sillyflyer

Did Les give you the quantified data you were after in respect to NVMe vs SATA SSD and P3D?

YeS!  From the reaction I definitely nailed it for you. You do this all the time.

Take a vacation and build that system with unshared NVMe!     You will not regret it. I think Les tried to suggest the same thing.

So long!   I'll bow out of this thread now. All I post is uneducated tripe        typical around here  

Oh goodness...  that IS crazy stupid!!! I AGREE

You definitely appear to know what you are doing!

I can't address yours or anyone else's country crazy taxes or import fees. That wasn't the point. The point was knowing how to select true memory performance over the memory manufactures marketing con jobs and quite frankly these VAT or other BS taxes and fees along with sellers knowing they can stick it to certain country markets is quite sickening.

I don't know what the timing is on your DDR4 3600 for that price but if its C18+ you should have run with 3200 C14-15. Apparently you are restricted in seeking out memory options due to excessive cost in your location which sucks.

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232981?Description=F4-4000C15D-16GTRG&cm_re=F4-4000C15D-16GTRG-_-20-232-981-_-Product&quicklink=true

 Contact someone in the USA to get them from Newegg.com and have them shipped to you stashed in a gift basket. Even if the person did it for 150 US bucks I would still take that deal in a heartbeat for what you get ripped off for up there!

Hey Les...   good calls. If that 3600 memory is running C16-16-16 you have top end system. If not it depends on the memory timing however C17 is not terrible, just not hitting the full potential.

as for top level performing DDR4 4000 being stupid dumb expensive..   sorry, not always and not when it is truly top level performance: https://www.gskill.com/qvl/165/166/1580449157/F4-4000C15D-16GTRG-Qvl

I actually bought those recently for 295.00 to replace the DDR4 4133 C-17-17-17 (which I will keep as spares) that at the time cost 400.00 a year or so back, in which they were not a bad purchase for performance at the time. Those 4000 15-16-16 sticks will smoke the DDR4 4133 sticks in performance for 100 bucks less. This is the basic lesson about memory most need to learn and unfortunately it will be an never ending ignorantly based argument.

@ Noel, I appreciate your somewhat scientific curiosity, however I would suggest you stop questioning very obvious modern hardware spec/value VS performance and get on the bandwagon. While everyone else is seeing the real advantages you're sitting there getting left in the dust. It will save you a lot of obsessive time and get you where you want to be if you simply stop trying to quantify data, realize you never will....  and enjoy!!

As for storage device or video adapter sharing, I never do it regardless of IRQ efficiency. I would put my money into a motherboard that has a M.2 socket that I would avoid sharing with any other port, and make sure it is properly cooled. Also, many motherboards support a NVMe drive on a PCIe card than can be run from PCIe x16 (or x8) slot #3. Of course you must research that slot properly to be sure the NVMe drive is not only bootable from there, but also will not share (interfere) with any other drive or PCIe device.

Good luck all!!

It is not possible to know what memory amount will be best for the new simulator until it is out and in it's full available format, however I can not see a company trying to reach a very large market optimizing their product for machines with 32-64GB of memory. That would toss them into a situation where the average person who would make up their largest market not be able to run the product to satisfaction without buying hardware that is uncommon outside of high end systems today.

as for the M.2 inquiry,..  M.2 in the correct port (without sharing) and with Windows installed on it clean, runs far faster than any SATA port SDD. They do run very hot so it is best to make sure the M.2 socket has a good heatsink for the stick and perhaps include a small fan blowing over it.

33 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Or a little research to use the experience of others!

As long as you know how research to choose the right experience to follow ….  if not then you may be blindly following into a pit because they read really good..   absolutely!

EDIT: ...and that would include anyone who may follow my advice. Until they run the numbers. If they can.

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 8:49 AM, ryanbatcund said:

I wouldn't say no to 64 if you're planning on getting the new sim.

Then you may need some schooling.

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2020 at 12:05 PM, G-RFRY said:

Have you noticed when testers like 8pack, Roman ,Kingpin , go for a OC record they only use I stick of ram less load on the CPU.

