A question for those with fast computers...

[Guest aaron]

I will be getting a new computer soon, and I am stuck. I don't know which is better for FS2002? AMD XP or Pentium Processor's.If I would go the Athlon route I would have:AMD XP 1900256 MB DDR Ram or 512 MB DDR RamGeforce 2 MX/400 (what I have now, works great so far)and everything elseI just don't know what I should do. If anyone has any suggestions please hollar.http://www.webspawner.com/users/ahay/FINAL%20BANNER.jpgRegards,Aaron

[Guest]

HI,It is in my opinion Faster/cheaper against slower/more reliable .But I am not sure if i had the fastest computer in the world that I would find it fast enough for Fs2002 I have a 900mhz duron and it seems to do all i can hope for and that is real cheap but they can get real hot .mmmmmmmmmm it is a hard choise but for me I like AMD and do not have much dealings with pentium but I had one once and it was pretty ok and i bet still someone is using it :)Sorry cant help you Anniette xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

Aaron,I bought my first Athlon recently (2000XP) and have nothing but the highest praise for it. Previously I was a big Intel fan but their prices compared to AMD were unjustifiable IMO.I have 512Mb of PC2100 DDR RAM and a Creative GeForce4 Ti4600 which is superb but I think you will still get plenty of service out of your GeForce2.If you can afford to get the 2000XP or maybe 2100XP that would help in the long term but I can understand money doesn't grow on trees.A 1900XP with 512 RAM would probably be a better all-round bet than a 2000 with only 256 although you can always add more RAM later - it's more difficult to upgrade the processor.Hope that helps.

[Guest SoarPics]

AMD is better, of course, because... that's what I use :-lol :-lol Seriously, Aaron, it really comes down to your preference. Both chips will do the job just fine, if set-up properly, and each has their advantages and disadvantages.Sounds to me like you're planning on buying. Most here (myself included) would suggest building your own. Much more bang for the buck and you'll know the system pretty good by the time it's up and running. If you do decide to build, then I beleive AMD is the better choice (more motherboard choices, DDR memory is cheaper then RAMBUS).Another choice is to have a system built by someone like Falcon or Alienware. They often have some great deals.Hope this helps, and let us know what you decide.Regards,

[Guest]

Hi Aaron,So you're in the market for an upgrade! You must be single, or you have a very forgiving wife/fiance/girlfriend! ;-) In either case, you're one lucky guy. Upgrades are outta the question for me until after my wedding in September. If I even mention the word before then, I'm likely to be divorced even before I get married! ;-)As for whether or not you should go for AMD or Intel, personally I don't think you can go wrong with either purchase. You get more bang for the buck with AMD, and they are still very comparable to the P4's in benchmarks, sometimes even beating Intel. Not sure now though that Intel has their P4 2.4GHz out. Won't be long though before AMD catches up again. In any event, I was always a die-hard Intel customer ever since '94, until October of last year when I finally purchased my first ever AMD chip (Athlon 1.4GHz). I almost went AMD a couple of times in the past, but chickened out at the last minute. But this time I followed through. And to be honest, I can't say that I regret doing so at all. I have been, and still am very much impressed with the chip and it's performance, and will probably upgrade with another AMD chip sometime this fall. Unless of course Intel decide to lower their prices to AMD's level with a much more powerful chip (yeah right!) Unfortunately, I don't have any benchmarks to show you or point you to, just my simple honest opinion. It comes down to this, and Anniette stated the same above, it all comes down to the budget more or less. If you want to be able to save a few bucks on the chip and put the extra money towards other upgrade components, go AMD. If you are a die-hard Intel fan and are looking for that highly renouned stable chip that Intel are known for (most of the time ;-) ), and don't mind spending a little extra cash, then go Intel. Again, you shouldn't be disappointed with either.Anyhow, I hope I have been of some assistance to you. And good luck with your new purchase! I'm sure you will be more than pleased with it no matter which side of the fence you jump off.Take care,Gord NoseworthyNewfoundland, Canada (CYYT)

[michal 44]

Cost-wise the Athlon hardware is definitely a better buy.But as some on this forum already confirmed - the latest Pentiums 2.2+Ghz offer the best performance platform for FS2002. So it all depends how much $$ you are willing to spend.Michael J.

[Guest]

Aaron,Hello again..I'm using an AMD 1.3ghz with a GEforce2/GTS/64mb, 512mb RAM, on a ABIT KT-7A motherboard. It works very well, for the most part. As someone else mentioned, I don't think it would matter too much what speed you get beyond 1.0ghz. I think there is some flaw in the program that is losing tons of memory as we run this simulator. Any time you get close to scenery or clouds, frame rates fall like the stock market. The highly detailed aircraft from FS2k and FS2k2 also seem to have a big hit on frame rates. As long as you can stay far enough away from stuff so it doesn't have to paint the picture too fast, it's beautiful. I have noticed, that occasionally, if I use an old FS98 aircraft (much less detail), frame rates stay up pretty good. Anyway, I like it well enough to keep it. I don't think Microsoft is going to fix anything, so we don't have any choice but to live with it until someone comes out with a better performing sim.Hope you get a good deal on what you want,Best regards,Bob

