Sign in to follow this  
FTD1949

Upgrade advice

Recommended Posts

I am currently running a PIII 800, 512 Ram, with a Radeon 64MB DDR ViVo Card. I am also seeing a drastic reduction in frame rates as I add on more and better aircraft, panels, and scenery, especially at night in terminal areas. So the question: What's the best way to go with an upgrade? PIV or Athlon ? A GeForce 4 card? Both (Probably, but I don't want to go bankrupt doing this.) Advice from any of you who have gone this route is appreciated.Thanks,Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The three secrets to good frame rates in FS2002...1) CPU2) CPU3) CPUI got lousy performance, no matter what I did, until I upgraded to a 1.6 ghz P4. Now it cruises. And I'm still using that old Geforce2 TI board. FS2002 is a CPU hog and it seems once you drop below the amount of CPU cycles that it needs, performance begins to drop off very sharply. Mike Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The three secrets to good frame rates in FS2002... >>1) CPU >>2) CPU >>3) CPU >>I got lousy performance, no matter what I did, until I >upgraded to a 1.6 ghz P4. Now it cruises. And I'm still >using that old Geforce2 TI board. FS2002 is a CPU hog and >it seems once you drop below the amount of CPU cycles that >it needs, performance begins to drop off very sharply. I'd just like to add that unless you're overclocking that P4 by a significant margin (read: higher than 2GHz), you'd see MUCH better performance from a similarly (or even a few speed grades slower) Athlon XP for the same or less money. My recommendation would be an Athlon XP system. Unless you're comfortable with extreme overclocking, you're not going to get anywhere near the bang for the buck out of the P4 as you would an Athlon XP. That's not just an opinion, read some comparisons of the two processors and then look at their prices. You'll be surprised to see how well the Athlon XP keeps up with even the newest Northwood P4's at over 2.5GHz, especially when you see how much cheaper the Athlon XP is ;)Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm.....maybe.....maybe not. I did significant comparisons between the 1.6 P4 and the equivilant Athlon XP. I clocked actual systems and got nearly identical end user performance. As to the price, Intel's latest price chops have pretty well evened that up. My local supplier offers the Athlon $30 cheaper than the P4, but the Athlon lacked a cooling fan, which is inluded with the P4. Basically, its a wash.It's been my experience that both camps have their followers and both are absolutely convinced that their side rules the world. And neither side is going to change the other side's mind. It's similar to the Nvidia vs. ATI war. It's just a matter of personal taste and you can do fine whichever direction you go.Mike Stone.P.S. I don't overclock, at all, CPU or GPU and the P4 gives me consistent 30-40 frames in FS2002 with all the sliders maxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a PIII800. I'd like to upgrade it as well; but for now, I'm content with the performance I'm getting in FS2002. I run with frames locked at 22. That's where it stays most of the time. There are some problem areas in the sim. I just avoid them. Plenty of great airports to fly out of.If you want to buy quality, you'll have to spend some money. If you're a Pentium fan, get a Pentium. If you're an AMD fan, get an AMD. Currently, the Pentiums are running at 533mhz. The PIV 2.4gig 533mhz processor is currently $405 Retail Box and can probably be overclocked to considerably more if that's your cup of tea. You can go either DDR ram with an asus board or RDram with an intel board. The PC1066 ram is $150 bucks for a 256mg stick and you'll need two sticks. Also, find a good GF3Ti or GF4Ti card to go with it. Currently, the Pentiums are ahead of the AMD processors in speed. Don't let anyone tell you differently. Next year, who knows??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD all the way!! cheaper and much better benchmarks... and for vid card im running a GeForce4 Xtasy Ti4400 and its a dream!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hmmmmm.....maybe.....maybe not. I did significant >comparisons between the 1.6 P4 and the equivilant Athlon XP. > I clocked actual systems and got nearly identical end user >performance. As to the price, Intel's latest price chops >have pretty well evened that up. My local supplier offers >the Athlon $30 cheaper than the P4, but the Athlon lacked a >cooling fan, which is inluded with the P4. Basically, its a >wash. >>It's been my experience that both camps have their followers >and both are absolutely convinced that their side rules the >world. And neither side is going to change the other side's >mind. It's similar to the Nvidia vs. ATI war. It's just a >matter of personal taste and you can do fine whichever >direction you go. >>Mike Stone. >>P.S. I don't overclock, at all, CPU or GPU and the P4 gives >me consistent 30-40 frames in FS2002 with all the sliders >maxed. Firstly, I don't care who makes my CPU, I just want what's going to give me the most performance for my money, and that happens to be an Athlon XP at the moment. If AMD can't pull the Hammer release off well enough I'll probably switch over to Intel when Prescott comes out (if it outperforms the Hammer). I don't like Intel's business practices of trying to force OEMs into using Intel CPUs and not AMD CPUs, nor do I like the extremely high prices of their CPUs, even in the face of competition, so who knows how high their prices would be without AMD? I remember 4 years ago when the Deschutes PII came out (333MHz, 350MHz, 400MHz) and the 400MHz part was priced at over $1000!!! I don't think we need $1000 P4's out there...Secondly, saying you get "30-40fps with all sliders maxed" doesn't mean jack unless you tell us *ALL RELEVANT SYSTEM SPECS AND SOFTWARE SETTINGS!