Absolutely..  you see very well

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 10:55 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

But I'll probably be able to improve the timings a little at a lower frequency ... goal is 4400Mhz CL17-21-21-40.

I would not waste the money or the time with that overpriced memory. Average 400+ bucks per 16GB? I honestly hope you did not spec that for a client to 'attempt' a 'probably' tweak.

Although you are correct in the thought that dropping the speed and the timing (in the right way) will significantly increase its performance,.. however this memory model option will match, or, smoke it out of the box without the monetary corn-H job, or the hours of tech work for 100 bucks less per 16...  F4-4000C15D-16GTRG 15-16-16-36

Of course in how this works with the memory manufactures, what you received could be the same or very similar memory, they simply sold 4800MHz 18-23-22-42 thinking not many can calculate their game past the DDR speed and the 1st CL timing value but folks are willing to spend the money on that awesome looking DDR speed, or bang their heads trying to get it to work, on a lower CPU speed if necessary...   they got the money, they don't care!

As was posted above by Avidean:

My DDR4 is 4400 C18

1/((4400/2)/1000) x 18=  8.18ns

This formula ONLY works for outlining performance on paper if tRCD and tRP are the same as CL, OR, no more than one, perhaps 2 values HIGHER for each than CL. Past that requires a lot more formula than what is shown above and such an increase in timing values will never equal the performance of consistent FAB-4  i.e.; C18-18-18, C17-17-17, C16-16-16

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2020 at 11:59 AM, sillyflyer said:

 Therefore PURCHASING the right memory out of the gate and spending the money on it,.. is the right move to make.

Of course that also requires years of documented successful experience.

Quote

Aida64 I am looking at 39.8ns.

I would say that you should be -very satisfied- with that result as long as the system is stable in torture tests. Money aside, you are getting what you paid for. Its hard to swallow the cost but you are correct, we pay for top end procs, SSD and NVME drives and clock the CPU. Not matching that with high speed low timing memory that makes solid use of that clocked CPU is silly.

Unfortunately the 'bling' and lights comes with the products today. The memory manufactures do significantly overcharge for memory they know is very fast and will be sought after by those who are in the know. That makes it easier for them to charge more for memory that looks faster in speed, but actually isn't, they rake in the profit both ways. Unfortunately the person who bought into the marketing end instead of paying for the 'real-deal' does not nor will ever know what they are missing and simply assume they would pay far too much for nothing and tell everybody else the same thing.

Tuning memory from its rated specifications may or may not be possible. The secondary and tertiary timing can also be tuned with DDR4 but is not something most folks can do.

EDIT: We cant 'tune' memory on CL/CAS alone, TRUE, but we can purchase memory on timing/speed specifications that by default will obtain 90-95% of the result out of the box. 'Tuning' memory is reserved for those who are trained experts, or, those who are savvy enough being around the overclock hobby to know how to do it right, securing a stable system end result. Therefore PURCHASING the right memory out of the gate and spending the money on it,.. is the right move to make.

I would also caution about lights and the disco look in towers. The windows software to run those bling items can and usually does place a very large footprint on the system and can be the source of sim stutters and pauses. I would not install or use such software at all.

Thanks for making the point...  now, if your memory latency in a real time test benchmark is 43ns or less at that speed, then you are in the 'zone' for well considered memory hardware.

I know those others I listed are not... not even close

32 minutes ago, w6kd said:

The most discernible performance difference I can point to between fast and not so fast memory with ESP-based sims can be seen when dealing with heavy autogen areas like the western LA basin in Orbx SoCal, or the stock Seattle or Tokyo metro areas.  On a fast 6+ core CPU, neither CPU nor GPU will be likely be maxxed out, but with a better memory subsystem (which includes fast RAM, as much L3 cache as you can get on the CPU, and a strong IMC) the stutters which plague those areas smooth out tremendously.  Whether that's worth it or not depends on what/where you fly and how you value that smoothness if you frequent these sorts of trouble spots.

 

People who buy, in example, DDR4 3600-4000 C19-19-20 and paid for the marketing DDR4 (4000) speed instead of understanding how latency works in relation to the CPU, actually bought DDR4 2800-3200 C18-19 and assume from there. A 1gnorant statement of 'you pay too much for nothing OR nearly nothing' is in fact correct, at least for them. 

