SAAB340

3866 C18 will be the better option there no doubt.. Remember that C18 and C10 is the timing. Latency and MHz is what maters. Timing x 2000 / MHz = Latency in ns. Your two examples has very similar latency. 18x2000/3866=9.3ns and 10x2000/2133=9.4ns. Lower latency is better and higher MHz is better. Both give better FPS. I'd try to keep the latency under 10ns. The best most expensive modules will stop at about 7.5ns. When it comes to RAM pay a little bit extra for large improvements in latency and MHz. But bang for the buck goes out of the window at the higher end for very minor improvements. Minor real life FPS improvements that is.

Yes. Higher frequency and tighter timings are beter. Westman has shown that as well in many great FSXmark11 tests . I posted quite a few results with different RAM speeds/timings when I built my Skylake build soon a year ago I think. That's why Skylake with its good memorycontroller, IPC and overclockability is actually a worth while upgrade. Kaby lake will probably as well unless you're already on a Skylake. My SB-E only manages an overclock of 4.3GHz whilst the Skylake does 4.7. When you factor that and the RAM in the Skylake system gives me 45% higher FPS. That is a very notable improvement. Katy Lake however won't introduce a much faster DDR4 memorycontroler as Skylake did. History shows that the IPC improvements will be very minor. The only variable left is overclockability, where as usual early indications are promising. Physics normally puts a damper on our hopes though. (Wouldn't surprise me if I still get a 7700K to play with though...=) Looking forward to seeing what Westman kan do with it when its released. I still prefer the SB-E system for photo scenery though as the extra cores still loads the ground textures faster despite the improvement in Single Thread performance that gives the much higher FPS. But boy does it irritate me every time I can't maintain my locked smooth 30FPS on the SB-E nowadays when I know I don't get that on the Skylake in the same situation.

Thanks, Found this one I did a while ago that I don't think I've posted. To show the impact of RAM on my SandyBridge-E and Skylake.

The answer is that there is no CPU with 4LPs per core you can run FSX or P3D on now. Just in case someone is trying to follow the conversation.

Given what you said: To me changing config settings and testing to figure out what is really happening is reverse engineering. It might not be the 100% correct meaning of the word (English is not my first language). Nothing bad implied. I still can't understand what CPU you mean we can use for flightsim that has 4 threads per core? The only Xeon with 4 threads per core I'm aware of is the Xeon Phi. Whilst its an x86 architecture you can't just run flightsim on it. What have I missed?

Florida x4 was updated a long time ago if that is what you are waiting for

You kinda lost me there. What CPUs we use FSX on have four logcal cores on each physical core? AM=113 on a dual core with hyperthreading will just assign 1 core. Not a good idea. The sim might have more than 50 threads but most of them generate very little CPU load. The treads that generate any notable CPU load are: 1. The main game thread. It will be assigned the 'first' CPU core assigned with the Afinitymask. If you are just bottlenecked by your CPU this will generate a full core load. 2. Texture and terrain loaders. These help loading in the terrain, autogen and ground textures. If you don't have any assigned the main game thread has to do all of that. How many that are created depends on your affinitymask and how many logical CPU cores you have. The amount of Texture and terrain loading threads spawned is the amount of assigned cores in the affinitymask (that fit in the actual logical cores you have) -1. These have a very bursty load. If you are stationary nothing new has to be loaded so they will generate no load. Fly fast and they will generate more load. However every minute the lighting of the ground textures has to be updated so they peak towards a full core load every minute regardless of how fast you fly. The higher LOD setting and the higher resolution scenery/terrain mesh you have the more core load they will generate. ​3. A thread that reads almost all information needed from your hard drive for the simulator. (Sound files seem to be read off the harddrive by the main thread and a few other files are also accessed by the main thread, hence triggering a sound file might cause a stutter if you don't have an SSD). The load on this thread is very variable and can go from nothing to filling a full core load depending on what scenery you have active. This thread does not get any core assigned by the affinitymask in the cfg. Windows will decide on affinity for it when you start the simulator. 4. A sound thread. This generates a small CPU load and is assigned affinity by Windows and not the affinitymask in the cfg. The thread is killed every time the simulator is not the active window any more. And a new sound thread is spawned when the simulator is once again selected as the active window. This new thread will once again get affinity assigned by Windows. But it might be different compared to what it was assigned before. 5. A debug thread. Not a lot of CPU load but more than any of the other 50+ threads that are left. Windows sheduler doesn't have to adhere to the assigned affinity. It uses it as a guide but most of the time the Main game thread and the texture and terrain loading theads are executed on the cores they have been assigned. But sometimes even they don't. The other threads are regularly being executed on cores outside the affinity assigned to them by Windows. Sorry for all the technical hijack of the tread OP. Fun to reverse engineer the sim right? :smile: I'm just talking about FSX. Not played around with FSX:SE or P3D.

