Simviation Forum - New Computer?

Reply #15 - Aug 23^rd, 2009 at 9:34pm

olderndirt Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender:
Posts: 3574

757200ba wrote on Aug 17^th, 2009 at 11:18pm:

With a PSU of 650w, and a 8800 gt or gts or gtx, i spend $300.For now i get 25 fps with mine in FS9 with 80% traffic and with Aerosoft pro airports and pmdg, level D and so on

Excuse me for butting in. I have a thread here in 'hardware' but it's been quiet. Right now I'm running FS9 with a single core Intel P4 and a non-upgradable 340W PSU so I'm going the 'barebones' route to upgrade. Right now I'm looking at a 650W quality PSU, probably one of the 8800 cards but which Intel CPU/motherboard/RAM combo, keeping in mind strictly for FS9. Any and all advice will be appreciated.

THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Aug 24^th, 2009 at 12:34am

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

SubZer0 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Taken just now on my i7 system:

Asyoucansee,all4coreswerebeingused...Theyallaveragedoutatabout80%,Core0(1stcore)beingthemoststableThatwaswithautogensettoVERYDENSE,overLondon,withFPSlockedat30,nostuttersWHATSOEVER...Idareyoutotrytogetthatperformancewiththesamesettingsasmine(notjustautogen,buteverythingelse)onadualcore

SubZerO,Icannotresistadare.IseeinyourscreenthatyourFPSrateissetatunlimitedandyouaregettingabout28FPS.IthinkImentionedsometimeearlierthatIwasrunningbothmydualcorePCaswellasmynewi7920andcomparingtheirperformance.Theysharemymonitor,keyboard,mouse,printer,andflightcontrols.BothPCsrunFSXwiththesamesettings-maxedoutexceptforwater,LightBloom,andgroundvehicletraffic.AsforyourTaskManager,I'mnotknowledgeableenoughtointerpretit.HoweverIdidreadsomewherethatFSXSP1didnotsplituptheprocessingequallyamongthefourcoresratherabout90%tocore0withtheremainingdividedupbetweentheremaining3cores.Ireallywouldliketoknowthetruthaboutthis.Nowabouttakingyouuponyourdare.ThefirsttwoscreensbelowweretakenfrommytwocorePC.MyFPSinthelondonarearunsbetween15and35.Thelasttwoscreensweretakenfrommyi74corePC.ForbothscreenstheFPSexceeds40.BothPCshavetheirFPScountersetatunlimited.AsamatterofinterestifIturnedofftheFPScounterinboth,itwouldbehardtotellanydifferenceinflyingaircraftaroundtheLondonarea.TwoCoreCPU-3GHzwithGTX8800172FlightoverLondonat21.5FPS[IMG]http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj430/signalcorps/fsscr057.jpg

172 flight over Big Ben at 31.3 FPS

i7 920 Four Core over-clocked to 3.72 GHz with GTX 285

172 Flight over London at 41.4 FPS

Twin Beech Flight over London at 45.2 FPS

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Aug 24^th, 2009 at 8:15pm

SubZer0 Offline
Colonel
KLNA

Gender:
Posts: 3882

Flight Ace,

I neglected to mention that I'm using the FPS limiter tool for FSX, and have it set at 30fps. For it to work correctly, the FPS in-game has to be set to unlimited. So, although the game shows it set to unlimited, the FPS limiter I use is limiting it to 30fps, allowing for a smooth, stutter-free flight locked at 30fps Wink

Had I not been using the FPS limiter tool, those shots I'm sure would have exceeded 40 FPS without trouble.

On the first two shots, your dual core managed to get 21.5 fps and 31.5, both on unlimited. The i7 would have pulled 40+ on each of those shots set to unlimited, with the right video card and memory.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Aug 24^th, 2009 at 9:19pm

757200ba Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender:
Posts: 516

I dont think im confused.YOU ARE.
See the graph on the first core and compare it with others.
I know, you might not see, that the first one is stable and the others go to a high and then down.
Your photos dont mean anything.They just show that one of the cores works more than the others like it was said by one of the posts.Try on Heathrow with full traffic.Not over London at 2000ft where autogen had made all the work.Thats why you have 41 fps and then they go down to 31 and 21fps as you fly low.And i believe that sometimes you have like 70 to 80 fps, at 20000 ft or something like that.And could you give me a reason why to set fps to unlimited?When your eyes only see 24, and you want your pc to go in highs and lows?And if you use 30 limit, why it goes to 41 and 45???.
There are not CONFUSED people here.Just "poor curious" trying to help.WITH AVERAGE MACHINES
TC Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Aug 24^th, 2009 at 11:48pm

SubZer0 Offline
Colonel
KLNA

Gender:
Posts: 3882

757200ba wrote on Aug 24^th, 2009 at 9:19pm:

I dont think im confused.YOU ARE.
See the graph on the first core and compare it with others.
I know, you might not see, that the first one is stable and the others go to a high and then down.
Your photos dont mean anything.They just show that one of the cores works more than the others like it was said by one of the posts.Try on Heathrow with full traffic.Not over London at 2000ft where autogen had made all the work.Thats why you have 41 fps and then they go down to 31 and 21fps as you fly low.And i believe that sometimes you have like 70 to 80 fps, at 20000 ft or something like that.And could you give me a reason why to set fps to unlimited?When your eyes only see 24, and you want your pc to go in highs and lows?And if you use 30 limit, why it goes to 41 and 45???.
There are not CONFUSED people here.Just "poor curious" trying to help.WITH AVERAGE MACHINES
TC Wink

Wow... LOL

Firstly, let's get one thing straight. I'm not trying to measure dicks with you or anyone here for that matter. I'm simply trying to prove a point. There is no reason for your "poor curious" self to attack me on these friendly, public forums. I refuse to step down to such a level in such a gentle place.

That set aside, let us continue with a friendly discussion.

TC, you must not have read what I wrote. Please look back and reread. I noted that the first core, at a constant rate, works more than the last 3. However, I also noted that there are times, some spans longer than others, that the last 3 cores are also working at or above 80%, along with the first core.

Besides your rant on the issues of the working cores, you seem to have insulted Flight Ace, whom I respect for discussing in a friendly way.

I will now answer to your questions and low-level remarks in order, starting here:
Quote:

.Thats why you have 41 fps and then they go down to 31 and 21fps as you fly low...

Flight Ace achieved 31 and 21fps when flying low using his dual core. When he (and I) used our i7 systems (quad cores), we both achieved 30+ fps, flying low.

No, I don't ever get 70-80fps anywhere, because I limit my FPS to 30 for smoothness. However, even if I didn't limit my FPS, I wouldn't achieve 70-80fps because I have Vsync enabled... Know what that is?

Yes, I can give you a good reason for which to set the FPS to unlimited: Every system is different. Some perform better with frames set to unlimited in terms of smoothness, and some perform better with it limited.

No, your eyes do not only see 24 fps:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Read that, don't just look at the pictures.

Flight Ace does not use the java FPS limiter tool that I use. Therefore, he achieved 41 and 45 fps with his sim set to unlimited. However, although I have it set to unlimited, I achieved 30 because I do use the java FPS limiter tool because my system runs much smoother that way (does not stutter).

I am not arguing with Flight Ace. He has a quad-core system and knows what it can do compared to the dual core, shown by the pictures his last post in this thread.

You, however, are a different story. Should you decide to come back with a sly remark such as to point me out directly and call me "confused," I will know better than to waste my time explaining facts to someone who refuses to accept the truth.