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

I don't agree with the blanket approach of stuffing a bunch of unneeded RAM into a system, any more than I would tell someone to put 50TB of disk storage on their computer "just because."

If you overclock and use high-performance RAM (something I think is underemphasized in designing a high-performance system), you're not likely to get as much memory bandwidth when putting more modules in, or layering more on the DIMMs themselves, as it puts more stress on the IMC, and imposes some timing constraints due to the variance in response across a larger number of devices.  If you look at 4 DIMM 32GB kits, you'll find that the top-rated kits are significantly slower (lower clock speed and/or higher CAS latency) than the top-rated 2-DIMM 16GB kits.  And 4-DIMM 64GB kits, even slower still.

 

https://youtu.be/FUVDt11-55c?t=98

….   Deleted

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

no one has conclusively shown any benefit of HT to any flightsim. Off or on, it is indistinguishably irrelevant to performance.

 

Exactly!   Shut HT down, if you overclock, take the CPU speed HT enabled WONT allow due to heat

...and please,.. use a 3rd party application (if that is what you need to do) to assign outside apps to lower number cores!

There are no less than 2000 posts associated with AFFINITY MASK, and I would venture to say at least 150 threads that include 100-200 individual posts that suggest: "I AM AN EXPERT, HERE IS THE GRAPH"...................................... nonsense

Purchase the K  "KAY" CPU. Even if you shut HT off in the BIOS you have a larger cache available with a piece of silicone that is designed to run BETTER, STRONGER, FASTER

M*A*S*H  -   THAT IS ALL

I would suggest everyone here, listen to jabloomf.. and Mr. Scott

I can vouch for Mr. Scott.. he knows what he is talking about

Everybody loves Scotty!

...  it's just fun guys

but don't buy into this Affinity Mask nonsense  ..  

9 hours ago, w6kd said:

 

If I had to lock a $900 10-core i9 to run at only 20 fps I'd be fighting the desire to stick my head in an oven.  😉

 

I seriously want to print this out and frame this quote

This AM stuff and all the song and dance that has gone with it here with graphs and jiggle lines,.... has surpassed ridiculous

Semper Fye!...   (correct pronunciation)

12 hours ago, GSalden said:

No AM , no HT

Rob A has a 7900x and he had the best performance/smootness without custom AM and without HT.

Myself , I have a 7940x and the same for me : no custom AM and no HT

After all the time (In years) you have diligently tested Gerard, I am glad to see you came up with the correct assessment.  bravo!

12 hours ago, vgbaron said:

Ditto - I have a 7700k and use no AM or HT - I get my best results with that setting.

 

Vic

You always knew this old man..  

Live Long, and Prospect!

..or prostate if you are over 75      :}

15 hours ago, w6kd said:

If you like the prospect of having Microsoft force updates on your PC that can break your sim, then go for WIndows 10.  They did exactly this in Oct of last year and it took until Dec to get a fix in place...plus they force driver updates that can cause issues.  You have to go to great lengths to stop the auto-updates from surprising you. 

The only reason I would ever recommend you update is if you upgrade to a new CPU/chipset that doesn't support Win 7.  Win 10 has given me many hours of throbbing headaches, and it does not function any better as an OS base for FSX or P3D than Win 7.  Why risk it on a currently functioning machine?

Regards

 

Most refreshing to read this. Semper Fi

Sir

OK,... I'll stick to the rules, this time..   Just hav'in fun fella's 

Jen has my number, don't mind me.

Lets see...  a issue no one has ever heard of was reported say 40 minutes ago, but was fixed by completely rewiring (how can you rewire?) the motherboard and even if we assume it was a ground problem and the board was removed and reinstalled...  it was done in record time even for the best of the best while still posting here at the same time.

I would say....

I might be wrong...  I cant decide 

Happy V.D!   (Valentine Day, get your heads out of the gutter!)

Randle McMurphy, the one and only

...and have a nice day!

