its been explained by the developers as a case of technology changing
mid-stream, and unfortunately, the multicore design hit the market quicker
than that programmers could react.
My understanding is that it is very difficult to program to effectively use
multi-core processors, as the data stream is split and prioritized, then has
to be synchronized on the output side. Even with that said, FSX makes
limited use of multicore, but the largest use for multicores, is for one core
to run the program, while the secondary (third or fourth for the QX
processors) to run your background services, such as windows apps and
antivirus.
"Dustin Harper" wrote:
> According to the ACES team in various FS forums, it does take advantage of
> multiple threads. On my system, it uses more like 75%/25%.
>
>
> --
> Dustin Harper
> dharper@vistarip.com
> http://www.vistarip.com
>
> --
> "Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message
> news:71C0B82C-1115-4E09-A095-B99730416A9A@microsoft.com...
> > "mlai" <mlai@community.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:F55D2565-92AD-4F5D-8730-5C8095A4AA58@microsoft.com...
> >>I am running FSX on my X6800 system and I noticed that one of the cores
> >>runs at very high utilization (80-100%) and the other is very low
> >>(10-20%).
> >> Seems to me that FSX is not optimzed for multi-threaded operations.
> >> Anybody noticed the same thing?
> >
> > Yes, but in my case both cores are at around 50%.
> >
> >> If so, that's a pretty poor software planning and coding.......
> >
> > The trouble is going back and re-engineering the existing code from the
> > previous product is extremely expensive compared with working with what
> > you've already got an expanding on it.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Smith,
> > Yeovil, UK.
> > Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
> > http://www.windowsresource.net/
> >
> > *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
> >
> >
>