" error messages is that I have 1 GB of RAM and that FS2002 doesn't (use / like/ support) more than 512 MB of RAM. I use the FSAssist "go back feature ( saved flights every 5 minutes) so every few days when I get this error message, I just go back to where I was 5 minutes earlier, and there is NO problem. That way, I can also use the 1GB of ram in my PhotoShop with out changing it back and forth. I've had 4 differant computers in the last four years and the ONLY thing that increased the FPS was a FASTER CPU, NOT more RAM.jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently on 1gb DDR and yes its running fast... locked at 30 FPSIf a software program has to wait for memory or a HD, memory is in that case always a lot faster and the lifetime of your HD less I/O :)Further make sure you have as less possible services running in the background :-) and performance for applicationsStop the printer spooler services for example if don't need to print :-) it frees up a lot of resourcesMost user aren't aware that regarding O/S WinXP or Win2K are whole other different operating systems as Win95/98 :(Win98 system doesn't use above 256 mb without a registry patch :(There are always other bottlenecks you could check MB/VGA/MEM/HD/CPU/(I/O)(O/S)etc... For performance....You could also make the virtual memory large for scenery files in FS2002 :-) (No need for the system to pack and unpack files :-))Success but for me I'm glad to have 1gb of DDR with rest of course :-)awfEHAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elrond's right - as always. I see the same on a P4A/2000 with 512MB RAMBUS. We just need a little more (lot more?) CPU. Or MS needs to finally get the design right so's the video card can do what's it's designed to do ;(8 Trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there awfAre you the one with the pics from nl2000 eham crammed with ai aircraft?Do you still get usable fps as it is?Just curious if the latest cpu's and memory can handle all that.thxPaulehgg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep in the PSS airbus FPS 20 / 25 on EHAM :-)awfEHAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brad,I just wanted to clarify a few things regarding my mini-review of Falcon NW Mach V last week, in case you were referencing my claim of never going below 17-18 FPS. If you recall the beginning of the post, I stated that even the Falcon Rep told me not to expect to be able to run FS2002 with "all sliders maxxed", and at no time in my post did I boast or claim to get constant performance above 17-18 FPS with "all sliders maxxed" The only sliders I had maxxed in fact for this test were in fact ATC, AA, and Max Vis. In re-reading the post, I should have made it more clear that in fact most other sliders were at default or a bit higher. I do run all scenery/terrain complexity/extended levels at 100% however. I have found that running add-on mesh at 80% or so is just fine, and Autogen at Normal works best visually for me. I do believe that this system would handle any out of the box situation with "all sliders maxxed" but let's face it, 3rd party planes, airports, clouds, etc are what make the hobby so great. I have since briefly experimented with the "all sliders maxxed" scenario with intensive 3rd party objects present, and the FPS did drop to 10-12. (What is interesting is that stuttering was not bad at all.) I simply would rather drop back certain sliders to a more visually realistic level (max vis and Autogen) to remain at 21 FPS locked. Also with some of these settings less than max, I now get practically no blurs anywhere. I also noticed the AA was not having much effect so I turned it off. The main point of my post was not to gloat, and I stated that from the get go. I apolgize if you or anyone read in to it that I had some kind of super computer that will run great with everything maxxed out. I am simply enjoying so much improved performance from any previous system that anything more would be irrelevant and maybe even visually unrealistic in real-life flight. Take care,John M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think it would have to help, if you run FS2K2 like I do or close to it. I run FS2K2, with FSMeteo, FS Maintenance, FSSE, S-Combo, and Squawkbox. AND.... having a network setup, so I can run a second Roger Wilco channel (company freq.) on it. It's got to help to have more RAM, I'm going to go with another 256MB myself.Lobaeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running what I think now, is an old computer (P4 1.3, 256 RAM Gforce 2 Mx 64Mb) and, to make things even worse: WinMe :D !! But, Out of the Box I could run (Killing all the programs in the background) 25 FPS average with all the sliders to the maximum.Later, I started to add things: Ocean Textures: the FPS