Simviation Forums

Thinking about a Quad core. Anyone try one out with FSX yet. I'm trying to decide if 4 cores is better then 2 at the moment.

I love my Quad Core. It's great....

I also love my quad core.

I have two systems at home with dual cores in them.  If I count them together, do I have quad cores?    If so, then I love my quad cores as well.

Just get a quad. Period.

Yes, I am getting the x9650 quadcore, 3 gigs.  

Do all or any of you use the AffinityMask=15 tweak in the fsx.cfg to schedule the use of all the cores by the game?

Yes, I am getting the x9650 quadcore, 3 gigs.  

Do all or any of you use the AffinityMask=15 tweak in the fsx.cfg to schedule the use of all the cores by the game?

I use a utility called "SeeSaw Pro" to set affinities. I use it to first set all running tasks to use
CPU 0, then start FSX and assign it to CPU's 1-3. ( My preference )

The good thing about this utility is that you can set the affinity of System tasks. Something
TaskManager won't let you do.

   Paul

Just an FYI

The affinity mask setting in FSX does NOT completely reassign all tasks. In order to do that both the affinity mask in FSX and Windows must be set side by side.

At the same time since SP2 setting config file affinity mask is really not needed. SP2 fixed the last of the thread issues and the config affinity setting is not needed. However, add-ons like ASX and others that run beside FSX should be assigned in Windows to core3 (4th core of a Quad) in order to off-load core0 which FSX needs.

Setting affinity of 15 is only telling FSX what it already knows, which is to use all 4 cores.

Regardless of the reports or so called benchmarks, if you see a positive result in setting an affinity mask which restricts/redirects thread/core use it is because you do not have the system set up correctly to begin with, be it Windows, side programs running with FSX or FSX settings for the hardware installed.

Affinity mask in the config file is not needed anymore. Only setting affinity in Windows directly to support programs which run beside FSX has value



As for the original question... the fastest quad you can get. There is a trade off if you go with a slower quad. FSX sets its main dependency on the first core so the speed of that core has a profound affect on the results. If the choice is a slow quad core or a very fast dual core, go with dual. I consider the Q6600 the slowest quad but acceptable. FSX is night and day on the right processor and the right quad will not be a disappointment.

What about Phenom?

And also I run ASX on a dual core. Should I set the affinity to 0 or 1?

NickN and Gypsy Baron:  thanks for the helpful response.  The quadcore that I am installing is 3 gigs and the first of the 45nms dies.  Am I doing right - it is sold as the fastest of all (for the moment).

However, an idiot's question.  If SP2 now ensures all four cores are used without the scheduling addition to the cfg file, how do I assign a program like ASX to Core 3, the fourth core.

I am sorry, it is another cookbook question, or Naive Question number 98.

As Nick stated, the "Affinity Mask" option in the fsx.cfg file only affects thread scheduling; the core of fsx.exe will always be run on Core0...

To set the Affinity for any specific program in XP or Vista, use the Task Manager.

As Nick stated, the "Affinity Mask" option in the fsx.cfg file only affects thread scheduling; the core of fsx.exe will always be run on Core0...

To set the Affinity for any specific program in XP or Vista, use the Task Manager.

Not "always"....as I mentioned above, I use SeeSaw Pro and assign FSX to cores 1-3 and
ALL other processes to Core 0. That's just the way I prefer to do it at the moment.

And Taskmanager will NOT let you change the affinity of system processes.
SeeSaw pro will, thus I can place ALL running processes on whichever core I
decide I want them to use.

My FSX runs at an acceptable level on my Q6600 with core 1 generally around
60-80% utilization and cores 2-3 at 100% or less, depending on where I am
flying. There doesn't seem to be total consistancy with core utilization as in
the past I've seen "1" at 60% and 2-3 at 25-45%. That may have been before
I cranked my sliders to max or close to it.

    Paul

You should not need to change affinity on default system processes. Windows does just fine in that area.

Its the installed programs that can create issues and yes, sometimes those are not available to set affinity without 3rd party software but that is very rare.

The bottom line is, if the system is set up for gaming there should not be any processes that need to be reassigned other than items booted with FSX for support.

Shifting normal default processes around has never netted any gain, mostly because they are designed to remain inactive unless called and have already been optimized by MS to prevent affinity issues.

there is very little in that area which needs to be messed with other than support processes for personalized FSX use


For ASX, bring up the task scheduler, processes tab, find XENGINE.exe in the list, right click, select SET AFFINITY and uncheck all cores other than the last (core3) on a quad, core1 on a dual.

-SNIP-
The bottom line is, if the system is set up for gaming there should not be any processes that need to be reassigned other than items booted with FSX for support.

Shifting normal default processes around has never netted any gain, mostly because they are designed to remain inactive unless called and have already been optimized by MS to prevent affinity issues.
-SNIP-

My machine is not totally a "gaming machine" and other than processes I know I do not
need or want running that I have permanately disabled or set to "manual" I don't
jump through any additional hoops vis-a-vis processes when starting FSX.

As to MS efficiency, I must say I  do not share your apparent trust in their ability
to "optimize" anything. A few minutes looking at FileMon ouput during FSX should
be enough to convince anyone that "optimization" is NOT a MS strongpoint....

Paul

Then again, one must believe the file searches displayed in filemon are really hindering a system or causing a problem. I read all about how people were changing the name of the aircraft.cfg files to sim.cfg and doing other things to make them feel better about the filemon display.



the only thing that slows down is initial boot and only if you may have a massive list of simobjects, otherwise past boot it has not impact whatso ever.

It would not have mattered anyway. Originally the configs were going to be sim.cfg but since all 3rd party would be aircraft.cfg, it didnt make any difference however I do agree they should have set it back to aircraft.cfg as the first/ primary search name.