Defrag problem

[UU]

...you should notice a difference

You will notice a difference!

[raptorx]

It does feel snappier now.  I haven't flown yet in FSX.

...you should notice a difference

You will notice a difference!

[NickN]

Just remember, its not about frames its about releasing resources to allow much smoother flight. If a system was really messed up and the user follows those directions carefully they may indeed see a frame increase.. the system could always provide that performance, its because you have optimized for intense graphics use, relieved the pressure off the CPU and memory and given the application what it needs to do the job.

You should notice all your software now functions much better

[raptorx]

I agree.  I have my frame lock set at 20 and that's actually quite smooth.  It only really gets choppy below 15 fps.

Would you recommend me going from 2 to 3gigs of RAM and using the boot.ini switch?  I do have a lot of scenery/terrain addons and an F14, F117, and X15 (by the way, the earth looks spectacular over 100,000 feet-even if it's artificial).

-Jim

[NickN]

Thats up to you

I use 4 gigs but I also only run 64bit OS's

If after a long flight in urban areas and after program close you check the task manager\performance tab under PEAK its within 200-150MB of 2000000, it would probably be in your best interest to invest in the right memory to match what you have, RTFM and confirm the motherboard is not going to reduce the memory speed or timing by adding sticks (RTFM = Read the Friendly Manual    ) and do the cache edit for XP


20FPS?

List your hardware

[raptorx]

GA-P35-DS4 rev 2 with the latest BIOS
E6850 C2D @3.8 GHz (9 x 423 FSB)
2Gb Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800, running at DDR2 1014 (5:6 ratio)
8800GTS 320mb (clocks running @648 core, 945 memory)
21.5 inch samsung monitor @1600x1050
150Gb raptor HDD
X-Fi xtreme gamer sound card
610 watt PSU by PC power&cooling
Antec 900 case w/lots of fans.

[NickN]

Easy now, I did not say its going to change your FPS and performance what 64 bit allows is all the memory you can throw at it and in doing so it improves everything across the board. If you are running the same amont of memory the difference between 32 and 64 bit is not that much although I find it much smoother than 32bit even with the same frame rate between the two.

BUT

before you go spending the money on 64bit you should realize your biggest problem is that junk 320MB video card


You are throwing money in the wrong place. if you are looking to upgrade you performance you need to ditch the 320 and go with a much better card. After that the extra memory and 64bit can help



Also, you need to make sure ALL your hardware has 64bit drivers available too. Switching to 64bit is not just a matter of buying a disk and starting over. And you can NOT perform a OS upgrade install. When you purchase a 64bit OS you will have to wipe it outr and start clean again from scratch



the cache edit is for using more than 2GB in Windows XP and Vista x32. With a 64bit OS you do not need the cache edit. The 64bit OS will recognize and use up to 16 terabytes of memory as opposed to 2 gigabytes in x32 withiout the edit and a max of 3 with the edit

[macca22au]

I had stopped using O&O as I understood from this forum that it was not comapatible with Vista.

Now I take it O&O version 10 is compatible and can be used successfully with Vista.

I will download the trial version (and try and find my receipt for v8 that I bought when I was using XP of blessed memory)

[NickN]

I had stopped using O&O as I understood from this forum that it was not comapatible with Vista.

Now I take it O&O version 10 is compatible and can be used successfully with Vista.

I will download the trial version (and try and find my receipt for v8 that I bought when I was using XP of blessed memory)

Yes, V10 works with Vista but I do not find it does as good a job as v8.5 in XP

Run the defrags as I listed rebooting between them

If your install is large it can take some hours to complete all that.

[raptorx]

REALLY?  I thought 320mb was enough for resolutions up to 1600x1050?  I've avoided getting a GTX because I thought FSX was more CPU/memory dependant.  You're saying that it will make a difference?  I tried out a 8800GT 512mb when they first came out and wasn't impressed.  It seemed that my GTS was just as good so I returned the GT.  And the GTS has more memory bandwidth then the GT.  Anyway, all the sim forums I've read seem to agree that a GTX won't help much unless it's higher res.  Maybe I should try one out?  

I'm not jumping into 64bit that fast.  I would check all my HW and read up on as much as I could find before jumping in.  But if it makes a difference, well then I would start spending the time and research towards the change.  I would of course go with 4gigs if I was going to do the 64bit.  And a full clean install, I don't like "upgrades" as microsoft calls it.  

