Video Card Advice

[harleyman]

I kind of doubt that the 6 core will do anything for FSX as its only built for 2 cores, and with the release of SDP1 will somewhat use a quad core..

BUT...lets hope anyways...LOL

 

[Major_Spittle]

View attachment 13467

Mine pegs out all four cores all the time. Things that really peg it out is modeling fire and smoke, dust on the ground, clouds, and vapor. Everytime I go to external view or pan around it loads up my CPU. Q9450 @ 3.6 GHZ

 

[harleyman]

Typically on a quad cores 2-3 just run textures...Its a big help though..

Have no clue how it will , and what it will run on 6 cores...

 

[Major_Spittle]

It was my understanding that SP1 updated the game to use the operating system's Job Scheduler to run textures. The operating system will assign work across all threads available (evenly if MS set it up that way for textures) which means all cores will be used. It should be easily confirmed by someone running an i7 processor if all 8 threads are being used by FSX while flying. I don't have an i7 so maybe some with one can verify this?

At least that is what I learn years back in computer nerd school.
I researched my own question and found this in another forum:

"Tried it here... i7 920 on evga x58, FSX SP2

0) With HT OFF in the bios I noted 4 'cores' 0,2,4,6 being used by FSX.

1) With HT on and NO AffinityMask set, I noted 4 'cores' 0,2,4,6 being used by FSX.
Same result as having HT off in the bios.

2) With HT on and AffinityMask = 255,
I noted all 8 'cores' 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX.

Loading times seemed dramatically fasted with HT ON and AffinityMask = 255
maybe just a perception at this point could have been other reasons, like cache being used,
but it was clearly faster for my quick test.

3) With HT on and AffinityMask = 254,
I noted cores 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX, core 0 was not used by FSX.
I noticed no difference from AffinityMask = 255 as far as load times or stuttering.

4) In areas were stutters happen, like Vancouver using Vancouver+,
I noticed no difference HT on or HT off.

Intel's i7 seems to be like a wild horse, that needs to be tamed.
It has raw power, but it's misunderstood and tempermental
The chips run very hot and need high voltage to get high clocks.

I think it will take a couple chip batches and MB revisions to get it stable and predictable.

FSX and i7 can be amazing at times but the stuttering when it happens seems to have more buck than the core setups did.

I'm still not convinced it offers much more for FSX than a quad core/duo setup would at 4GHz. "

it appears that my simple view of SMT is incorrect and not all CPU threads are the same. ( real vs. hyperthread ) I figured MS just broke up textures into X number of threads (simutaneously executable) and the Job Schedule took over from there and sent them to all available threads on the CPU.

This appears not to be the case. I guess this is another wait and see.

 

[harleyman]

LOL.


I honestly don't know how it all will go myself....

But I think I read all that from NickN a while back too!

I too am wanting to know the deal once and for all...

Thatks for reminding me of that thread...

 

[kilo delta]

From my understanding of things FSX was, from the outset, never developed to fully utilise multiple processor cores (the services packs were only to help out texture loading on duals/quads)...and to make this possible would require the game code being completely re-written. I'm sure that this would have been top of the list to be addressed in FSXI.

 

[txnetcop]

I've tested every i5 board, and i5 CPU, and I've tested every i7 and i7 board now available to the public for FSX. If you all you do is fly FSX/FS9 you may as well just stay with Penryn. The frame rate gains are about 5-7 and that's it. Penryn (Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad) does a fairly good job of handling the wonky programming of FSX. But if you play other games that have come out lately ya gotta love the i7 Cores!
Ted

 

[buzzbee]

Would an ATI 4890 be a significant upgrade over a 4850 for FS X?

Flying from London TO Melbourne with the Sim-Outhouse ROund the world gang and stumbled onto these threads. Lots of good information



Thanks

BB

E7200
ATI 4850 512
2GB DDR 800
ABIT IP-35

 

[harleyman]

Would an ATI 4890 be a significant upgrade over a 4850 for FS X?

Flying from London TO Melbourne with the Sim-Outhouse ROund the world gang and stumbled onto these threads. Lots of good information



Thanks

BB

E7200
ATI 4850 512
2GB DDR 800
ABIT IP-35

Well yes and no...Its a much better card for sure...

But your ram is the main hinderence with just 2 gigs along with youe E7200 if its stock clocks...

 

[buzzbee]

Typo'd my Processor

It is an E7300 running at 3.2 Ghz

The RAM is the weak part of my OC, I am sure. IN WIndows XP will 4 gigs make much of a diff in FS X is the OS only sees 3 gigs?