16 minutes ago, sultanofswing said:

No one is brainwashed into anything so get that out of your head.
LM are introducing new features into the sim, they have some bugs yes but eventually they will be ironed out.  Technology advances and pushing the sim to new levels advances the sim and add on developers also, Without these new features added over time the sim would become stale.

 

Another thing about Windows 7, I loved it.  It was a great OS, but with newer hardware not supporting windows 7 it is getting hard to use it.   Most newer CPU's won't even work with Windows 7 anymore.

OK  whatever you say!  Thanks for reading my opinion. :)

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 11:11 PM, Dane Watson said:

I am posting in this forum mainly because I am seeking general feedback regarding P3D v4.1 before I make the purchase sooner than I was planning to.

FSX is mentioned in my subject only because Microsoft today has informed me that it is no longer compatible with Windows 10 since the Creators Update (now at version 1709) came out in September - I no longer can operate FSX-SE due to so many crashes and error messages. So after two months of struggling to make it work I have to surrender. Microsoft gave me two choices - go back to Windows 7 or eliminate FSX-SE and get a compatible flight simulator. After twenty years and much investment of MSFS I was devastated - but life does go on.

 

So my general question is - Is anyone aware of any issues with P3D v4.1 since the Windows 10 Creators Update came out?

Unfortunately most of this forum is brainwashed with Windows10 and Prepar3D v.X along with dynamic lighting and other nonsense the render engine really isn't quite ready to deliver efficiently.

Prepar3D will not be moving to DirectX 12 anytime soon and if you do not have any need for DX12 games, I suggest you hang onto Windows7 as long as you can. MS will support it for several more years.

It runs Prepar3D v4.1 just fine, just as well as Windows10, and, in Windows 10  you have to deal with video driver upgrades shoved down your throat automatically where lets say version 385.69 is the most stable right now, but Windows10 will (downgrade you) automatically just like MS downgraded your Flightsim installation, automatically.

Seriously..   if you are satisfied with your Flight sim install be it FSX box, FSXse,.. and are running SkyLake processor or under please do not let this forum or Microsoft steer you sideways. Stay with what works and it isn't Windows10 with P3D, well, that's another subject. Be ready to buy new hardware for literally nothing if you have a good/stable Flightsim FSX/FSXSe install today, or..  stay with Windows7 x64 and not be bothered with the Microsoft Windows10 drama for a few more years.

If you cant toss Windows10 for hardware reasons, that's understandable and unfortunate. They still sell the OEM system builder version if you can.

Of course there are some really big 3rd party developers as well as some Seattle Seahawks and Orlando Magic fans monitoring the forums who are red-faced and cussing me out behind the scenes right now. So much so, this post might disappear.

That's ok, .. wait, what's the term, oh that's right; "The truth shall set you free."

Good luck and may the force be with you, always

:)

47 minutes ago, w6kd said:

it was almost like a song...

I was looking for "wow" in all the wrong places...

:-)

 

and there you have it my friend  

Now, if I can just convince my daughter of the same thing!!  

Steve, I know what you mean

Do you want to read something really funny?, and not many here would admit or can even check since they dumped their older sim install.

I have P3D 3.4 and 4.1 installed

I also have FSX and FSX SE on my system and on rare occasions when I boot a flight into those sims, I realize what the words "totally fluid and floating" really mean. I come back to P3D 3.5 and 4.1 and realize what the term 'placebo' means.  And I thought I would know better without any compare.

I might not OOM anymore, but the WOW visual feeling of floating on air without a hiccup,... doesn't exist.

Perhaps its my older hardware even with lower slider settings in P3D?   4.7Ghz i7 @ GTX980     right

6 hours ago, pmb said:

Bingo. And medium in Prepar3d4 corresponds to maximum in Prepar3d3. Thus the net autogen improvement from Prepar3d3 would be - nil. That's exactly what Sillyflyer refers to.

Accoding to the LM thread, they got the issue and may look for improvements. I am afraid these would mean switching off some other features, though.

BTW, my autogen setting in the Prepar3d4 video linked to above was maximum.

Kind regards, Michael

We have a winner..  Johnny, tell him what he has won!  : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_I63kfg2g

3 hours ago, gboz said:

Don't worry, we get this sermon every now and again. :)

gb.