Remember that Broadwell is not in the graph so the actual IPC improvement going 2 generations from Haswell to Skylake is minor. But when you also factor in the move to DDR4 it gives a lot more performance improvement. And the memorycontroller in Skylake handles way higher DDR4 speeds than 2133. IPC improvements Skylake to Kabylake will be very minor Probably less than SanyBridge to IvyBridge. If you run your CPU at stock speed 7700K will be a bit faster but overclockability might be what determines if it is any improvement as an upgrade over 6700K. If you're upgrading from a previous platform I suspect 7700K will be the best option. But suspect upgrading from 6700K is not going to be worth it. Unless its a very good overclocker.

You mean in a well balanced system where the CPU is the bottleneck... :wink: Different CPU architectures and RAM speeds also affect the FPS. Here is how much they all perform relative to each other in FSX when you are CPU limited.

Yeah, I did use the old 1.2 installer. So I guess it could be that. It did work fine installing V3 Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee withoutit prompting me for the registration more than once using the same 1.2 installer though... I'll get in touch with MSE about the black stripe. It's I obviously in the data that generates the bgls. It is confined to a thin stripe in MO_898.bgl

FSX makes good use of multi core and HyperTreading but when you get past 3 cores it is only improving ground texture loading. I've just been playing around a bit with my 6700K recently and without HT activated (with appropriate AM) I find it horrible for photo scenery. You can't fly very fast with a high LOD without getting blurries. With HT on (and appropriate AM) it is a lot better but still not as good for ground texture loading as my 6 core SandyBridge-E with HT on. That is despite the Skylake having a higher overclock than the SandyBridge-E. But when it comes to FPS the Skylake is very noticible better with its beter architecture, DDR4 and higher overclock. (Give me Skylake-E soon please Intel...) AM=85 is the FSX default for a quad core HTon. That's what you get if you don't put anything in the .cfg. For a quad core I find AM=241 is the best all-round AM with HTon whilst AM=249 works even better with some photoscenery but has the potential to not work so well depending on if you get any other CPU intensive activity running. (UK photoscenery with treescapes for example generates high CPU load on the FSX thread that loads pretty much everything that is read from your harddrives). I would also imagine any Wx software that generates a lot of cpu load at times injecting Wx might not work that great with AM=249. If you activate HT and use AM=84 it is the equivalent of HToff AM=14.

Here is a screenshot of what I am seeing. Do you have the same or is it my install that is corrupt?

I've just downloaded and installed MO today and the problem is still there. I've also noticed a thin but long stripe of just black ground textures east of KSGF. Do you have the same? (Sorry, can't take a screenshot right now which would have helped but it is very obvious for me when I take off from KSGF and head east.)

Is the last tile by any chance called AZ_729 and you have 670 bgls in total? This is the pictorial version with every X being a bgl tile: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 4- 27) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 31- 54) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 58- 81) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 85-108) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 109-135) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 136-162) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 163-189) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 190-216) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 217-243) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 244-270) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 271-297) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 298-324) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 327-351) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 353-378) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 379-405) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 406-432) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 433-459) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 460-486) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 487-513) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 514-540) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 541-567) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 568-594) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 597-621) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 628-648) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 658-675) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 688-702) XXXXXXXXXXXX (bgl 718-729) Does this look like Arizona squeezed at the sides? :smile:

The assumption that all bgl's are supposed to be consecutive is an easy one to make but it is wrong. I'll quote my own answer to a similar question in another thread. Looking at the numbers of assumed 'missing' tiles you have there are consistent with Arizona being 27 tiles wide and the shape of the state having a straight N and E border, a chunk missing in the top NW corner, the W border having a chunk going in to the state somewhere about in the middle and the southern border tapering off towards the N a little bit more than half of the state. If you are still worried, just load up a flight at for example KFLG, select outside top down view and zoom out until you see the whole state. Any tiles missing inside the state will easily show up.