went down to 21, (still good) and then FSW Clouds ( which I think are great!!)and my FPS went down to 8-10 and the slide show effect on, now with the "heavy version" of the falcon 50, Autogenius, Custom AI traffic, I have learned to "sacrifice" eye candy for performance, ONe of the things that helped me a lot kepping my actual 18 FPS average was locking the FPS in 19, I made the test locking them in 20, and they dropped down to 13- 14,, Maybe my CPU is not wasting cicles trying to get the impossible ??Another thing I have found is that even with 16 FPS the simulation still runs smoothly in my PC, for me that pefer to simulate the flight mostly only inside the cockpit on IFR flights in AC that more than nice eye candy, have good simulated Systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we all like eyecandy but that's at the expense of performance.If you run FS2002 with everything maxed at 1600x1200@32 it's going to be slow as dirt.No matter what type of machine you have.If you drop your resolution down to 1152x864 you will see A GREAT increase in performance.I also recommend not using max visablity of 150 go down to like 90.You really can not tell the difference anyways.AI traffic is a performance killer.Espically if you use other planes other then defaults or project ai planes.Right now I have my ATC at 70% which is more than enough.I also never get the go arounds now, or not as much.Also cloud are another performance killer.i would bring down the clouds to the FS default or below.You notice the differnce.I keep my FPS in the high 20's almost always because of this.I have never owned a flight sim where i can max out everything and have 3rd party addons and it runs great.Flight sims are just processor hogs.I like to see games at a high res too but I can not expect to run FS2002 with everything max and res of 1600x1200@32 and expect that it will run smooth.It does not matter what type video card you have.Nvidia was did make a GF4 with flight simmers in mind.The have games like quake 3 unreal 2003 in mind.Because all the reviews test cards and performance and those games If it's one thing I have learned about MSFS.Most designers design their addons with the suggest MSFS resolution of 1024x768.With that being the case I see Fs2002 runs best at 1152x864.I run it very smooth in almost any condition with any addons and with FSAA 2X.It looks no different than 1600x1200 with the exception of better looking ground textures.I like the eyecandy but not so much that i can't enjoy a very challenging appoarch etc.. Richard Dillon KATLSr First Officer www.jetstarairlines.com"Bill Grabowski's"ERJ-145 panel Beta TeamMD-11 panel Beta Team____________________________"Lets Roll" 9/11 Specs AMD 1600 XP 512MB DDR GF3 ti 200 64MB SBliveCh Products Yoke and Pedals(usb)Windows 2000 SP2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Richard,I always seem to enjoy reading your posts: they are always balanced, forthright and honest from my perspective. I appreciate the frank and polite way you approach almost every issue I've seen you breach. In many ways, I've learned a lot from that example.In that light, let me ask you why you choose to run Windows 2000 over Windows XP. I run a Win2K box here as well as a few WinXP boxes for my own needs (well, they dual-boot along with 98SE and linux - but mainly run XP). I'm just curious what your particular reasons are for sticking with Win2000. What has been the benefits and pitfalls you've experienced using 2K as your main gaming box (and work box I assume?). I find it educational to hear from all kinds of users on their OS choices.Thanks Richard,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for what it's worth, I went from 512PC133 to 1024PC133 and FS2002 seems to like it fine. No stutters frames are pretty well steady at a locked 25 unless I get into tough envirnments such as EGLL with the AI turned up. AI seems to be just a "hog" when it comes to resources. Personally wish I had FSTraffic back. It didn't do that and I think that it looked better,too.SYSTEM: MSI 694 PRO2Single PIII@ 1G1024 PC133 RAM2 7200RPM HDGainward GeForce2 MX400 64MTurtlebay Santa Cruz SoundSaitex X-36 USBBest RegardsEd Green, KCLTegreen1@carolina.rr.com:-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some thoughts that not directly reflect what was said above.1. You will not get a great increase in framerate if you go from 1600x1200x32 to 1024x768x32 when using a GF4Ti4600. Whoever says that does not own such a card. I guess people are guessing here most of the time instead of giving real experience facts or just telling what they read somewhere else. I have a GF4Ti4600 and the difference in frame rate is almost zip. These cards were designed for high resolutions. They eat them easily. You can gain a lot more fps if