-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
MultiCore Environment Advanced
- Thread starter rich12545
- Start date
Rich my gut feeling would be that this is more like Snake Oil than anything that might benefit anyone in the terms of frames per second.
Even thought FS9 is not designed to take advantage of mulitple cores it still benefits from them. They way it benefits is by other applications using those cores at the same time FS is running. That is built into those applications and Windows.
So if you had two or four cores that were not really fast enough to run FS on there own odds are good they are not fast enough to run FS if you split the load.
If you have multiple cores that are running fast enough to support FS on one core then you don't need multiple cores.
Take it from Obio right now you can build a system that will just smoke FS9 for very little and if you are looking for better performance that is the guaranteed place to get it.
If you purchased this product my guess is you might see a slight increase if not a slight decrease in performance. The program you would be running would come at a cost (processor usage and memory usage) that if your PC is not strong enough would out weigh the benefit you receive from it.
Just my two cents not based in any testing.
Even thought FS9 is not designed to take advantage of mulitple cores it still benefits from them. They way it benefits is by other applications using those cores at the same time FS is running. That is built into those applications and Windows.
So if you had two or four cores that were not really fast enough to run FS on there own odds are good they are not fast enough to run FS if you split the load.
If you have multiple cores that are running fast enough to support FS on one core then you don't need multiple cores.
Take it from Obio right now you can build a system that will just smoke FS9 for very little and if you are looking for better performance that is the guaranteed place to get it.
If you purchased this product my guess is you might see a slight increase if not a slight decrease in performance. The program you would be running would come at a cost (processor usage and memory usage) that if your PC is not strong enough would out weigh the benefit you receive from it.
Just my two cents not based in any testing.
From public reviews I've read half say it doesn't make a difference and half say it does. Maybe a perception thing or a difference in the systems people use. It looks like a coin toss to be honest. Plus there are free alternatives if you look through avsim and the like.
Yeah, I agree with Dangerous Dave. IF you are looking for a major performance increase in FS9...build a new system.
I went from a P4 3.0gig, 2gig DDR PC3200 RAM, 512meg Nvidia Geforce 7600GS graphics card based system. I'm sure that when this system was new back 6 or 8 years ago, it was the cat's meow..and it handled FS9 pretty well even with 7 leaking motherboard capacitors. And really, if it weren't for the leaking capacitors, I wouldn't have built a new system. I was more than happy with the way FS9 ran on that old system....rock solid 24.8FPS in most cases (locked at 25FPS).
The new system is a monster. I7-950 at 3.1gig, 6gig DDR3 PC12,800 RAM, 768meg Nvidia GeForce GTX460 with onboard DDR5 RAM. Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit. A tad over $1000 for the entire build...and that includes nearly $180 for Win 7 and right at $180 for the new 19inch ACER DVI ready non-wide screen monitor.
FS9 performance on the new system? Well, mind blowingly fast is all I can say. I have had frame rates dialed in all the way up to 100FPS...and this system pegged it...with ALL sliders and details maxed. The system even chews FSX up for breakfast...not that I have spent more than 2 hours in FSX....I'm a die-hard FS9er. Honestly, it is far more system that I really need for FS9...could have built a more than adequate system for around $500 and still seen a major boost in FS9 performance.
OBIO
I went from a P4 3.0gig, 2gig DDR PC3200 RAM, 512meg Nvidia Geforce 7600GS graphics card based system. I'm sure that when this system was new back 6 or 8 years ago, it was the cat's meow..and it handled FS9 pretty well even with 7 leaking motherboard capacitors. And really, if it weren't for the leaking capacitors, I wouldn't have built a new system. I was more than happy with the way FS9 ran on that old system....rock solid 24.8FPS in most cases (locked at 25FPS).
The new system is a monster. I7-950 at 3.1gig, 6gig DDR3 PC12,800 RAM, 768meg Nvidia GeForce GTX460 with onboard DDR5 RAM. Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit. A tad over $1000 for the entire build...and that includes nearly $180 for Win 7 and right at $180 for the new 19inch ACER DVI ready non-wide screen monitor.
FS9 performance on the new system? Well, mind blowingly fast is all I can say. I have had frame rates dialed in all the way up to 100FPS...and this system pegged it...with ALL sliders and details maxed. The system even chews FSX up for breakfast...not that I have spent more than 2 hours in FSX....I'm a die-hard FS9er. Honestly, it is far more system that I really need for FS9...could have built a more than adequate system for around $500 and still seen a major boost in FS9 performance.
OBIO
You guys pretty much answered my question.
I can't afford a new system, and even if I could I'd never be able to convince....., but my present one works well. I have everything maxed and in rural areas I've seen 80-100 fps. P4 2.8 gig, 9800GT 1 gig, 4 gig ram. Not cutting edge but neither is FS9 and I'm pretty happy with the way it's running. But if I could spend $11 and have it run even 20-30% faster that would be great. No I haven't bought it, wanted to run it by you guys first and now I won't for sure. :salute:
I can't afford a new system, and even if I could I'd never be able to convince....., but my present one works well. I have everything maxed and in rural areas I've seen 80-100 fps. P4 2.8 gig, 9800GT 1 gig, 4 gig ram. Not cutting edge but neither is FS9 and I'm pretty happy with the way it's running. But if I could spend $11 and have it run even 20-30% faster that would be great. No I haven't bought it, wanted to run it by you guys first and now I won't for sure. :salute:
Give this a try...
FS2004 (ACOF) - Misc. FS2004 Affinity Tool
[SIZE=-1][ Download | View ] [/SIZE]
Name: fs_affinity_v2.zip Size: 1,521,604 Date: 01-03-2010 Downloads: 716
[SIZE=-1]FS2004 Affinity Tool for multi-core computers. Used to make FS2004 run on only one virtual CPU. By Behcet H. S.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
FS2004 (ACOF) - Misc. FS2004 Affinity Tool
[SIZE=-1][ Download | View ] [/SIZE]
Name: fs_affinity_v2.zip Size: 1,521,604 Date: 01-03-2010 Downloads: 716
[SIZE=-1]FS2004 Affinity Tool for multi-core computers. Used to make FS2004 run on only one virtual CPU. By Behcet H. S.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
Daube
SOH-CM-2025
The plot of the "affinity" is to force FS9.exe to run on a different core than the Windows processes (who all run on core 0).
If you modify the affinity of the FS9.exe from the task manager (or with the utility linked above, never tried it) to make it run on core 1 or 2 or 3 or "whatever Windows is not using", then you should see a little performance increase.
If you modify the affinity of the FS9.exe from the task manager (or with the utility linked above, never tried it) to make it run on core 1 or 2 or 3 or "whatever Windows is not using", then you should see a little performance increase.