* For all we know you could be running at 640x480x16 on a Geforce4 TI 4600 w/ATC and AI traffic disabled. Also, 30-40fps is a pretty wide variance, and, therefore, not very accurate. What is your absolute minimum fps? What is your absolute maximum? What are the min, max, and average fps: on the ground taxiing, taking off, climbing, at altitude, descending, and landing? Do you have ATC and AI traffic enabled? If so, what settings are you using? Do you have sound enabled? What plane(s) are you using? What view(s) are you using? There are quite a few factors that determine performance which you haven't mentioned, so your "30-40fps with all sliders maxed" means nothing without more information. Just for continuity's sake, I get 22fps max, 15fps min, 22fps average(capped @ 22) in all situations, in any view, w/any plane (all default planes, Meridian VA full livery) with the following sim settings (system specs in sig):-1152x864x32 -bilinear filtering -mip-mapping enabled-multi-texturing enabled-T&L & AA disabled-3 hardware lights-ATC & AI on-75% AI traffic-mesh @ 85%-cloud density @ 66%-texture quality @ max-terrain mesh @ 80%-texture quality @ max-autogen dense-scenery complexity very dense-dynamic scenery very dense-effects detail maximum-max visibility 120mi-water effects detail-cloud shadows on-dawn/desk texture smoothing on-extended terrain textures on-terrain detail textures on-aircraft texture size high-VC gauge quality low-reflections off-AC shadows on-landing lights on-resize panel w/main window on-sound enabled-sound quality high-all sounds turned on except for lessons/flights.fs2k2.cfg (relevant settings):[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=4.800000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=3TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=7.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.999999TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=1Now THAT'S detailed ;)Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed that you are running FS2K2 on a system very similar to one that I have just built. I have not got it up and running yet. Just wondering what kind of performance you are getting using the GF2 GTS? I am going to continue using that same card until the GF4's come down in price.My new system:Athlon XP 2000+ASUS A7V333 MBO512 MB Kingmax DDR SDRAM PC 2700GeForce2 GTS 64MB video cardSoundblaster AudigyWestern Digital Caviar 80 MB HD (8MB cache)IBM Deskstar 30 MB HDWinXP Home EditionVolcano 7+ Heatsink/FanLian Li PC-69 Aluminum CaseAltec Lansing 641 Surround Sound System(Hoping for the Best with the GF2 card for now!)John-PaulToronto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you have your framerate target set at ??If you set it around 20 it will allow more of your system resources to generate scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeeezzz....Louizzzzzz....lets see now, I'm running at 320x200 on a monochrome monitor. I don't even have a sound card. I have the clouds, dynamic scenery and all AI disabled. I tried turning off the ground, but then I can't tell if I'm upside down. You totally missed the point of my note. The idea that AMD chips are inherently superior to the equivilant Intel chip is hogwash. For every "benchmark" that shows AMD is better I can produce one that shows Intel is better. And AMD chips aren't cheaper. My supplier quotes nearly identical prices. Sometimes AMD is slightly cheaper, sometimes they're slightly higher. The point is, its a matter of personal taste. You can be equally successful with either brand for about the same price.Mike Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Geeeezzz....Louizzzzzz....lets see now, I'm running at >320x200 on a monochrome monitor. I don't even have a sound >card. I have the clouds, dynamic scenery and all AI >disabled. I tried turning off the ground, but then I can't >tell if I'm upside down. >>You totally missed the point of my note. The idea that AMD >chips are inherently superior to the equivilant Intel chip >is hogwash. For every "benchmark" that shows AMD is better >I can produce one that shows Intel is better. And AMD chips >aren't cheaper. My supplier quotes nearly identical prices. > Sometimes AMD is slightly cheaper, sometimes they're >slightly higher. The point is, its a matter of personal >taste. You can be equally successful with either brand for >about the same price. >>Mike Stone LMFAO! That's some of the funniest stuff I've heard in awhile... So you think because your local PC component supplier chooses to price AMD and Intel CPUs similarly (I see we're still using general terminology that doesn't mean anything) that means P4 and AXP prices are the same everywhere else? I was going by official pricing directly from Intel and AMD when I made that statement, and you base yours on what the guy down the street has them priced at? :-roll Even street prices will work, since Intel CPUs are priced so high already they can have