you go slow on autogen or mesh. Setting mesh from 100% to 80% will give you a boost. Same applies for autogen from extremly dense to dense. The reason is that these are not graphics card related.2. The memory seems to be a bottleneck regarding FS2002. However here is my experience when going from 512MB to 1024MB of ram:FS2002, WinXP and especially the GF4 make all a very agressive use of ram. With 4 way overleave enabled your RAm gets accesed so often if you have 1024MB that it will get hot as hell. And do no care if it is mushkin or the world best reference ram. So I had to go back on memory timings in order to keep the system stable that the whole system actually got slower in the end. I tried Mushkin, Apacer, Infineon it simply did not work out. I went back to 512MB and the fast memory timings.3. All this may not apply to you as you use a different system.Cheers Alex,Athlon XP1800+MSI K7T266 Pro RU 2MSI GF4Ti4600512MB Apacer RAM Cas 2 (all memory settings max. performance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if you thought I was referring to you Fringe, but I wasn't. I certainly was not trying to single anyone out. I've just read in the screenshots forum several individuals stating that they "never" fall beneath 17-18 fps. Perhaps they just do not notice the actual numbers because FS2k2 does indeed handle itself better than FS2000 even at lower (mid-teens) fps. So again, sorry if you felt I was referring to you. Thanks for your generous post nonetheless! It's very informative.-Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd throw some facts into this too ;-)Even with 767 PIC, I could not break 210 Megs of RAM getting eaten ...Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My system is as follows:Pentium 4 1.3GHz512MB RDRAMGeForce 4 Ti4600Windows XPRun Desktop and FS2k2 at 1028X768X32All FS2k2 Sliders Maxed OutI agree with some of the posts above, I am never consitantly above 17-18 FPS. Now, when I've cruising say enroute JFK-LAX at FL350, then I could expect the 30+ FPS some people "brag" about. But I never get 30 FPS on the ground under ANY circumstances.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-coolTaxiwaysigns.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elrond, Thanks you so much for the kind comments.I find your post very much the same :). To answer your question, I find that win2k is more solid O/S because it's had alot more time to mature.I do not like XP because it seems to be more about being "fancy".I could careless about fancy icons and file mangers but for some reason the WinXP team wanted to go with a "pretty gui".I personally thinks all the little eyecandy is really not necessary.I mean iam I really going to about to use WinXP better because it's pretty.I think winxp pro is slower than win2k.I have had many problems with XP that I never had with win2k.here are the exact reasons broken down as to why i prefer win2k over XP.1.The small kernel and swap space enhancements to XP are not good enough right now to impress me.I do not care if XP loads in 30 seconds or however fast they promote it to be2.The memory management of win2k still seems to be far better.3.My programs just seem to react better to win2k.Most of the programs I have were on the market before XP.The only optimized programs for XP right now are by Microsoft.4. I do not like how XP holds standard drivers by certain vendors.For example Via.The 4n1 drivers are 4.35.I can update the AGP drivers and IDE but not the main .inf file with out XP going nuts and not seeing my Geforce card right.So really you can't truely update your drivers as they should be.This is ok for the average users but for people like myself it's not going to be ok.5.XP home and even XP pro seem to be win2k with some tweaks and fancy gui.As a matter of fact it seems as micrsoft spent more time on GUI than the O/S itself.These are the reasons I do run Win2k vs XP (for me only).I run BSD too which is my o/s of choice for about anything.I run win2k for gaming and work (buisness papers and invoices).I have run Freebsd for 8 yrs and love it.I actually have a slackware(linux) box for my firewall but my DNS(caching) and mail servers are unix :).Iam thinking iam going to install openbsd this weekend and do a unix firewall.I like iptables and all but it's pain compared to unix firewalling :) .I do networking and tech work for a living so i get to mess with this stuff all day.It's my buisness so i have to know just about everything it seems :) Richard Dillon KATLSr First Officer www.jetstarairlines.com"Bill Grabowski's"ERJ-145 panel Beta TeamMD-11 panel Beta Team____________________________"Lets Roll" 9/11 Specs AMD 1600 XP 512MB DDR GF3 ti 200 64MB SBliveCh Products Yoke and Pedals(usb)Windows 2000 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