Core Confusion!!! Any help please?

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Thanks for the replys people. Captstubing is right BusterDee, definitely get SP2 as it (and SP1) enables quad core. Apparently the other 4 "virtual" cores on nehelem are also utilised under heavy workload (though not much) what effect this has I have no idea, and as I am no techie I would be loathe to recommend something to you which you may be able to get similar or better results much cheaper financially. As always, there are conflicting opinions. Some saying much better, some saying marginally, some not at all ( GENESIS- "Land of Confusion" LMAO) There are many "tweaks" out for i7 involving the cnfg. file "[JOBSCHEDULE]" command added with various values for each core. I cannot attest to the efficacy of these though, and I really do not have the time at present to test them all. Get some research in obviously.....all I can say is I can play it maxed out ultra high in most situations min 30FPS (most important for me), but in "doomsday" scenarios like JFK and Heathrow I think ANYTHING at present will be brought to its knees. I dont run FSX very often these days and lots of things will effect performance, especially if you have 3rd party add ons like Aerosofts Uk photo scenery and AI programs for traffic for example.

I advise you to consult the oracles of FSX, as I have a policy of not waxing lyrical about things I have limited knowledge of (If only everyone did the same lol ) and I would hate to have giving you bum or incorrect advise on my conscience, I know money doesn't grow on trees!

Thanks for that article link Codex, very useful and maybe priority will make a difference after all. I see many a headache ahead, lol.

Good luck BusterDee and let me know what you dig up.

[Buster_Dee]

Thanks for comments. I won't do much checking, as it's very playable, even at max settings. I think the large airports are rough because of unique textures. I do some modelling, and textures are a bigger FPS killer than complex mesh/high poly counts. I don't mean to sound flippant. Fact is, I'm currently buried trying to refine textures on a current project. At present, it would probably take down a power grid. I only play enough FS to screw up the courage to get back to work

[Feuerfalke]

I recommend this thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=35091


Over 16 pages, in the meanwhile, with broad testing base on SP1 Vista and the benefits compared to XP. Average FPS-gain against XP: 15-25 on the same rig! (= mostly optimized XP-installations) - peaks are about 45FPS gain.

There are also frequent report of graphics glitches from the engine disappearing with WinVista and Win7.


Besides that JFYI, TX-EcoDragon did not disable Aero in the background, as well as the initial test from SimHQ did not. Additionally the later did not even have drivers for the soundcard, was running an unpatched version of Vista and used the first WHQL-Drivers for Vista. As quite understandable, the first WHQL were made for safety, not for performance.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

I recommend this thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=35091


Over 16 pages, in the meanwhile, with broad testing base on SP1 Vista and the benefits compared to XP. Average FPS-gain against XP: 15-25 on the same rig! (= mostly optimized XP-installations) - peaks are about 45FPS gain.

There are also frequent report of graphics glitches from the engine disappearing with WinVista and Win7.


Besides that JFYI, TX-EcoDragon did not disable Aero in the background, as well as the initial test from SimHQ did not. Additionally the later did not even have drivers for the soundcard, was running an unpatched version of Vista and used the first WHQL-Drivers for Vista. As quite understandable, the first WHQL were made for safety, not for performance.

That's good news.... If there is a difference it could be related to drivers changing. Clearly support for Vista is stronger than ever. That's a good thing since it was a failed OS since its release.

There is a reason why they are renaming windows back to windows version 7.

It took a long time for vendors to fix their drivers and for MS to fix some major problems Vista had. No doubt I will be switching to Windows 7 and a 64 bit OS. It is just now making sense.

[TX-EcoDragon]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

That's good news.... If there is a difference it could be related to drivers changing.

Did you see my post? I might be misunderstanding you, but once again:

I've compared identical hardware (dual boot of the same machine), with identical software as much as possible for a 32 to 64 bit OS, and Win 7 clearly does perform MUCH better than XP! The raw data shows that, but from a user experience it's even more obvious. In Win 7 the sim never slows down, doesn’t stutter, even with hundreds of objects moving near you (my benchmark fps are much lower than usual in game fps).