larger price cuts than already-low-priced AXPs ;) Check out pricewatch.com and compare CPU prices, AMD is priced lower than Intel, always. When I made the comment about AMD CPUs being cheaper and providing better performance than a similarly clocked (or higher clocked) P4, I didn't just pull that out of thin air. This is a known fact and has been since the P4 was released ~18 months ago. The P4 needs to be clocked significantly faster (read: several hundred MHz) than an AXP to outperform it in most apps/benchmarks. Read a few reviews, you'll find the same thing. If, after reading several comprehensive reviews you still think that the P4 doesn't need to be clocked higher than an AXP to outperform it, I'll make a deal with you: I'll clock my Athlon XP 1700+ back down to stock (133/1466) and you can keep your (100/1600) P4 at stock levels and let's benchmark our systems and report the results back here. I'll even let you pick the benchmark(s). Or, if you want, I can keep my AXP @ 151/1666 and you can try to o/c your P4 and we'll see who wins the benchmarks ;) BTW, all those benchmarks you refer to (again, haven't listed any names) that show the P4 faster than the AXP, I guarantee the benchmark is either heavily-optimized for the P4, or the P4 that's faster than the AXP in the benchmark is clocked significantly higher than the AXP (or both). How many real-world apps are P4-optimized? Very, very few... Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I'll let the benchmarks do the talking for me instead. Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked prices over at newegg. XP2200 FSB 266 OEM (meaning you buy heatsink and fan separately and glue it together yourself) Couldn't find a retail box XP2200. Price $232PentiumIV 2.26 FSB 533 Retail Box (comes with heatsink & fan)$274PentiumIV 2.4 FSB 533 Retail Box (comes with heatsink & fan)$396PentiumIV 2.53 FSB 533 Retail Box$632 (I'd wait till the price comes down on this one)IMHO, I'd buy the PIV 2.4gig 533mhz processor right now. But that's just me. The XP2200 and the PIV 2.26 are roughly the same price. Anybody know what the actual speed of the 2200 is???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Just wondering what kind of performance you >are getting using the GF2 GTS? uh....... you're kidding, right? Did you read the post you responded to? I specifically mentioned my FS2k2 performance in the post... If you're wondering what kind of performance I get in other games or benchmarks, tell me which ones you mean and I'll tell you what kind of performance I get. FS2k2 performance update: I reverted to the 23.12 Det's and enabled Geforce Tweak Utility and overclocked my card to 230/370, as well as enabled Via 4x AGP (and a few other minor image quality tweaks like LOD @ -1.0). I also enabled hardware T&L in the FS2k2 settings and the results are that I now only get less than 22 fps in the absolute most demanding situations (using large commercial plane in spot view, while using ATC with other traffic around me and taxiing @ KORD). Otherwise it is always 22fps in all other scenarios (even while panning 360's around the plane in spot view several times). Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is Newegg the only supplier of CPUs? I didn't realize all the other CPU retailers went out of business :-roll If you're going to compare CPU prices, why not compare AMD's top of the line to Intel's top of the line? Results? Intel's fastest is almost 3 times the cost of AMD's! Does Intel's fastest outperform AMD's by 3x? No! It's the same all the way down the line... AMD simply has lower prices, that's all their is to it. You (admittedly) Intel fans can try to claim that Intel's prices are the same but unless you're Bill Clinton and can convince the public that $605 = $219, you're wrong. If you want to compare the CPUs at equal clocks or even equal PR rating, I'll allow for that, given that they're not from a *specific* retailer and are taken either directly from AMD & Intel or as a street price off of Pricewatch. Results? AMD CPUs are cheaper than their Intel counterparts @ all levels. Getting into specific CPU comparisions, if you compare an AXP 2200+ to a P4 2.2GHz, the AXP beats the P4 in most all benchmarks, despite being 400MHz slower and having nowhere near the FSB bandwidth of the P4. AXP 2200+ vs. P4 2.2GHz is the only price point at which the two manufacturers are even close ($219 vs. $230) but you have to keep in mind that the AXP 2200+ is AMD's current flagship CPU and was literally just released. So AMD's flagship CPU that literally just came out is cheaper than a CPU Intel released several months ago, and outperforms it in most all benchmarks. AXP 2000+ vs. P4 2.0GHz = even greater margin of victory for the AXP, and even greater cost difference between the two CPUs ($133 vs. $183 on pricewatch). Compare the rest of the CPUs and you'll find the same results.Anyway, I'm sure I'm just shouting at the proverbial stone wall here, and not likely to change either of you Intel fans' minds, but I'd rather get the information out to those that perhaps don't know the truth, and may actually buy the Intel marketing blather you spout.Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Max; www.newegg.com is where I buy all my computer stuff. It has the best pricing on the web, bar none. Most of the time that is. Delivery in two days too. The XP2200 is currently the fastest AMD. It's roughly equivalent to the PIV 2.2gig 533mhz from what I've read. So is the price. Or does the 2200 beat the 2.2 533 by a wide margin?? You are absolutely right about the PIV2.53 533mhz. That one is priced way high at this time cause it's the fastest. You can overclock any of the PIVs if you want. But, currently; the fastest PIV beats the fastest AMD if you think a couple frames per second are that important and worth the considerable extra money. I don't. My point is there's a wide variety of processors. You can get an equivalent PIV for about the same price as an equivalent AMD any day of the week. Just shop around. All depends on which one you want. Price isn't really a big factor anymore. Doesn't the XP2100 run at around 1.8gig and the XP2200 run around 2.2gig?? Well, in that case, the Pentiums are just as cheap as the AMDs. Let's compare retail box to retail box. The money difference isn't worth the argument. The PIVs can be overclocked if that little bit of difference is that important to the user. It all depends on which one you prefer. They're both good processors. I just happen to think that the Pentiums are less hassle than the AMDs. So, that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow....take a Prozac will you? I like Intel, you like AMD. End of discussion. But discussing it doesn't require flames and personal insults.I'm outta here....way overdue I might add.Mike Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Wow....take a Prozac will you? I like Intel, you like AMD. >End of discussion. But discussing it doesn't require flames >and personal insults. >>I'm outta here....way overdue I might add. eh, flaming and personal insults? I didn't realize that disagreeing with someone emphatically *WITHOUT* using profanity or resorting to name-calling constituted "flaming and personal insults" :-rollBTW, I've already explained my position on the whole AMD vs. Intel thing, I don't "like AMD/not like Intel", I buy what's best for me at the time. Up until a few short weeks ago I hadn't used an AMD processor in several years so you could hardly call me an "AMD fan." I'm only responding to yours and MGD's messages because no one else appears to care to offer the p.o.v. on the other side of the fence. Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, Max ain't being rude. You'll know when he gets rude, Trust me. hehehe. He's just passionate about the whole Pentium/AMD thing. If we were bragging up the AMDs, he'd be defending the Pentiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Actually Max; www.newegg.com is where I buy all my computer >stuff. It has the best pricing on the web, bar none. Most >of the time that is. Delivery in two days too. The XP2200 >is currently the fastest AMD. It's roughly equivalent to >the PIV 2.2gig 533mhz from what I've read. So is the price. >Or does the 2200 beat the 2.2 533 by a wide margin?? You are >absolutely right about the PIV2.53 533mhz. That one is >priced way high at this time cause it's the fastest. You >can overclock any of the PIVs if you want. >>But, currently; the fastest PIV beats the fastest AMD if you >think a couple frames per second are that important and >worth the considerable extra money. I don't. My point is >there's a wide variety of processors. You can get an >equivalent PIV for about the same price as an equivalent AMD >any day of the week. Just shop around. All depends on which >one you want. Price isn't really a big factor anymore. Firstly, this isn't about where *you* buy your PC components or which online retailer is the best, that's irrelevant. This is about pricing of AMD CPUs vs. Intel CPUs, regardless of who is doing the selling. AMD prices their CPUs lower than Intel does. That's not my opinion, that's fact. Go look for the *official* pricing from both companies and you'll see that AMD's prices are lower than Intel's.>Doesn't the XP2100 run at around 1.8gig and the XP2200 run >around 2.2gig?? Well, in that case, the Pentiums are just >as cheap as the AMDs. Let's compare retail box to retail >box. The money difference isn't worth the argument. The PIVs >can be overclocked if that little bit of difference is that >important to the user. It all depends on which one you >prefer. They're both good processors. I just happen to >think that the Pentiums are less hassle than the AMDs. So, >that's just my opinion. Might want to do a bit of research on that one ;) the XP2100+ runs at 1.73GHz while the XP2200+ runs at 1.8GHz. If you'd done the math from my previous post in the comparison of the XP2200+ vs. the P4 2.2GHz (where I said there's a 400MHz difference between the two) the speed of the XP2200+ part would be apparent. BTW, I am comparing retail box prices to retail box prices. Go to pricewatch.com or find the official pricing from either company. As far as speed comparisons go, I'm not touching those with a ten-foot pole (not unless I can get my hands on a P4 to do some first-hand testing). I go by what I've read in reviews and white papers until I can get firsthand experience with both CPUs "in-house."Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Nah, Max ain't being rude. You'll know when he gets rude, >Trust me. hehehe. He's just passionate about the whole >Pentium/AMD thing. If we were bragging up the AMDs, he'd be >defending the Pentiums. Hey, you've got me pegged MGD :) I just want to keep people informed, is all. Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this