CPU loading with FS9

Archived from groups: (More info?)

I'm running FS9, plus a whole heap of extra scenery on a P4 3GHz HT, with a
gig of dual DDR RAM. #
I'm getting about 30-40 fps most of the time, but it does drop to just over
20 in real bad weather or highly complex scenery. My question is, if I
bring up the Processes tab of task manager it shows FS9.exe is consuming 52%
CPU time. With system idle using 47-48%, why is my frame rate dropping? Is
it a graphics card limitation? (ATI Radeon 9600 Pro) Increasing the task
priority doesn't make any difference.

Si
13 answers Last reply
More about loading
  1. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    "Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> schreef in bericht
    news:dgjg0v$anm$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
    > I'm running FS9, plus a whole heap of extra scenery on a P4 3GHz HT, with
    a
    > gig of dual DDR RAM. #
    > I'm getting about 30-40 fps most of the time, but it does drop to just
    over
    > 20 in real bad weather or highly complex scenery. My question is, if I
    > bring up the Processes tab of task manager it shows FS9.exe is consuming
    52%
    > CPU time. With system idle using 47-48%, why is my frame rate dropping?
    Is
    > it a graphics card limitation? (ATI Radeon 9600 Pro) Increasing the task
    > priority doesn't make any difference.

    Well first of all, I am jealous at those 20 fps (please read my posting
    about the 8-18 fps).
    My CPU is doing 100% in the same situation. Yours only 50. I wonder how much
    your internal mem is filled up. My mem is filled for about 90-95%.
    I suspect your 9600Pro card is -indeed- the problem. Cause the GPU is the
    one that has to do all the calculating for the graphics on the screen. It
    isn't strange your fps drop in complex situations. 20 is quite fine. I've
    heard it said the human eye cannot notice a framerate increase above 25, so
    what are we talking about:-) But the 9600Pro has been around for quite a
    while now and better cards have become available. I think you have to accept
    the 20 fps....
  2. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    From a post I read recently it seems that the reason you're seeing only 52%
    CPU usage is to do with Intel's Hyperthreading. In reality you are loading
    much more on the CPU like the rest of us! :0))

    Iain

    "Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:dgjg0v$anm$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
    > I'm running FS9, plus a whole heap of extra scenery on a P4 3GHz HT, with
    > a
    > gig of dual DDR RAM. #
    > I'm getting about 30-40 fps most of the time, but it does drop to just
    > over
    > 20 in real bad weather or highly complex scenery. My question is, if I
    > bring up the Processes tab of task manager it shows FS9.exe is consuming
    > 52%
    > CPU time. With system idle using 47-48%, why is my frame rate dropping?
    > Is
    > it a graphics card limitation? (ATI Radeon 9600 Pro) Increasing the task
    > priority doesn't make any difference.
    >
    > Si
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    your CPU has HT, so Windows "thinks" its only using 50% of the CPU, since
    the "other" CPU isnt doing anything. But its really 100% useage of CPU0.
    While CPU1 (virtual) is at 0-2% which makes it 52% overall.


    --
    From Overlag - Adam Webb


    "Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:dgjg0v$anm$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
    > I'm running FS9, plus a whole heap of extra scenery on a P4 3GHz HT, with
    > a
    > gig of dual DDR RAM. #
    > I'm getting about 30-40 fps most of the time, but it does drop to just
    > over
    > 20 in real bad weather or highly complex scenery. My question is, if I
    > bring up the Processes tab of task manager it shows FS9.exe is consuming
    > 52%
    > CPU time. With system idle using 47-48%, why is my frame rate dropping?
    > Is
    > it a graphics card limitation? (ATI Radeon 9600 Pro) Increasing the task
    > priority doesn't make any difference.
    >
    > Si
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    Windows recognizes HT as two processors, and unless affinity is set to a
    single CPU, load is balanced across all CPUs.

    If it was only running on one CPU, it would show close 100% usage in worst
    case situations. The 0-2% is other trivial tasks running on the computer.

    Mike

    "Adam Webb" <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:MsednVk7suyoKrDeRVnyug@eclipse.net.uk...
    > your CPU has HT, so Windows "thinks" its only using 50% of the CPU, since
    > the "other" CPU isnt doing anything. But its really 100% useage of CPU0.
    > While CPU1 (virtual) is at 0-2% which makes it 52% overall.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > From Overlag - Adam Webb
    >
    >
    > "Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:dgjg0v$anm$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
    >> I'm running FS9, plus a whole heap of extra scenery on a P4 3GHz HT, with
    >> a
    >> gig of dual DDR RAM. #
    >> I'm getting about 30-40 fps most of the time, but it does drop to just
    >> over
    >> 20 in real bad weather or highly complex scenery. My question is, if I
    >> bring up the Processes tab of task manager it shows FS9.exe is consuming
    >> 52%
    >> CPU time. With system idle using 47-48%, why is my frame rate dropping?
    >> Is
    >> it a graphics card limitation? (ATI Radeon 9600 Pro) Increasing the task
    >> priority doesn't make any difference.
    >>
    >> Si
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    even tho the CPU is only using 50 odd percent, i'll bet the GPU is running
    flat out
    with those kinda frame rates, i think your doing pretty good m8

    cheers Paul

    "Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:dgjg0v$anm$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
    > I'm running FS9, plus a whole heap of extra scenery on a P4 3GHz HT, with
    a
    > gig of dual DDR RAM. #
    > I'm getting about 30-40 fps most of the time, but it does drop to just
    over
    > 20 in real bad weather or highly complex scenery. My question is, if I
    > bring up the Processes tab of task manager it shows FS9.exe is consuming
    52%
    > CPU time. With system idle using 47-48%, why is my frame rate dropping?
    Is
    > it a graphics card limitation? (ATI Radeon 9600 Pro) Increasing the task
    > priority doesn't make any difference.
    >
    > Si
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    "Paul R" <rudmans@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:oUbXe.12747$iM2.1082387@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > even tho the CPU is only using 50 odd percent, i'll bet the GPU is running
    > flat out
    > with those kinda frame rates, i think your doing pretty good m8

    Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't notice any frame rate drop with heavy
    traffic so I figured it's the GPU maxing out rather than the P4.

