Jump to content

Gary A

  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Gary A

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Canada Eh!

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. Hi Ryan, back when Page File size was all the craze, and the internet abounded with all kinds of advice on the matter, I followed Mark Russinovich's advice. Basically Mark preached to leave the Page File alone. However, in the link below (if you must play) he says to set it at twice the commit charge less the amount of Ram installed, if negative, pick a minimum size to allow a crash dump. Good or bad? I do not understand and just let Windows manage it. https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2008/11/17/pushing-the-limits-of-windows-virtual-memory/ Wishing you good success.
  2. I have had these for years. They are very comfortable on the ears for all day use. Great sound and good mic. https://www.hyperxgaming.com/us/headsets/cloud-gaming-headset?partnum=KHX-HSCP-RD
  3. Hi, I use the sledgehammer where a tack hammer would do approach to PC hardware. To put it another way; buy the best that you can afford. yet another analogy, I do not work to minimum specs. For example, I am not buying 1600mhz RAM if there is even the slightest chance that 2400 is going to be better (providing I can afford 2400). Then whatever: tests, opinions, bias etc. matter not. Difference between 1600 and 2400Mhz is 1-3 fps depending, results vary. Some folks report micro stutters eliminated or alleviated with the faster RAM. The difference in price between 1600 and 2400 memory is around 20%. What matters in RAM is the specifications, the speed, capacity and latency. I do not care about silly colors, lights or heat spreaders or fancy marketing names. Most manufacturers use the same chipsets: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron, etc. My personal biased opinionated preference is for any manufacturer using Samsung. For me for the extra $30 I would buy 2400mhz in the DDR 3 variety.
  4. Don't forget the era of 100% CPU utilization hasn't existed for years. In those days we were lucky to have a GTX680 GPU and at 100% CPU utilization, if we could offload 4 CPU cycles with a dedicated soundcard, we did it. Today we are using 50% or less CPU utilization, maybe 75% in certain applications so a dedicated soundcard is not required for CPU offloading. I haven't used a dedicated SC for years. Now for sound quality, is a dedicated card required? No. Is there a noticeable difference between onboard and discrete? Most likely (depending on MB etc but most likely dedicated better). Do I need a discrete card? For non audiophiles flying with a gaming set of headphones listening to downloaded music, no. Audiophile or simply a person that wants the best of the best or certain features not available on integrated sound, yes, buy a dedicated card. Take the $200 US. that a good dedicated card would cost and put it into something that really matters like GPU, SSD, Memory or something. You will get much more bang for the buck.
  5. I'm not an expert but this is what I considered based on research of various forums I purchased 3000mhz. However, I have read that with certain MB's and certain processor and whether or not you intend to clock the FSB, that 3200Mhz can be more stable. I have had zero issues with my 3000Mhz but I am the type to nip any potential problems in the bud, so I would recommend 3200Mhz for several reasons: 3200 because: 1. It shuts up many of the internet guru's debate 3000 vs 3200 etc etc 2. 3200 is a bigger number than 3000 and we all know that bigger is better; right? At the least better inflation of ego and compensation for psychological inadequacies at a minimum. You will sleep better at night with 3200. 3. Nobody is going to call you a fool for 3200 say versus 3400 or more, 3200 is a nice median. 4. Thwart any potential strap issues if any exist. I doubt strap is an issue but hey, when I read a post by an ASUS Tech regarding it, I have to listen. Why I bought 3000: a. Testing results of various memory speeds by reputable internet sources indicated that 3000Mhz was best performance versus costs. b. CAS 15-3000 is same latency as CAS 16-3200 c. I read the ASUS post after I bought 3000 Side Notes: 1. New Integrated memory controller (IMC) are not as sensitive to CAS timings as in previous CPU's therefore one should accept speed over lower CAS latency for performance. 2. anything over your CPU rating (2400Mhz in this case w/DDR4) is considered overclocking. 3. Perceivable difference 3000Mhz vs 3200Mhz =zero Buy 3200Mhz and don't look back, however any 2400 and up will serve you well based on how much money you want to spend. If you Google Strap, latency, memory frequency, memory controller etc there is a host of information on specifics on how all that works and ties.
  6. Reasons for my RAM opinion: 1. Available at the same store that you are purchasing MOBO and CPU and in stock. 2. Those sticks are on your MOBO QVL 3. Corsair are a name brand as is G.Skill and are known for high quality. 4. Corsair and G.Skill are likely using same integrated circuit (Samsung). 5. Difference in latency 3000Mhz CAS 15 vs 3200Mhz CAS 16 = 0 6. Perceivable difference between 3000Mhz and 3200 Mhz = 0 7. 2 x 16Gb sticks for ease of overclock performance vs 4 x 8Gb. And no I am not a Corsair or any particular brand fan, pretty sure I am running G.Skill but I didn't have to go outside my PC store to find them either. To chase G.Skill name wouldn't be worth my effort, and the extra 60 or so Gbp. not worth the privilege. However I understand that opinions vary and your system will serve your purpose well regardless of RAM choice. And on a positive note all of our systems today will be dinosaur relics in 2-years time and we can come here and discuss what is better in that day. :>)
