2.2 GHz Socket 754 system VS 2.0 GHz Socket 939 one?

[Guest JELB]

Hello everyone,I recently got into FS2004 and so I'm motivated to replace my current machine. It's an eMachines AthonXP 2400 2.0 GHz PATA based system with an ATI 9600XT. It scores 3800 on 3DMark03.Now... I like eMachines. The above system has served me well for nearly two years. It runs FS2004 pretty well I guess, but it's not enough. So...I could by another eMachine; a T6410 AMD Athlon

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi JELB, welcome to this forum Ideally and briefly put, you'ld assemble a well balanced system for the resolution you require. IMHO, the resolution is where things start and end. For a 1024x res a (128-bit) 6600 is fine. Above that, i.e with 19"/1280x TFTs, a X800 or 6800 (256-bit/256MB) card seems more appropriate. The second consideration is RAM, 512MB is not enough if running a NT-OS and FS. It would be best to get at least 1024MBs of RAM. A 3rd consideration is the mainboard chipset. For AMD64 CPUs I'ld recommend either a nForce3 (Ultra or 250Gb w/ AGP) or nForce4 (Ultra or SLi w/ PCI-e and S-ATA-2). Then, the bigger the HD, the faster they usually are. Most 160GB or larger models will perform very well. Finally, get as much CPU as your budget allows... Hope this adds to the recipe, good luck and kind regards Jaap PS, please note, AMD64 CPUs aren't DDR2 compatible yet. PPS, case the budget is tight and you're using a 1024x res, you could get a s939 nForce3/AGP mainboard and continue to use the 9600 you have and upgrade the display adapter (and mainboard if simultaneously going for a PCI-e GPU) later on.

[Guest JELB]

Jaap,Hi. Thanks for the welcome, and the reply.Regarding res: 1024 is acceptable to me. I'm single, so I could go out and buy a $500 card but I hate the way it devalues so quickly. The one and only time I did so was for a 3DFX Voodoo 2. Within a year it was less than $200! Ouch!Regarding RAM: I forgot to mention that I intend to have 1024 in whatever system I get.Regarding mainboard chipset: I'll take your advice into consideration if I decide not to keep the system I picked up on Sunday. It's a refurbished Compaq Presario Model SR1365CL and specs out like this:Asus K8S-LA mATX mainboard with SiS 760/964 chipsetAMD Athlon 64 3400+ (2.4 GHz) with 128KB L1 cache and 256KB L2512 MB Samsung PC3200 RAM (I'll add another stick if I keep the sys)250 GB Western Digital IDE drive. Big but noisy! I like Barracudas!http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/generic...c00280723&lc=enAs it takes AGP cards I plugged the ATI 9600XT into it for now. I ran 3DMark03 and it scored a dissappointing 400 points higher than the 3850 score of my eMachine. I think a 6600GT would yield something between 5000 and 6000.I have two weeks from purchase to decide whether to keep it. The price was right... $650 CDN ($550 US). Still, I'm tempted to build a dual core system. Hmmm.Once again, thanks for your reply.JELB

[aerdt 0]

Faster memory or a SATA drive will not help you to improve performance. If so, only very marginally. Benchmarks have shown that dual-channel DDR, chipset type and SATA/IDE can affect the "speed" by maybe 1-2%.The biggest performance boosters are CPU, GPU and amount of RAM. Good luck!

[Guest JELB]

>Faster memory or a SATA drive will not help you to improve>performance. If so, only very marginally. Benchmarks have>shown that dual-channel DDR, chipset type and SATA/IDE can>affect the "speed" by maybe 1-2%.>>The biggest performance boosters are CPU, GPU and amount of>RAM. >>Good luck!Thanks for that. I knew that CPU and GPU were the most important but I didn't know how much of a difference faster memory and SATA would make. If 15 or 20% then that would be significant; if only 1 or 2% - not. What about AGP vs PCI-E for otherwise identical cards?Speaking of SATA vs IDE: With this new system I brought home a notebook sized portable drive. It's an 80 GB Samsung and spins at 5400 RPM. Being as I'm not sure if I'm keeping this new sys or not, I decided to try putting FS9 on the Samsung - wondering how the loading would be from a slower drive. Well... loading still seems faster than the eMachine. (Probably because of the faster CPU). This means I'll likely be keeping FS9 on the external drive even when I settle on a new system. That way, I can take it to a friends systems to show it off. Or if I ever get a laptop, run it from either machine depending upon where I am. Neat.JELB

