RAM upgrade... is this the right choice?

[machineman9]

alright, i run the V hog (hehe, vista isnt too hoggish actually) and i want to get better FPS.

now then, i have an ATi Radeon X1650 graphics card and 1gb RAM. would upgrading to 2gb RAM (will be dual channel afterwards) give me a higher FPS... it does, doesnt it?

can someone confirm

cheers

[Nick N]

It does not give you FPS, it gives the system more to work with so its not always busy dumping and refilling the memory, or worse, using the hard drive page file. So the performance increase you see (AND YOU WILL SEE IT) is because the system is not starved for memory.

If you do see a slight FPS increase it will be because the system can give the video card the attention instead of being busy disk thrashing. So to answer you question NO it will not give you 5-10FPS of video speed but it may give you 5-10 FPS WORTH of performance.

Understand?

You need 2 gigs of memory for FS9 and Windows XP regardless of anything else.

[Mictheslik]

You need 2 gigs of memory for FS9 and Windows XP regardless of anything else.

I'm running FS9 fine on 1 gig RAM  :-?

.mic

[machineman9]

You need 2 gigs of memory for FS9 and Windows XP regardless of anything else.

I'm running FS9 fine on 1 gig RAM  :-?

.mic

i ran it first time on 256mb


so, what exact bits of performance will get increased? i was under the blanket that it would make the thing run quicker with more RAM

[Nick N]

You need 2 gigs of memory for FS9 and Windows XP regardless of anything else.

I'm running FS9 fine on 1 gig RAM

[Nick N]

You need 2 gigs of memory for FS9 and Windows XP regardless of anything else.

I'm running FS9 fine on 1 gig RAM

[machineman9]

You need 2 gigs of memory for FS9 and Windows XP regardless of anything else.

I'm running FS9 fine on 1 gig RAM  :-?

.mic

i ran it first time on 256mb


so, what exact bits of performance will get increased? i was under the blanket that it would make the thing run quicker with more RAM

Do you remember what FS9 ran like with 256MB of memory?


Ok, well, with 2 gigs instead of 1 you wont see the massive change you saw going from 256mb ot 1gb, but you will see a increase


If you want FPS for sure, buy a better video card

it didnt run all too bad actually... no idea why im running 1gb!

but im still confused on what the RAM would improve in the game...

[Nick N]

If you could not tell the difference between 256mb of memory and going to 1gb when flying FS9, or, if you dont think there was that much improvement then dont waste your money on 2gb

Something in that system is not set up right if you did not get a major visual/blur and scenery improvement adding 768MB of memory




I am not going to type up the technical aspects to what memory does. In a nutshell the system does not have to load information from the disk while you are flying and instead it is loaded into the memory for instant 'millisecond' use. Less stutters, less blurs and much better distance scenery

[machineman9]

it was also about a year since i played FS9 on 256mb.... so then the only difference i can remember is the graphics, and boy they were poor

[Nick N]

it was also about a year since i played FS9 on 256mb.... so then the only difference i can remember is the graphics, and boy they were poor

OK, now we are getting somewhere

there you have it... If you increase the memory you can expect to see better quality scenery with less stutters and smoother flight

FRAMES come from the video card but they can be hindered if the system is busy loading files from the hard drive so adding memory removes that and allows the video card to have the CPU resources to make frames

[machineman9]

i meant i had an integrated graphics card back then, and now i have a dedicated  :)

so, it would be able to load the scenery/more scenery without straining my system as much. isnt that a FPS boost though? the more scenery, the slower it goes for me... so more RAM=can handle more scenery, so it would increase the FPS too

right?

[Nick N]

[quote]i meant i had an integrated graphics card back then, and now i have a dedicated

[machineman9]

for some odd and interesting reason, i only have Physical Memory, Kernal memory and System... no Commit....


ill run this test though (once you tell me what i should be looking at) and then we'll be able to see the solution to this

-thanks so far too, its been a good help

[Nick N]

for some odd and interesting reason, i only have Physical Memory, Kernal memory and System... no Commit....


ill run this test though (once you tell me what i should be looking at) and then we'll be able to see the solution to this

-thanks so far too, its been a good help

OK, look and see of any of those have the word PEAK in them


another way to do it but not quite as accurate is use the PHYSICAL MEMORY (K) area... when the flight is finished DONT exit FS9, just drop to the desktop, bring up the task manager and look at AVAILABLE under the PM (k) heading. If that has dropped to 150 or less, you can bet you are thrashing the disk


the problem with that area is it may go up a bit and tell you there is more available than there is by just dropping to the desktop or ending the flight at an airport that is not busy. It depends on what is happening in FS9 at the time you check it. that is why I prefer the PEAK value. I dont know why COMMIT CHARGE is not available in your task manager. I do not use Windows HOME products so it may be a difference the home version of Windows has over the pro series.

[machineman9]

hmm, ill make a print screen just before i do it, and then one after flying... it will give any information on CPU, memory and all that before and after


ill post pics in a while. now, to make like a bird and fly