I know it's late.  Talk to you tomorrow.

-Jim

 

Easy now, I did not say its going to change your FPS and performance what 64 bit allows is all the memory you can throw at it and in doing so it improves everything across the board. If you are running the same amont of memory the difference between 32 and 64 bit is not that much although I find it much smoother than 32bit even with the same frame rate between the two.

BUT

before you go spending the money on 64bit you should realize your biggest problem is that junk 320MB video card


You are throwing money in the wrong place. if you are looking to upgrade you performance you need to ditch the 320 and go with a much better card. After that the extra memory and 64bit can help



Also, you need to make sure ALL your hardware has 64bit drivers available too. Switching to 64bit is not just a matter of buying a disk and starting over. And you can NOT perform a OS upgrade install. When you purchase a 64bit OS you will have to wipe it outr and start clean again from scratch



the cache edit is for using more than 2GB in Windows XP and Vista x32. With a 64bit OS you do not need the cache edit. The 64bit OS will recognize and use up to 16 terabytes of memory as opposed to 2 gigabytes in x32 withiout the edit and a max of 3 with the edit

[NickN]

What you were told is only 1/2 correct

The frame buffer issues are true if you are not using a large wide screen and only running 1280x1024 but if you are at 1920x1200 (even 1600x1200) you DO need the memory for the frame buffer regardless of the clueless person who told you that.

Now, forget about the frame buffer... FSX works better with more video memory available, period. The more, the better.

So you are better off on a 8800GT 512 will outperform that 8800GTS 320 by a long shot. The 512MB memory is the minimum I would run with FSX and the 8800GT is a fixed/upgraded 8800GTS 640. There is a 1024MB version available from Gainward but I can not vouch for it. At 1024 you are a bit high and at that point the needs of the frame buffer are taken into account over the needs of the application however FSX is not like other games and does take advantage of large VM. At 1024 I can see a need to go to 4 gigs of system memory and the 64bit OS because the OS will map the 1024VM for the card. With a 64bit OS that

[raptorx]

So the size of the memory bus isn't that important?  I mean 320bit vs. 256bit vs. 384bit?  Nick, I think this would be a good sticky because these new cards that are outperforming the G80 series have smaller bus sizes-256 bit.  And the specs show less memory bandwidth but they are outperforming the G80 nonetheless.  I don't quite understand that.  Is it all about overall total VM?

Nick you da man.  I'm learning a lot here.  

-Jim

[NickN]

It the combination of specs, not just the amount of memory or the bus speed

there are specs they do not post with the card advertisements such as the memory chip type and their internal timing

They also screw with descriptions so it reads as if you are getting a large amount of shader support when in reality is low.

Also, you do get what you pay for regardless of what anyone tells you but you do need to balance the card purchased for the monitor and CPU/memory speed being run. Its not just the CPU being boosted but the memory bandwidth too. Im running a memory speed of 1200MHz right now, thats not DDR3 1200, thats DDR3 2400 (testing new sticks not on the market yet)

It all plays together. The system ability/needs must be matched to the video card ability.

Before I would dump any money into the older cards (including the 8800GT) I would wait till next month and take a look at both ATI and Nvidia's next releases.

[macca22au]

Nick:  I tried O&O 10 last night.  

I didn't do a Space defrag (I misread one of your earlier posts about problems with Space defrag)...but did the Complete/Name defrag.  

After four hours it delivered me a 0% fragmented result.  I rebooted, and re-ran the Complete/Name and it completed it in a second.  That is, it changed nothing.  

However, the game is probably running worse, and I assume it is because it will need to rebuild links broken by the radical reorganisation of the HD which showed 60% fragmentation on inital analysis.

While I am waiting for my 8800GTX to be returned or replaced I am using a 7950 - a real reduction in performance - but I have the game only on a scusi disk.  So there is no interference from other applications or the OS.  Is my experience unusual, or am I stuck with a continued poor performance.

[macca22au]

Oh, and Nick, I know that you are committed to confidentiality agreements, but can you point us to any site or place that discusses the upcoming generation of video cards.  

And how real is the next month prediction?  I am happy to delay my upgrade to a quadcore Intel 9650 if a new video card is certain to be available in Feb.