EDIT:
As for your request to fly over Heathrow, I have attached this picture showing my performance over a big airport hub with heavy traffic:

... a healthy 26fps

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Aug 25^th, 2009 at 11:17am

757200ba Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender:
Posts: 516

PLEASE BE CAREFULL WITH WORDS YOU USE.
ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG.AND YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CANT READ.YOU STATE YOUR POINT AND DEFEND IT.WICH I THINK ITS CORRECT.I RESPECT THAT I DONT THINK I HAVE OFFENDED NOBODY.AND IF YOU READ THE POSTS YOU COULD SEE THAT ON THAT POST and i said that my "know how" on multi cores is limited.I just stated what i read.Never i wanted to offend nobody.Or being agressive with " WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA FROM"And when you talk (and this you can take to the bank) DONT GENERALISE.Talk for your self and dont try to speak for anyone, after all we all want to learn.
My statement about eye fps was..movies are at 24 fps and they look good if you could have your sim like that you would be happy, so you would not need more. If miss understood, sorry.The human eye is not only limited to those 24, i just used as an reference (if miss understood, IM SORRY)

And let me tell you this.You have a WONDERFUL machine, and its very good material, some very expensive.To the point that some of us cant reach (but that is MY problem), but believe me in what I TELL you, after spending the money I would feel a bit frustrated having Heathrow (default) with 25fps at a 1000ft.And i will tell you why.From where i stand i see its the default Airport ,and i can count 3 airlines (BA, Virgin, BMI),and if at a 1000 ft you get 25fps, how many you get at the gates ( this is a question, not being ironic).Once again, I tell you.I dont know much about multi core, but i can also can tell you, that there are many guys saying that its not worthy. Now to a person that have MONEY, that doesnt matter they buy what THEY read, and they work their way up to get good configurations.I never said that your cores would not work on FSX, what i said and Flight ace said the same.FSX will USE 90% one of them and 10% the others, and I ASKED if that was a patern, if it was always like that.And i think everybody that read that could think: Ok if in a quad core, only one core is used 90% and the other 10% are used on the other cores ( this is not my statement, but i find it very interesting, because i want to learn) what is the advantage ( FOR FS not other aplications).
So that leves the questions:
Should i buy a quad core for FSX? Even knowing that the other 3 cores will only use 3.3333 ( yes i used the calculator)of the work load?
Or there is something else that is going on?

Sub Zero if i ever offended you in anyway, or ANYBODY here, IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION, AND IM SORRY ALL IF I OFFENDED ANYBODY.

LEt me even tell you this my fs machine is a dual core at 2.8 i dont even know what is the true speed on that. Is it 2.8+2.8=5.6 (no calculator used Wink

) or its 2.8/2=1.4.

Once again Im sorry if i offended anybody.And please keep posting i have learned with you many things. Wink

I dont know how to take pictures and post them. So i could show you, what my average machine do.I have 20 fps with Heathrow Pro and 80% with AI traffic, and dynamic at 80% to.And for me that works, but i can also tell you when i use a certain 757 my fps drop to 4,5 when loading the virtual cockpit, i solve the problem on not using the VC. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Aug 25^th, 2009 at 11:51am

SubZer0 Offline
Colonel
KLNA

Gender:
Posts: 3882

TC,

I highly respect that last statement. I am now clear about your intentions in this thread. Thank you, and no hard feelings on either side.

Firstly... the human eye FPS issue is not really fully understood. I can tell you, however, that in FS I notice a huge difference between 24 and 30 fps... I've tried it lots of times, believe me! Grin

In other games, such as Crysis, or Call of Duty, 30 fps is considered very low and very choppy gaming... 40+ however, is seen as smooth game-play. As you read on that link, it depends on so many things...

Yes, having a quad-core is a big gain over a dual-core. You, Flight Ace and I are all correct that the last 3 cores don't work as much as the first one (on a constant rate), but the point is that they are still there and they are indeed working at all times. Windows Task Manager isn't so accurate on showing core usage, so that picture I showed earlier is just an idea, but it is very incorrect. In reality, the numbers of core usage are much, much higher.

On a dual-core, I believe it is the same. The first core always works more than the second core, but the second still works. On a quad-core, you still have 2 more cores than a dual-core, and they DO make a difference in performance. It's the same thing as having 2 more workers.