  7. Make sure you have 10.9 bios. I wish you good luck.
  8. I think that there was a time and a place that the right paid defrag program could have done a better job than the system provided defragger. What I see happen relatively often is people neglect to consider changes that occur when new OS's are released. Since Vista, the OS handles fragmentation differently than previous systems. When you think that hardware has also significantly changed (there was a day when HDD size was measured in Megs), and processor speeds have changed, and memory speeds and the way they function has changed, and it is no longer a world of "fragments are all that matter." To be succinct, on a Vista OS and above and specifically a W10 system, I would not pay for a 3rd-party defrag program or use any other defrag other than that provided. Cost vs. performance improvement (if any) isn't worth it, and if you get the wrong program, you are likely to make things worst.
  9. My response is an opinion. I wouldn't consider to not installing W10 with Skylake and above. W7 with Skylake and above risk driver incompatibilities i.e. sound, USB, and others. I wouldn't even put the homework into understanding the memory instruction differences (if any) and who knows what else. I simply would not shoehorn a W7 system into a modern processor period. It just isn't worth any potential headaches to me, and there isn't upside to me in putting so much effort and work into retaining a W7 system. imho W10-Pro is my favorite OS to date and the only recommended OS for Skylake and above.
  10. Listen Penny. :>) First I establish the need for the upgrade. Is the upgrade due to component failure or inability of current specs to operate the software that I need to run or is it only want. Once I make a decision, I base my component selection on what I can afford and proceed with the best components currently available in that price range. I do not wait for the next best thing because the next best thing is always coming around the corner. My decisions (excuses) to upgrade are supported by the fact that I can pass my current system onto the family. When you consider that the family computer is then always a few generations behind the current tech, it makes me feel like I am getting better value than if I was only upgrading for myself. Also if I can salvage any existing components for reuse, I do so; things like PSU or HDD can be reused, sometimes if you get blessed memory can be reused, of course, the case. Reusing components when able helps keep costs down. I also try not to upgrade except for a socket change when possible (i.e. socket 775 to 1156 etc.). My most recent upgrade was from an i5-4690k to i7-6700k. I only did this because I had the opportunity to sell the 4690k system at near original cost making the 6700k more palatable. I can tell you the perceived performance between the 4690 and 6700 was negligible (moral, bigger or more expensive or newest, isn’t always worth the increased costs). Upgrade priorities for performance are always 1. Processor 2. GPU 3. Memory 4. HDD/SSD Your link didn't work. You really don't need an upgrade unless you just want to because of "want to."
  11. Windows 10-64bit requires 20Gb to install, occupies about 15Gb on disc, my system reserved and system size is about 45Gb (based on my installed software). M.2 is a pcie interface and 2.5 is a SATA interface (Still an SSD drive but uses SATA ports). Preference is to keep both M.2 (money issues aside). I want to caution you that I am writing in high level terms with sufficient information to be dangerous. :>) The type of MB you use and its provided connections along with single vs. dual GPU use, and SSD form factors must all be specifically considered together. In re-reading your post it appears that you plan to keep your current MB and only upgrade the drives. This is not the way that I would personally address an upgrade unless I was forced due to a drive failure. My focus would be processor upgrade (yes and all the goodies preceding such an upgrade) and my drives would be the last of my considerations. Your current MB does not support M.2, you may be able to use it through an adapter card but this topic is more complex than a simple storage solution question. I would encourage you to abandon your storage upgrade in favour a new PC upgrade come back to the drives last.
  12. Hi, Running programs from the second partition is not ideal due to performance loss of data being placed further from the faster outside edge of the disks platter. Not a cardinal sin as you likely have already experienced, it works, it just isn't optimal. Your upgrade choice is good with OS on SSD and FSX and other on SATA. You want FSX loaded on the SATA first. You can partition that disk and have storage on the partition, this allows simpler and faster maintenance on the FSX drive for defragging. In order of best performance: 1. Everything on SSD (requires large enough SSD to accommodate and is subject to affordability). 2.OS, on SSD FSX on SSD (two smaller SSD's as opposed to one large one). This option is good if two smaller SSD's afford better price than single larger SSD. 3. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 10,000 RPM HDD through PciE professional controller card. 4. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 10,000RPM HDD. 5. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 7500RPM large platter HDD i.e. 1TB or larger. HDD may be partitioned with FSX installed to first partition. A secondary storage drive can be added to any of the above.
  13. My Q6600 ran FSX pretty good so I don't see anything here that would make it worst than that. :>)
  • Create New...