[Guest Joshieca]

I have an AMD 1900+ and to tell you the truth, I wished I had spent the money for an INTEL. In any case your video card is far too out of date. Try to get a Gforce 3 Ti500, or GF4 Ti4400. You will be much happier.My friend has a two year old AMD 1.0 ghz, and I have the above 1900+, we both have GF4 Ti4600's....we ran side by side test of a video game (MotoGP) they ran almost the same. Moral of the story....go for the best GPU and not CPU.For more advice head on over here...http://gamershq.madonion.com/?AID=8781926&PID=1166317[div align=center]http://members.cox.net/joshieca/fstimeslink.gif

[Guest]

AaronIf you are looking at the XP 1900 because of limited funds then go for it. You will get better performance than you would from a Pentium 4 of the same price. On the other hand if money is no object go for the latest Pentium 4 as it is much faster, much more scalable (for overclocking), and costs about $650. David

[Guest B52Drivr]

I can tell you what I have, and what results I get.MB is Azus P4B266 with a Pentium P-4 1.8G processor. I am running 512m of Rambus ram, and I have a GForce Ti4600 w/128mram on a IBM7200 rpm 40gb HD.Now for Performance.I have the frame rate locked in at 35 FPS . . .I feel more than that is just running frame rates and nothing more. I have all sliders turned all the way up. In other words, all graphics are maxed out!Flying the 'full' Falcon 50 over the heavy KCVG scenery, I have seen as low as 22 FPS on the runway and once down to 18. Anywhere else I seldom see it drop below 33.Flying the 421 Golden Eagle I see 27 on the runway and never any lower.Flying the Piper 400, same as above, give or take a fps.I am most happy with my equipment and nothing is overclocked . . .and from what I read, I can overclock both the card and CPU with good and safe results. Not trying to sell anyone anything . . .but I like what I have and FS2002 performs like a dream. Usually I run PF2000, FlightDeck Companion and FSSE and FSMaintenance all at the same time and do not....repeat.....do not have any problems at all. Operating system is good ole 98SE which is very stable.Clay DopkeB52Drivr@aol.com

[Guest]

Im with you there clay!P4 2.2Asus P4S533512 PC2700 DDRPny G/F4 Ti4400 128DDR(29.42)Xp Home (Clean Install)With the exceptions of water reflections i have evry slider maxed. Including 4x AGP, Its as smooth as butter. The frame rates you are getting is almost identical as mine. My frames are locked at 30. I could not be happier at this point with my system. The best part was that i built it myself!Ed

[Guest]

I am running a P4 1.8 gig with 512 mb DDR ram on an Intel motherboard. Windows XP Home edition. VisionTek GeForce4 Ti 4600 video card at 1600x1200x32 with 29.80 drivers and Philips Acoustic Edge sound card. FS2002 pro with most sliders maxed except autogen scenery and no water reflections. I have yet to experience a BSOD or lockup with this system. Framerates locked at 30. Very happy with this setup.

[Guest SD Sim]

Hi Aaron,Thought I would toss my opinion into the hopper. We are fortunate to be on a forum with some real computer geniuses. As everyone has pointed out correctly, you can't go wrong on either platform. A wise man named Elrond, though, would probably be the first to point out that you should hold off until this fall if you can. If you want to know why, then read this.If you're like me (I'm very impatient), then you want to upgrade now. I have assembled two computers, and bought a Sony Vaio about half a year ago. I have three computers now because I use WidevieW, which gives me forward, left, and right views simultaneously. I'm not trying to beat my chest here, but rather want to point out that I have used both the P4 and the Athlon platforms. When your assembling computers, you cannot go wrong with Athlon as you do indeed get more for your money.Now having said that, at this point in time, I would actually recommend that you purchase a P4 with the new Northwood (0.13 micron) die. They are currently selling 2.53 GHz, but you can get a 2.3 GHz chip for a reasonable price. The nice thing about the Pentium is that, with the 0.13 die, there is now plenty of room for stepping up the speed, so your system will be upgadable still in the future.That then brings us to the Athlon. Athlon has also switched to the 0.13 die, which they offer as the XP2200+. My major concern with this chip is that the surface area is actually smaller. This is important because Athlon chips in general run much warmer than their AMD counterparts. With the reduced surface area, you will definitely need a better fan (copper based, and somewhat noisy). However, the Barton platform should be just around the corner, which will have a 512KB L2 cache, and as a consequence, a larger surface area. I would think that this would help it to run much cooler. Now the Barton will be nice, but as I understand it, this will likely be the end of the road for the Athlon series, and perhaps for the socket A motherboards as well. What does this mean to you, your ability to upgrade these machines will be shorter lived.Now do I live by my own words? By no means. I'm just about finished assembling the third computer, which I've been working on for about 1 week (don't ask). It is based on an XP1800+ with DDR333 memory. I chose the XP1800+ because it is so cheap relative to the 2000+, but I only lose about 10% speed, which is well worth it to me when your wife is asking why you need a third computer :-doh. In the end, your choice may be dictated by your cash supply. I hope I have helped, and feel free to e-mail me if you have any further questions. Good luck :-wave.