computer performance question

[tymann0909]

alright, i have fsx and i have what i think is a decent computer and video card, heres what ive got...compaq presario new 200 gig hard drive, 2.2 gh proccesor, 512 mb ram, and the video card is an ATI Radeon 9250. also, i have just reloaded my computer. what else do i need to be able to play fsx with somewhat decent graphics without it lagging? or is there something wrong with my computer, like maybe the ram or the motherboard?

[ThePilot_Ace]

alright, i have fsx and i have what i think is a decent computer and video card, heres what ive got...compaq presario new 200 gig hard drive, 2.2 gh proccesor, 512 mb ram, and the video card is an ATI Radeon 9250. also, i have just reloaded my computer. what else do i need to be able to play fsx with somewhat decent graphics without it lagging? or is there something wrong with my computer, like maybe the ram or the motherboard?

That is a shit computer (no offense).. its completely outdated etc..

Buy a new one. FSX is CPU bias, a 2.2Ghz won't do; 512MB RAM is the bare minimum and an ATI 9250 is from the stone age.. You will not be able to get decent graphics without it lagging I'm afraid  :(

[ozzy72]

Pilot_Ace what are you talking about? This system will run FSX reasonably well. Don't expect super performance but it will cope. I know of people running FSX on PIII machines! That ATI card isn't all that bad. A little more RAM wouldn't hurt but things will run. The trick is not to set things to the max but twiddle with the settings in FSX to get them satisfactory. If you don't max out things like AI traffic and dynamic scenery you can get pretty good performance
Oh and Ace I'm using a PIII 1GHz, 512Mb RAM and a Ti4600. To you they may come from the ark but hey I can still get good performance out of my machine

[flaminghotsauce]

Oh and Ace I'm using a PIII 1GHz, 512Mb RAM and a Ti4600. To you they may come from the ark but hey I can still get good performance out of my machine

This is why I started the other thread asking if my machine will run FSX. I have an AMD1.1 ghz processor, an ATI radeon9800SE vid card an a gig of memory. If you're doing it on less that what I have, I should be able to run the X as well.

[Ravang]

I have 512 mb of RAM and i can tell you that your not going to max out anything really, I would at lest get a 1 gig of RAM (getting that soon)

[tymann0909]

pilot ace, not all of us have tons of money to spend/waste on computers, im only 15, i think what ive got is pretty good for a 15 year old....now for you others, i was thinkin of possibly getting a new mother board, with an intel celeron D 3.2 ghz OEM processor and then a gig of ram, if i got that stuff, would that increase the performance game and or of the graphics quality or if i want good graphics should i just buy the gig of ram and a real good video card. also, fsx works with what it says it works with, 1 ghz, 256 ram, and even an onboard video card, ya just have to have minamal graphic quality settings

[Black ZR-1]

Fire up the sim and click on settings. Select defualt values for all the settings. Like that, the sim will fly at it's best. It's up to you to mess around with the sliders to find out what's dragging you down and what's not.

Your system specs are good. Add another 512 of ram and you'll be even better.

[reider]

pilot ace, not all of us have tons of money to spend/waste on computers, im only 15, i think what ive got is pretty good for a 15 year old....now for you others, i was thinkin of possibly getting a new mother board, with an intel celeron D 3.2 ghz OEM processor and then a gig of ram, if i got that stuff, would that increase the performance game and or of the graphics quality or if i want good graphics should i just buy the gig of ram and a real good video card. also, fsx works with what it says it works with, 1 ghz, 256 ram, and even an onboard video card, ya just have to have minamal graphic quality settings

Please please please, I know money is crucial, but do not make the mistake of getting a celery (celeron)!  They are a lot better than they used to be but are just a cut down processor with either no cache or very little for the budget market.  The shops have them because they`re cheap n cheerful and make the prices look good.

I`ve seen them for around

[ozzy72]

I understood that dual-cores weren't working that brilliantly with FSX. Am I mistaken?

[ATI_7500]

I understood that dual-cores weren't working that brilliantly with FSX. Am I mistaken?

Nyet, tovarich.

[Daube]

I understood that dual-cores weren't working that brilliantly with FSX. Am I mistaken?

Read the thread with all the explanations from Nick_N somewhere inside the "FSX & SLI" thread.
The reality is that FSX does use dual cores, but not as much as it should. (only for some scenery loading, and other minor tasks at the moment, if I remember correctly)
One of the plots of the SP1 is to enhance the usage of the multi-core by FSX. So after that, a multi-core user will get normally (hopefully ? )more benifits that a single-core user.

[tymann0909]

what i was looking at was a combo of the motherboard and the cpu, for 140$ and then i was gonna get some ddr2 ram for it for 20 bucks(1 gig)

[reider]

I understood that dual-cores weren't working that brilliantly with FSX. Am I mistaken?

Read the thread with all the explanations from Nick_N somewhere inside the "FSX & SLI" thread.
The reality is that FSX does use dual cores, but not as much as it should. (only for some scenery loading, and other minor tasks at the moment, if I remember correctly)
One of the plots of the SP1 is to enhance the usage of the multi-core by FSX. So after that, a multi-core user will get normally (hopefully ? )more benifits that a single-core user.

..... and this one is not half going well already, lol.  Some you win and some you win more.

Reider

[justpassingthrough]

I understood that dual-cores weren't working that brilliantly with FSX. Am I mistaken?

Read the thread with all the explanations from Nick_N somewhere inside the "FSX & SLI" thread.
The reality is that FSX does use dual cores, but not as much as it should. (only for some scenery loading, and other minor tasks at the moment, if I remember correctly)
One of the plots of the SP1 is to enhance the usage of the multi-core by FSX. So after that, a multi-core user will get normally (hopefully ? )more benifits that a single-core user.

Ptaylor Published Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:29 PM
[quote]


Multi-core


As my blog post here stated, we do use multi-core today. We use it primarily during loading when our thread and fiber system used to schedule the various parts of the simulation are not so highly coupled. And various people have measured this.


What we don

[Nick N]

The dual core hotfix and the AMD processor optimizer do NOT set affinity to one core or the other. What they do is dynamically change timing as the processor is being poled. This allows a dual core under Windows XP (must be SP2 except WinXP x64 and Win2k 2003 Server in which it works with SP1) have full function but are simply optimized during use.

Prior to that hotfix or the processor optimizer, setting affinity manually removed any of the applications ability to use both cores and was the only method to overcome the timing issue. 3D applications force the bypass of the Windows API for timing by directly using the Read Time Stamp Counter instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for the affect which a processor core's Time Stamp Counter is incremented. The hotfix and the optimizer helps to correct video performance effects, or other incorrect timing effects, that those applications may experience by periodically adjusting the core time stamp counters dynamically so that they are synchronized, -and not- by completely locking one core or thread out to access and use by the application.  Duhhhhhhhhhhh

People are still screwing with affinity manually and hacking FSX.exe. Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

The problem is further complicated by the Nvidia driver attempting to work with the threads. In Windows Vista this will have value but in XP/2k, it can be a baaaaaaaad thing especially with the new memory controller in use by Conroe and quite possible the new motherboard quad-shotgun bus memory controller for AMD's L series slugs.


Windows Vista will take much greater advantage of the second core than XP, not because it will use more but because the operating system is designed to not screw up timing and have to optimize it on the fly. If SP1 for FSX is being roadmapped as they posted, eveyone, especially dual core users, should see a good boost and therefore those on SMP and hyperthread will be sitting much better than those on single slugs.