 

[harleyman]

Yes it will make a difference in Vista....


It will then show 3.4 or so , but it still uses the ram installed..It just does not show what the OS is using .....

 

[txnetcop]

Would an ATI 4890 be a significant upgrade over a 4850 for FS X?

Flying from London TO Melbourne with the Sim-Outhouse ROund the world gang and stumbled onto these threads. Lots of good information



Thanks

BB

E7200
ATI 4850 512
2GB DDR 800
ABIT IP-35

If you are looking for more frame rates you may be disappointed. My HIS HD4850 Turbo ICEQ4 Overclocked is as fast as an HD4890 and the texture backfill looks identical, however the Sapphire HD5850 I had tested a couple of months ago does provide a few more fps and texturing is very nice. Because it is a 1GB VRAM video card it works especially well with Quad Cores.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102857

The price is hard to beat too.

I have to put a plug in for the Nvidia GTX260/275/285 these are great cards as well combined with quad cores. I just wish Nvidia could get their freakin' drivers right!!!!
Ted

 

[FOO FIGHTER]

I could use some advice on what would be the best upgrade for my system. I'm currently using the specs recommended by Harlyman's "beginner's guide to FSX set-up". I average 20-25 FPS and under 10 FPS when things get heavy. I believe my system could do better than this and I'm a little confused on how to improve FPS. Would upgrading the vid-card make much more of a difference? Recommendations?

Biostar A770+ motherboard
AMD Phenom 9600 Quad Core 2.3GHz
8.0 GB Low Latency Patriot DDR2 (2 GB x 4 sticks), 800 MHz Dual Channel
Windows 7 64 bit OS (upgraded from Vista 64)
Nvidia FX 9400GT (1 GB) DDR2 PCI-E

 

[stansdds]

Your CPU is running at 2.3 GHz. To me, that seems slow for FSX. Have you tried overclocking the CPU? I know I got a big increase in FPS when I bumped my Core2Duo from the stock 3.0 GHz up to 3.6 GHz. I went from 24 fps (12 in heavy areas) to 30 fps (15 in heavy areas).

 

[hey_moe]

I think a lot of this has to do with which plane you are flying, what is running in the back ground, and what type of add on scenery you have installed. I might be wrong here but I never have had any luck with a processor settings below 3.0. Any thing above that will help. Being since I too have a quad core I have also found out that FSX hardly touches the third and fourth cord. I have found out for me at least to get all the candy eye I want and to fly a jet I need to OC mine to 4.0 and above. At 4.8 my system comes unstable. I noticed when flying a prop plane I have no skipping or stuttering, as soon as I fly a fast jet I have problems with anything below 4.0. Sometimes I feel no matter what you do or have when you go to New York, Washington...ect..ect... for some reason your FPS still have a drop at the airports, once you leave the airport areas things seem to settle down a bit.

 

[FOO FIGHTER]

Would it be safe to say that the RAM and the quad core are overkill for the motherboard? Maybe swap it out for something above 3.0 Ghz to see any improvement? I don't want to get into OC just yet for the simple reason that I don't really know what I'm doing.

I understand what you're saying Moe. It just seems that no matter what tweaking I do the FPS always tanks. I want to enjoy the add-on scenery without it looking like a Picasso painting. I feel like I'm missing out . . . it's really frustrating.

 

[hey_moe]

I feel the MB,processor and memory makes the biggest difference. The video card helps some but the processor is the main thing in my book. Some guys in here buy a faster processor and either put it on a old MB or a board that just can't really do what it needs to do. I do some video editing and the quad core gets a good work out. All four cores are used. To really get a computer to talk to you like ya want it to every component has to be matched up right including the power supply. The system I have now pretty much holds it course for me right now.It's getting a tad bit old but I wanna hold off on things before I dump it. If you want to get the best kick for your buck and enjoy flying. Buy a 500gig hard drive and only put the OS and FSX and just your add ons...you should get it to do what every you want. Putting FSX on your main computer along with all the other programs to me is a waste. It is cheaper and better in the long run to buy a separate HD and just do gaming with it only...Mike

 

[FOO FIGHTER]

Thanks for the advice.

I think I'll just upgrade the board and run FSX on an external drive by itself until I can get a better rig.

 

[harleyman]

Whats up..

Hell Yea...ATI smokes Nvidia in FSX in smoothness and clairity of colors and all graphics IMO..