[jhb_airlines] Re: Quads versus Duos

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:06:18 +0100


Many thanks for the pointer. I've no idea why it works but, on my system, the effect is fairly dramatic. The sting, though, is in the tail.

I normally run with framerate locked at 21 fps. I've recently done hours of testing at Ronaldsway, as TM's effort has progressed. From the early stages until yesterday I've seen a fairly steady decrease in fps, as more objects are added; I'm not sure whether co tester Mike has also had a similar experience.

Anyway, last evening's IVAO flight from Benbecula to EGNS was fairly typical. Once off the ground at Benbecula my 14 fps rapidly rose to a steady 21 fps. There it stayed, until turned towards rwy 08. From that point I saw a steady, though quite satisfactory, 12 to 14 fps, until about 3 DME, when it dropped to about 8.5. On the runway, with King Williams and the Terminal behind me, it rose to about 12, before dropping to 8, when on the blocks with Tower and Terminal filling the screen. I'd been running with 50% AI and AG below my normal test levels, set at Normal.

I've just done a 08 ILS circuit, covering the same approach scenario, but with Framerate unlocked, so that I could monitor it. I'd booted up to EGNS after applying the FSX.cfg tweak of adding the lines

AffinityMask=7     To limit FSX to using three of the four cores.

From takeoff to turning finals I saw between 34 and 22 fps. On finals I had a fairly steady 19 fps, which dropped only to 16 fps over the final two miles. Once down it shot up to over 30 and as I sit with Terminal, Tower and three scheduled flights filling the three screens, the figure is fluctuating between 16 and 22. That's with road traffic passing behind the tower and quite a few trees in view.

During the last6 miles I tried turning AG up to max, to provide Castletown houses and more trees. I got an extra drop of only 2 fps.

I'll need to take a look at a more built up area, because not having a ceiling on framerates didn't seem to reduce the sharpness of ground textures.

HOWEVER!!!!!! And now we get to the tricky bit. I've just reverted to my locked at 21fps setting and the recorded framerate has plummeted from 16 / 22, right down to 9 ! That seems to be the outcome of locking, whether to 21 fps or 80 fps; another step into the unknown.

So I removed the [JOBSCHEDULER] tweak and rebooted. removing any limit on framerates has the same effect. No limit gives me 19 fps.

Now this definitely didn't happen with the dual core processor. If I had no limit and could achieve 18 fps, then applying a 21 fps lock didn't bring the framerate down.

Though, by now, I'm no longer sure about anything!

Any bright ideas?

Gerry Winskill

Paul Reynolds wrote:
There may be an intermediate step, try the core tweak in this article:


In the last hour I've just finished installing FSX + Acceleration pack on my
new machine and am getting a frame rate of 30+ taking off from Benbecula
which, on my install, seems particularly barren.
For me, a more challenging test of CPU performance with the Scotflight FSX
is taking off from runway 01 at North Connel.  Here, with all the scenery
sliders maxed except Water effects (High 2.x); Land detail textures on; no
ground scenery shadows, I'm getting as low as 13 but averaging 25+ in the
default Cessna with fair weather set. In DX10 preview mode, I find the new
in-cockpit shading is decidedly ropey, the shadows being very jagged on what
should be straight leading edges.  It also creates an overall speckled
appearance which isn't there in DX9 mode.

New PC is Athlon AMD2 X2 6000+, 4Gb DDR2 800 RAM, Nvidia 8800GT 512Mb, on a
M2N SLI mobo. with a Maxtor 500Gb 7200rpm 32Mb cache drive and Windows Vista
Home Premium 64.

I still don't have UK Gen-X, I was hoping it'd turn up for my birthday but
didn't so I'll have to get it myself.  That's going to have to wait though,
Tracy needs pampering first and a low income doesn't stretch far!


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 24 July 2008 10:18
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Quads versus Duos

My swap from dual core E6700 to quad core Q6700 has been a bit of a let down. It was made after reading a seemingly logical and authoritative review of factors affecting FSX performance, on the Horizon Forum. That concluded that the most effective upgrade was to go for the highest number of cores available.

My first impression is that performance has gone downhill slightly. That's unexpected, since the Q6700 is said to be two E6700 in the one unit.

When I boot up the PC I get an error message that says there has been a uCode failure so press F1 to continue. It then boots up OK and either Task Master or Asus' AISuite both show 4 cores working. A Google search shows this is a common error message with the Asus mobo, which has no inbuilt reference to the Q cores, and has no bearing on performance. The cure is to Flash the BIOS. I haven't yet done that, not having any past form as a flasher!

Raising my experience on the Forum produced a reply to the effect that to get benefits from the Quad upgrade it's necessary to upgrade to FSX SP2, which I haven't done. Tom is also on SP1 and has a Q6600, with framerates about the same as mine.

I'm still running XP Home and using the 8800GTX graphics card, with 760 (?) memory.

Has anyone with a similar setup to ours moved to SP2 and found a big improvement?

Gerry Winskill

Other related posts: