Intel Q or Intel E?

[DaveB]

Hi Chaps,

It's my day off and I'm bored so I might as well bore you too

I've been bugged by OOM's in FSX as many of us are and in attempt to rid me of them, I decided to try an experiment. I've 2 systems up and running at the moment.. this one, WinXP SP3 (32-bit) with 4gig installed (3 visible).. an Asus GTX560Ti DirectOC II 1gig and an Intel E8400 dualcore 3gig to shove it all along. The second system is Win7 Ultimate (64-bit) with 4gig installed.. a Gigabyte GTX460 OC 1gig and an Intel Core2Duo quad at 2.66gig. Now.. I like dualcores and I like core2duo Q's but which one is faster? There's only one way to find out.. FIGHT!!

Noting that the experiment was to try and get rid of or at least delay the dreaded OOM's.. the experiment appears to have worked. I did a flight the other day starting at Valley then moving on to Llanbedr for a change of aircraft, a whiz up and down the Loop before landing back at Llanbedr for another change of aircraft then a flight to Halfpenny Green, another change of aircraft and finally.. a flight to Duxford. All these run one after the other with no break. Aircraft used were the default F-18, DG's Hunter, Carenado Skymaster 337, DG's Mossie and a couple of others along the way. Had I tried the same thing on this pc (winXP 32bit).. I'm pretty certain it would have died long before reaching Duxford. In the event.. the Win7 setup chugged through it all with the odd cough and splutter but the extra 1gig visible to the OS did the business.

There is one catch though.. there always is Setting FSX up in like-for-like situations, the WinXP setup (E8400 3gig - GTX560Ti) is an average of between 6 and 9 fps faster when it matters.. when you start 'pushing'. The downside.. it will OOM more readily

So.. all in all, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I was considering adding a further 4gig to the Win7 setup to take me comfortably away from the FSX 4gig break-even point but I don't think it's worth it now. One thing is certain.. FSX isn't so fussed by the amount of physical cores available.. it is more to do with clockspeeds. The 3gig E8400 out-performs the 2.66gig Quad by a visible margin as far as running the sim is concerned but again, that's not the whole story. When starting FSX on both systems.. the Win7 setup loads up in a fraction of the time.. there's simply no comparison. This may be down to the fact my WinXP setup has years of rubbish installed in FSX which won't help one little bit. In this scenario.. I bet the intelQ would load FSX on a virginal WinXP SP3 system faster too

The 'Q'-Win7 system does come into it's own running certain programs mind you. A common prog we all look at from time to time is FR24. I've not done a direct comparison since the GTX460 was installed but with the old ATiHD2900XT(512mb).. FR24 was many times faster/smoother than on the WinXP 32-bit setup. While the extra gig of ram visible to the OS is a bonus, I've no doubt that the 'Q' fitted in the Win7 system is very much stronger at running this sort of app than the E8400. Here.. horsepower (clockspeed) isn't so much the key, it's processing power.

In summary, while I'm pleased the experiment to stop or delay the onset of OOM's in FSX has worked.. I'm rather disappointed the Q system's lower clockspeed has been so noticeable. I guess I half expected it so shouldn't be disappointed but I am There are secondhand E8400's going on ebay for a fraction of their original cost (as you'd expect) but I really don't want to invest in one.. it seems like throwing money down the drain. I could of course swap CPU's between systems but I don't feel inclined to do that either. The ASRock/Win7 pc has had a problem with sound since it was first put together. There were no Win7 drivers available for it (the mobo that is) but Win7 did a fine job installing default drivers and I was pleasantly surprised when it all fired up for the first time. The onboard sound is by Realtek and I downloaded 'proper' drivers from them a while ago but the intermittent sound remains. When the pc goes into 'sleep' mode.. the sound remains asleep when the system is brought back although it's fine at first opening. This is another reason why I don't really want to invest anymore in the current Win7 setup.

OK.. I'll finish here. Hope I've not depressed you all too much.. those that stayed to the bitter end that is I thought my experiences worth sharing even though I'll look back at this in a few hours time and wonder 'why did I do that?' The Euro Lottery is £80m this week so if I can scrape £2 together for a ticket.. I'll have a go. Undoubtedly.. I'll be equally disappointed when I haven't won

ATB
DaveB

[DaveG]

The Win7-64 machine will OOM less as the OS handles memory better. You can still overload it though. The CPU itself won't make any difference there.
X does use all your cores if you've got SP2 or Acceleration (not sure about SP1), although it doesn't use them in the best way possible. I've got an i5, which is a quad core and I can quite easily get it at 100% on all 4 cores running FSX.
Of course the higher the clock speed the better as well My old Q6600 was rated at 2.4ghz, but was quite happy at 3+ ghz with a better cooler.

[DaveB]

Hiya Dave

Yes.. it's a case of 6 of 3.. half a dozen of another isn't it. Putting FSX on the Win7-64bit OS was done with the primary intent of delaying OOM's and it has done just that. I've looked at the cores while it's been working and core 0 is usually (read always) at full chat with the other 3 in varying degree's of flux. I've not checked the E8400 while operating but I'd imagine both cores would be at full chat. The outcome of my findings is based on the fact the 'E' runs FSX better purely because it's running 2 x 3ghz cores. There's no doubting 4 x 3ghz cores would run FSX better on the Win7 system but my Q is well short of that. Both FSX installs are running ACC

Not considered O/C.. it's something I shy away from. This said.. I have little to lose really. Problem is.. can it be O/C on the ASRock mobo and if so.. how the heck do I go about doing it

Nice one Dave

EDIT: That appeared to work and was quite painless..

Clock speed raised from 266 to 300 in the bios (giving something like 2.97 in real money) and the difference is staggering. It's like having my E8400 back No smell of burning as yet but I'm keeping an extinguisher handy BTW.. the indicated fps in that shot isn't showing the whole story. The sim was running at a fairly solid 29-30fps

EDIT#2.. as you can see, I don't know how to make Paint work in Win7

ATB
DaveB

[Vc Ten]

Hi Mate
Not sure if you followed all the tips and tricks which supposedly "improve" the speed, reduce ooms, stop the fuzzies, there would be any time left to fly the damn thing Arent you supposed to set affininy mask to 15 for a 4 core processor
I have had success in stopping the freezing up for several mins, by increasing the priority of fsx exe I created a little batch file which achieves the same before launching fsx
ATB
Dale

[Vancouver]

FWIW I (think) I eliminated oom errors (w7 64) with FSX by not allowing windows to use Virtual Memory. I do have 16Gb RAM however not sure if less would be quite as successful though.

[DaveB]

Hiya Chaps

Dale..
I've no idea what an affinity mask is let alone set it to 15 for a 4 core processor

Alex..
I've only had OOM's with WinXP SP3(32-bit) mate and plenty of em I might add . The idea of the exercise was to put FSX on the Win7(64-bit) OS to get away from OOM's but it's not been as straight forward as you'd imagine. Why is he sitting there with a Win7 pc yet he's running FSX on a WinXP 32-bit system? you may well ask
The answer is.. the Win7 system was put together for SWMBO using old parts.. ASRock 4Core1333-Viiv mobo with 4gig DDR2 installed, an ATiHD2900XT(512mb) and an Intel Core2Duo Extreme Q 2.66gig cpu. The HD was new.. WD Blue 512gig, Sata3 gagged to Sata2 (the mobo limit). PSU is a new CorsairTX650 I got FOC from Corsair after the previous unit died prematurely.

However.. SWMBO has never used it. I say never.. it may be twice I only used it to watch FR24 every now and again and turned it on once a month to keep the updates up to date

I didn't think the ATi was up to FSX and I didn't want to put FSX on the C drive so when the GTX460 came my way.. I set about using an old Sata2 drive with FSX already installed (from my old AMD3200 system.. removed from the system case and fitted into an external case). My inital idea was to leave the already installed FSX intact and try to get it to register with Win7. In the event.. I put on a fresh install of FSX + ACC then GenX2/3 vols 1 to 3 plus UK2K Airports vols 1 to 3. Finally.. Treescapes vol 1 to 3. The results of which were less than I'd hoped but without OOM's as I expected. Basically.. I'm doing everything I can without getting a new mobo, cpu and memory which I'd dearly love but can ill afford

HAD the initial comparison test gone according to plan (eg.. the Win7 setup been able to run FSX as quickly as the WinXP system.. like for like) my next plan was to buy a further 4gig and migrate my FSX flying to the new(old) pc. FSX will use a maximum of 4gig of ram.. it is setup to run that way (which is a primary reason for 32-bit OS's getting OOM's when trying to run it.. there being only 3gig (a tad over) visible to the OS). Having 4gig of ram installed running a program that will use 4gig if it can isn't ideal hence the move to add a further 4 to take me out of harms way.

After reading Dave's suggestion to overclock the quad, I gave it a shot and FSX now runs.. dare I say it.. better on the Win7 system than it does on the WinXP system. While looking for my Elements2 CD to put on the Win7 pc (having tried and failed to use Paint!!!).. I found a further 2gig of DDR2 which should be suitable for the ASRock (and I found a further 4gig that ISN'T ) so.. I'm almost as happy as a dog with 2 tails

The overclock was only small.. 2.66gb to 3gb (Win7 reports 2.95) so the additional stress is as small as I can make it to get the required performance while trying to maintain system stability. After running FSX for a while on the Win7 system.. it sounds like a washing machine on final spin so things are getting warm and the fans are stepping up a level. I'm scared to get a system utilities prog to check temps. I'm not sure I'd like what I saw

As an aside.. my 'Windows Experience' level was 5.9 at the start of all this and this figure will not change until I bin the HD and go either SSD or some as yet uninvented device However, after fitting the GTX460, the processor score went up to 7.1, memory up to 7.1, graphics up to 7.5 and gaming graphics up to 7.5. Clocking the cpu has seen a further increase in processor and memory scores to 7.2 each. This isn't really bad for a cheap old case filled with (by and large) secondhand bits Of course, the Windows Experience means nothing in the real world but it's amusing nontheless

ATB
DaveB

[DaveG]

Better keep an eye on those temps Dave. Real Temp is a handy little utility for that. http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/

That affinity mask setting basically tells FSX to use cores 2,3, & 4 only, and leave core 1 for all the other windows stuff. It can reduce stutters in some cases.

[ChrisHunt]

Very pleased to see that you've been able to make the most of that GTX 460 Dave, especially without any additional outlay. And here is the start of my campaign - introducing Dave - 2 PCs - Booker! (it's even better when they both work).

Regards,
Chris

[DaveB]

Cheers Dave Where do I find it?

Chris.. it is indeed mate I'd network them were it not for the fact that Win7 isn't keen on talking to WinXP. They see one another but that's where the partnership ends
ATB
DaveB

[Vc Ten]

Try This mate

For Multiple Core support in FSX, add the following command line in fsx.CFG file. The setting is not shown by default.

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=n

Choice of <n> as follows:

For 2-core 4-thread CPU
15=1111 = ALL 4 cores (what i use)
14=1110 = last 3 cores (cores read from back to front)
7=0111 = first 3 cores
3=0011 = first 2 cores
1=0001 = first core

For 4-core 8-thread CPU
255=11111111 = ALL 8 cores
254=11111110 = last 7 cores
252=11111100 = last 6 cores
127=01111111 = first 7 cores
63=00111111 = first 6 cores

For 6-core 12-thread CPU
4095=111111111111 = ALL 12 cores
4094=111111111110 = last 11 cores
4092=111111111100 = last 10 cores