Maybe pasting my other post here was just too long, so here's an example of the benchmark data from stock cpu/vga clocks:

Windows XP Avg 33.803 - Min: 5 - Max: 61 (capped)

Windows 7 Avg: 45.236 - Min: 23 - Max: 62 (capped)

So min fps are 4.6 times better in Win 7 vs XP, and average fps increase by 11.4 fps - turn off vSynch and of course the gains become even more obvious. I wanted to see more real world fps gains and since I usually enable vSynch to play (and since it lowers not only avg but min fps)most of my benchmark data was with it on. The avg fps gain is nice, but it's the huge minimum fps increase that really improves the experience on Win 7 vs XP.

[Feuerfalke]

Waste of time, E.D.

Even with the hardest evidence you can fix what months of bad publicity based on faulty benchmarks have damaged.


I must agree with JG27CaptStubing in one point, though:

Vista failed from the start.

But it did not by failing as an OS, but by providing the user with options most users cannot make sense of. Look at how many people get the Ultimate Edition to play games on it! That's like trying to race a stripped out racing-pickup against a fully loaded working-truck.

But that does not mean Vista is bad. It just means the standard user is not capable of deactivating features he does not need, like real-time-security, shadow-copies, advanced taskmanaging and networking features, aero-desktop and serivce- features loaded, etc. If you know what you are doing, you can run any game at least as fast as with XP.


Same is true for comparing the stripped Win7 Beta to Vista Ultimate or even standard edition. The main difference between Vista and Win7 is Vista installed all features of the selected version, Win7 installs the sceletton and adds features as need.
The real bugs that are present in Vista and nobody can deny, though, like the memory bug for example, that crashes your display-driver when overclocking or using 8GB+, is 100% present in Win7, too.

Just the publicity and marketing for Win7 is better, not the OS.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

Waste of time, E.D.

Even with the hardest evidence you can fix what months of bad publicity based on faulty benchmarks have damaged.


I must agree with JG27CaptStubing in one point, though:

Vista failed from the start.

But it did not by failing as an OS, but by providing the user with options most users cannot make sense of. Look at how many people get the Ultimate Edition to play games on it! That's like trying to race a stripped out racing-pickup against a fully loaded working-truck.

But that does not mean Vista is bad. It just means the standard user is not capable of deactivating features he does not need, like real-time-security, shadow-copies, advanced taskmanaging and networking features, aero-desktop and serivce- features loaded, etc. If you know what you are doing, you can run any game at least as fast as with XP.


Same is true for comparing the stripped Win7 Beta to Vista Ultimate or even standard edition. The main difference between Vista and Win7 is Vista installed all features of the selected version, Win7 installs the sceletton and adds features as need.
The real bugs that are present in Vista and nobody can deny, though, like the memory bug for example, that crashes your display-driver when overclocking or using 8GB+, is 100% present in Win7, too.

Just the publicity and marketing for Win7 is better, not the OS.

For over a year Vista couldn't hold a candle to Win XP for pure performance. Only until SP1 did things start to change. Here we are almost 2 years past Vistas appearence are we seeing a new OS (Windows 7) which is just a refined version of Vista start to challenge Windows XP. Only about 6 months ago was it worth making the move to Vista 64. Prior to that Vista 64 had teething problems.

So I am agreeing with you I'm just illustrating that it's taken time. There was no compelling reason to move to the new OS until now.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by TX-EcoDragon

Did you see my post? I might be misunderstanding you, but once again:

I've compared identical hardware (dual boot of the same machine), with identical software as much as possible for a 32 to 64 bit OS, and Win 7 clearly does perform MUCH better than XP! The raw data shows that, but from a user experience it's even more obvious. In Win 7 the sim never slows down, doesn’t stutter, even with hundreds of objects moving near you (my benchmark fps are much lower than usual in game fps).

Maybe pasting my other post here was just too long, so here's an example of the benchmark data from stock cpu/vga clocks:

Windows XP Avg 33.803 - Min: 5 - Max: 61 (capped)

Windows 7 Avg: 45.236 - Min: 23 - Max: 62 (capped)

So min fps are 4.6 times better in Win 7 vs XP, and average fps increase by 11.4 fps - turn off vSynch and of course the gains become even more obvious. I wanted to see more real world fps gains and since I usually enable vSynch to play (and since it lowers not only avg but min fps)most of my benchmark data was with it on. The avg fps gain is nice, but it's the huge minimum fps increase that really improves the experience on Win 7 vs XP.

As I stated it could be related to drivers being made for the new OS and Windows 7 is now surpassing Win XP. Did you read that part?