    Si
  7. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    >> even tho the CPU is only using 50 odd percent, i'll bet the GPU is
    >> running
    >> flat out
    >> with those kinda frame rates, i think your doing pretty good m8
    >
    > Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't notice any frame rate drop with
    > heavy
    > traffic so I figured it's the GPU maxing out rather than the P4.
    >
    > Si

    I think it is your GPU Simon, People have said in the past that FS9 relied
    mostly on the CPU and that graphics speed were less important, but when I
    went from a Radeon 9800pro 128mb to an X800XT 256mb I immediately saw an
    appreciable gain in performance in FS9 to the order of approx 25% to 40%,
    this with nothing else changed in the computer at all. Its not the cards
    256mb that made the difference, the X800 series cards made a huge jump in
    performance over their predecessors, normally you only get a small
    percentage in performance when a new video card comes out.

    Cheers.

    Colin
  8. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    Same observation here with the Intel P4 3.0G HT CPU, runs at 50% - in the
    BIOS setup screen, perhaps try turning off hyperthreading; and see if that
    makes a difference to the per cent CPU usage...

    ....larry


    "Adam Webb" <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:MsednVk7suyoKrDeRVnyug@eclipse.net.uk...
    > your CPU has HT, so Windows "thinks" its only using 50% of the CPU, since
    > the "other" CPU isnt doing anything. But its really 100% useage of CPU0.
    > While CPU1 (virtual) is at 0-2% which makes it 52% overall.
    >
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    turning HT will impact the performance of the system though.

    --
    From Overlag - Adam Webb


    "Larry Bourdillon" <labour@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
    news:mymXe.142$QE1.23@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Same observation here with the Intel P4 3.0G HT CPU, runs at 50% - in the
    > BIOS setup screen, perhaps try turning off hyperthreading; and see if that
    > makes a difference to the per cent CPU usage...
    >
    > ...larry
    >
    >
    > "Adam Webb" <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:MsednVk7suyoKrDeRVnyug@eclipse.net.uk...
    >> your CPU has HT, so Windows "thinks" its only using 50% of the CPU, since
    >> the "other" CPU isnt doing anything. But its really 100% useage of CPU0.
    >> While CPU1 (virtual) is at 0-2% which makes it 52% overall.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    > Same observation here with the Intel P4 3.0G HT CPU, runs at 50% - in the
    > BIOS setup screen, perhaps try turning off hyperthreading; and see if that
    > makes a difference to the per cent CPU usage...
    >
    > ...larry

    Another tip for P4's with HT is to set the affinity to one virtual CPU for
    FS9, have tried this but couldn't detect any real performance gain, it
    certainly never ran any slower.

    Cheers.

    Colin
  11. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    You probably won't notice any gain, unless you're running two critical
    applications at the same time. If you're only running FS, then you probably
    won't notice a diff.

    Mike

    "Colin" <Colin@NONEOFTHATSPAMSTUFFkatana1000.plus.com> wrote in message
    news:1ddb2$432df812$545c31d3$11433@nf5.news-service.com...
    >
    >> Same observation here with the Intel P4 3.0G HT CPU, runs at 50% - in the
    >> BIOS setup screen, perhaps try turning off hyperthreading; and see if
    >> that makes a difference to the per cent CPU usage...
    >>
    >> ...larry
    >
    > Another tip for P4's with HT is to set the affinity to one virtual CPU for
    > FS9, have tried this but couldn't detect any real performance gain, it
    > certainly never ran any slower.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Colin
    >
  12. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    "Adam Webb" <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:MsednVk7suyoKrDeRVnyug@eclipse.net.uk...
    > your CPU has HT, so Windows "thinks" its only using 50% of the CPU, since
    > the "other" CPU isnt doing anything. But its really 100% useage of CPU0.
    > While CPU1 (virtual) is at 0-2% which makes it 52% overall.

    Ok, thanks. I used to run without HT enabled as my Saitek USB driver used
    to crash the system sporadically. (But doesn't since the latest version.) I
    may turn it off again and have a look at what the difference is.

    Si
  13. I have an interesting situation. I recently rebuilt my computer. I had a 2.4GHz p4 with 1.5GB RAM and a 6800 OC video card... Now I have 3.2GHz HT Prescott, with 2GB PC400 RAM and a 7800 GS OC. Maybe I am halucinating but on my old system I would get about 10 frames per second or lower with my more complicated aircraft. Guess what. I have the SAME EXACT frame rates on the new computer. I just have to ask, how on earth does that work? Personally I think microsoft just did a bad job optimizing FS9. I also have my 7800 further overclocked to 489MHz instead of 400MHz.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming CPUs Video Games