As for that image I took over Heathrow, I also get the same FPS (26) at the gate and while taxiing. Wink

As for your dual core speeds... it's neither. It's just basically having 2 processors both working at 2.8ghz. They both work separately.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Aug 25^th, 2009 at 2:50pm

757200ba Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender:
Posts: 516

The reason i use 20fps is, that i used unlimited before.Sometimes i had them like 80 to 90 fps in some parts or views.But as soon i changed the views, the fps would drop to 29 to 45.When caming from those values, i could see those stops.Now (this is my experience) when set to 25 evenwith those drops, believe it or not i cant see the diference.
So on a 28GHz dual there are 2, 2.8 working?Ok that i can understand.I will dig deeper anyway.
Once again many thanks. Wink

By the way have you tried this, well this is for duals, but anyway i discover this in a forum, try on yours i will try on mine.

"I've read this from a free download this morning, so I thought I'd post it on here for those that dont know.

Dual core processors: FS9 allegedly doesn’t take advantage of the second processor.
But here is a neat trick how to force FS9 make use of both processors on a dual-core
system: Start Flight Simulator, load your flight in windowed mode, then press
Ctrl+Alt+Del to open the Windows Task Manager. Click the "Performance Tab" and
observe that FS9 is only using one processor. Unless you have tons of other programs
running, the left window will show a heavy load, the right graph a very low load. Click on
"Processes" and look for "fs9.exe" (if you click on "Mem Usage" it should be the first or
last item). Right-click "fs9.exe" and select "Set Affinity". Remove the check mark from
one CPU. Close the window, then repeat the process and select both CPUs again. FS9 will
now spread the workload over 2 processors. You should notice
a marked difference in performance. If this does not work on your PC, contact Microsoft
Support for the optional "dual-core hot fix".

http://flyawaysimulation.com/postt21628.html

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Aug 26^th, 2009 at 7:41pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

757200ba wrote on Aug 25^th, 2009 at 2:50pm:

The reason i use 20fps is, that i used unlimited before.Sometimes i had them like 80 to 90 fps in some parts or views.But as soon i changed the views, the fps would drop to 29 to 45.When caming from those values, i could see those stops.Now (this is my experience) when set to 25 evenwith those drops, believe it or not i cant see the diference.
So on a 28GHz dual there are 2, 2.8 working?Ok that i can understand.I will dig deeper anyway.
Once again many thanks. Wink

By the way have you tried this, well this is for duals, but anyway i discover this in a forum, try on yours i will try on mine.

"I've read this from a free download this morning, so I thought I'd post it on here for those that dont know.

Dual core processors: FS9 allegedly doesn’t take advantage of the second processor.
But here is a neat trick how to force FS9 make use of both processors on a dual-core
system: Start Flight Simulator, load your flight in windowed mode, then press
Ctrl+Alt+Del to open the Windows Task Manager. Click the "Performance Tab" and
observe that FS9 is only using one processor. Unless you have tons of other programs
running, the left window will show a heavy load, the right graph a very low load. Click on
"Processes" and look for "fs9.exe" (if you click on "Mem Usage" it should be the first or
last item). Right-click "fs9.exe" and select "Set Affinity". Remove the check mark from
one CPU. Close the window, then repeat the process and select both CPUs again. FS9 will
now spread the workload over 2 processors. You should notice
a marked difference in performance. If this does not work on your PC, contact Microsoft
Support for the optional "dual-core hot fix".

http://flyawaysimulation.com/postt21628.html

Glad you and SubZer0 worked things out. This forum is the greatest for gathering "how to" information. Prime example is the tid bit you left reference Dual Core processors. Now my question is, will this work in FSX?

Just as a matter of interest, yesterday I boot up FSX and find that my performance degraded by a factor of 2. Checked RAM sticks, settings in both FSX and CMOS, downloaded and installed the latest 285 driver, and then went through a mental checklist of anything else that I thought would affect performance. Nothing helped. As a last resort I uninstalled all FSX add-ons and then FSX followed by a clean install. This fixed all. Performance is back up as you can see in the following screens. FSX settings are as indicated in previous posts.

Takeoff from Heathrow at 50.9 FPS

Heathrow fly over at 32.6 FPS

Approach to London City Airport at 50.6 FPS

Landing and running off runway London City Airport at 54.1 FPS

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: