Simviation Forums

I know it seems like a stupid question, but when I go from 1gig(2*512mb) and add 2 gig (2*1gig) where should I see an improvement.

My system is an AMD 3800x2, with an evga 8600GTS superoverclocked graphics card.

I saw faster texture loading as I flew over terrain, and some slight fps increase.

best,

.................john

Yes mine did

more ram allows for more video card addressing, more information buffered for instant use and less hard drive activity, which is what kills any flight sim performance and makes stutters worse.

answer= yes

but keep in mind, that wont raise frames a great deal

when you see frames go up with more memory its not because the memory makes the frames go up its because the system is not busy loading stuff like it was before and can focus on other priority. Really higher frames come from the video card and cpu combo, mostly video card

If you are not running at least 2 gigs of ram in a Windows XP computer, you are missiing out. For Vista you need 3 or 4 to do the same job

Vista does not need 3 gigs. I run FSX the same way in Vista as I did in XP with two gigs. Vista does use more ram but FSX never used a full 2 gigs anyway.

I will hop in on this one

Wrong,

FSX will allocate 2gigs of memory if the system has 2 or more installed, 1gig if under 2 gigs, and will indeed use all of it if the OS is either x64, or, the 32bit OS is setup up with the proper boot switches or CMD instructions (vista) to increase the table size and accommodate the memory map over 2 gigs


As you push the sliders up and increase the radius the memory will increase and easily nudge go over 2gig even on a 32 bit OS but its most notable on the 64bit counterparts. You will start to use the page file when that happens if your limit is 2gig PM.



Vista needs 3 gigs to do what XP does with 2 in FSX, simply because of the overhead the OS itself places into the formula. Windows XP needs 512Mb to be effective as minimum, Vista needs 1GB, that and the differences FSX has in memory mapping in Vista, makes Vista eat 1 gig more to do the same job effectively.

I see what your saying Nick but I run same settings in Vista as I did in XP and see no performance loss or very little. It's not worth it for me to buy another gig for ddr1 anyway.

I support nick in the sense that vista requires alot, and I mean ALOT of RAM :-/