I'm sorry, you might mean; We get the reality of it all posted every now and then 

Salute!!

From there, its on the level of...  "Now, Go get your shine box"  

4 hours ago, Nemo said:

What you wanna say ?

Its called satire and I was using it to make a point. There is no question that improvements have been made over time. I purchased this platform again to find a lot of my extensive photoscenery collection does not look as good as it did and as the OP pointed out over tile scenery the autogen is popping into the scene.

It doesn't just pop in the distance either, the view direction can drive that. Looking one way for a period of time and then look back one can see autogen filling in where the entire radius should remain filled. It appears features were removed and priorities to the scenery render were changed in order to facilitate others. In v3 the autogen did fade even if the radius may not have been 25 miles out.

In order to render far enough out on a 4K and not notice it as much I have to either pull back on sliders, or, upgrade my system which runs v3 just fine other than the occasional OOMs that I have practically eliminated over time by using a sensible approach.

I was being facetious because coming from v3 into v4 what I see is that I may not have to deal with OOM anymore but like every other so called 'leap' in the past where I paid for the price of admission, again, I have had to upgrade the hardware and I am just not sure it is worth it this time, at least until very simple items that were working in v3 are fixed in v4, if they ever get fixed. From what I have been reading in other forums about the platform it appears they 'may be' reaching their limits.

It seems like every time something is added, something is taken away and the performance really hasn't changed that much for anyone running hardware that is not what would be considered outdated in other games. In that, I do not see much difference between 2017 and 2007 although today we have dynamic lights that will crush a top tier system into the ground,.. wait,  that 'sort of' happened in 2007 too with FSX and its new features.

Unlike P3Dv3,.. Alphafade was removed in P3Dv4 probably something to do with the extensive autogen radius they provided in which they thought because of the visual autogen radius distance, no one might notice. dumb but that was the trade-off.

If anyone tries to sell you on anything different..  I would say,,.   "Now, Go get your shine box"  https://tinyurl.com/ycoclc5p

Its mid September and no one gets this or sees it from a v4 release in May? 

Get used to it as well as high end photo scenery looking like ... dog...  poop

We all have to take the good with the bad. The good is, memory issues have been addressed... stability is better, no question, as long as you don't install anything that isn't 100% P3Dv4 compliant.

The bad is they had to rob Peter-to-Pay_Paul to add features not much else has changed AND some things got worse in the process (heard this back in 2006), but.,.  they are working on it!  At least there is a development crew at work

You Do need top tier hardware to render all the goodies and kill shimmers...  WOAHHH    wait, that hasn't changed! You needed that back in 20XX (02,04,06,08,10,11) too!

seriously    Think McFly, Think! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhJGOYJo9mM

The only difference between 2007 and 2017 is, .. you don't need to hack the primary config file with edits. You still need the top tier hardware for all the goodies and to get a clean image, and you will STILL suffer if you run over to top addons with hard hitting payware aircraft.... AND  they are still robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to bring new features to market.

In other words...  Its the same song, just a different tune. 

...and its all based on hardware and of course the crack addicts simmers who want the type of simulation the holodeck on the USS Enterprise would render and think it is (or can be) possible with home render hardware. Hasn't changed since 2004 and MS knew it back then. 

When they say have it figured out.... Pay them again!    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QblkQ-J6zio

Here is reality.. it will never happen with the ESP render engine no matter how much they tweak or fix it... , ever.

If they had had called EA Games in back in 2012.. things may be different today. Their market doe$n't require that development, and/or,  ...believe$ different.

Good luck and may the force be with you, always$!

Step right up, step right up!   
Click for right mood music

Spin the affinity mask wheel..   round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows.

Sometimes someone rattles off a good number, most of the time the number doesn't work.. but everyone tries, if, they find that number at all.

Then there are those who swear the number they had was awesome 6 months ago but for some strange reason, its not the same anymore.

That's right, step right up and lets calculate the affinity mask, only one to a customer.

<now back to the regularly scheduled program, already in progress unless someone has a 6 paragraph explanation with graphs about how affinity mask works and what number to use>  

....and then we will spin the wheel again!