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi JELB, you're welcome. And ha, the 3dfx brings up memories... Depreciation is something I don't pay attention to (anymore). Instead, I simply try to enjoy the power of modern components and therefore, the motto over here is; buy and don't look back. :-) Having said that, t'is highly unlikely I'll ever buy 700$ CPUs or similarly priced components. My 'pain level' is ca. 400$ for certain components. Reading through the specs of the Compaq, there are a couple of details which might need some pointing out: - There's mention of an AMD64 3300, never heard of that one... 256kb L2 cache indicates it could be a Sempron? AFAIK, 64-bit Athlons all have at least 512kb L2 cache. - Once you get the 2nd 512MB stick, try to get the same one Compaq put in there. Perhaps even consider buying the additional module from Compaq too (obviously, case you stick with the Compaq)? Getting to 1GB is something I would recommend doing ASAP. Benchmarks... I hate 'em! :-) IMHO, they only 'help' to make somebody subjectively feel happy or not. I.e. forgetting to deactivate AA will make one feel subjectively unhappy... Maybe a bit like looking back after purchases? IMHO, FS is a faboulous system benchmark. I fear, that getting a 6600 GPU could end in a bit of a disappointment. After all, the spec of the 6600 is very close to that of the 9600 or even the good old Ti4. That's why I try to outline the importance of the resolution. If you don't exceed a certain res, it's fine to run a modest GPU. FYI, I once compared a 9600pro with a 9800pro (both 128MB); @ 1024x the difference was 0. At 1280x the difference was ca. 40-50% (clearly, in favour of the 9800). Briefly put, my experiments have shown the following is ok for various resolutions: - 1024x: almost any 128-bit/128MB adapter - 1280x: almost any 256-bit/256MB GPU - @ 1600x, I'ld opt for a 512MB card... Another note regarding the possible GPU swap, is, to check the power supply (PSU) before adding another 'high energy' component into a - specially prefab - FlyTendo. For example, replacing the 9600 with a X800/6800 will add another 30-60W load on the PSU. Could the current PSU handle this and in case it doesn't, can it easily be replaced? Finally, the difference between internal and external drives should be noticeable. If it isn't, something might not be optimally configured? However, you're not the first person to have noted positive effects when running FS from a external HD and I'm seriously starting to wonder how that can be? :-) Hope this adds to thoughts, good luck and kind regards Jaap PS, could be that you're using the USB-HD at full USB2 speed where the old machine was only running it at USB1.1 velocity?

[Guest JELB]

JAAP,Hi again.You've got me scratching my head about the 256K L2 Cache issue. Apart from it being stated here: http://www.compusmart.com/Product/Default....erPartNo=617211 I'm not sure I have seen it mentioned anywhere else. XP's System Information app doesn't mention it. Is it or isn't it? Maybe it's a typo from the store's site? The System Properties tab lists: AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3300+. Hmmm. It is, without a doubt, faster than my 2.0 GHz Athlon XP equipped eMachine. It isn't as fast as I expected (hoped) though. Heheh. It's never fast enough is it. #### I get impatient waiting for microwaves.Matching memory? I wouldn't go so far as ordering it from Compaq/HP. It's Samsung PC3200 memory, which is easily had in the local clone shops. If I keep the system (which is less likely now) I'll pick up a stick from them.Benchmarks are usefull. I know they aren't infallible but, IMHO, using them is better than making decisions in a vacuum. 3DMark03 runs a battery of tests and then their site allows you to compare your results with other similar and not-so-similar systems. To what-if about swapping parts. Maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea but I'll keep using them.You point about paying attention to resolution is well taken. In years past it wasn't the factor it is now. ####. I got my first PC almost exactly when DooM shareware hit the BBSs back in '93. 320 res that. Who would have guessed we'd be seeing 1600 res already? So now one has to scrutinize reviews to see what res they ran their tests at. I'm fussy, but 1024 (or better) is good enough for me. At that res, I think a 6600GT would push my 3DMark03 score past 5K - vs the 4200 this 9600XT system achieves. Guestimating about 6600GT based systems is not cut-and-dried though, as some of the high scoring systems are running SLI setups but not all say so. 3DMark03 doesn't make that distinction either. (I have read that FS9 doesn't benefit from an SLI setup btw).Regarding the PSU: I do wonder whether the one in the Presario would be up to powering a 6600GT. It handles the 9600XT fine, so far. I've yet to add another 3.5 inch drive though; just the external 2.5 inch is connected. If I keep this system I'll try to get the 6600GT card at a store with a no hassle return policy.Lastly regarding running FS9 from the little external drive. It definately loads slightly quicker than on the eMachine. I have not ever tried running it (from the external drive) using the eMachine though. Maybe I should eh? See if I notice it's slower. Could be that my eMachine was just not performing well due to it being nearly a year since I'd installed XP. I install/uninstall A LOT of software so maybe it's bogged down? .Decisions decisions. I've one week from this Sunday to decide if this sys is a keeper or not...Thanks again,JELB

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi Jelb, those OEMs seem to get CPUs the rest of the world has never heard of. :-) And I was also stunned to see by which margin a 3200 AMD64 outperformed my 'old and rusty' 3GHz P4 Northwood. So far and 'somehow', I've always managed to bring the 'upgrade 40fps' down to 25 again... :-) As for the L2 cache, perhaps download CPU-Z and check the 'internals'? If the PSU mentions ca 18A or more on the 12V lead, you should be ok to add a 'heavier' GPU. AIM, for FS, I fear adding a 6600 will result in practically 0 improvement at 1024x. If you intend to go for a higher res, I would warmly recommend to go with an even higher spec card and thus a member of the X800 or 6800 series. Case you're using a single monitor and not applying software which demands a Geforce, FS-life might be a bit easier with a Radeon (no probs with clouds). OTOH, if you're into other games which use newer pixelshaders, a 6-er Geforce will almost certainly help. Good luck and kind regards Jaap