Hi all, I've learned a great deal by reading this site; and received a lot of help when I was sorting out my present set up sometime back.Currently I have: AMD Athlon 2700XP (socket 462) Processor on a K7N2 Delta Series Motherboard. 1 Gig RAM (not sure what make) Aeolus nVidia Gforce FX 6800 LE 128MB DDR card.Running Windows XP Home2 X Hard drives with FS9 running exclusively on it's own hard drive.19" Flatscreen CRT monitor 1280X1024 ResolutionI'm not budgeted to upgrade for another year or so and am pretty happy all round with my FS setup, however - I understand that my Mother board could take a larger Processor - up to 3200 I think. I'm told the larger (3200) processors are pretty cheap now. Question: Would it be worth my while upgrading just the processor to the 3200?I'm afraid I'm not much of a computer wizard (still trying to get my head round much of it :-) ) I hope therefore I've provided the correct information for someone to be able to advise me.Many thanks for reading this in any event.Regards, Blue

Hey Blue, FS is pretty processor dependant, just as much as it is the video card. I am not sure what kind of increase you would see, especially since I am not familiar with the Athlon line, but I am almost certain you will see some increase in speed. You might at lease be able to bump that scenery complexity slide up another notch or two :) Some one that knows the Athlons better than I would probably be better suited to tell you about what kind of increase you will get though. Download the Reality XP tweaker here in the AVSIM library (search 'reality xp'). Have a look at that and you will see what areas in FS are processor dependant. That may help your decision. Best of Luck :)

Hi Blue,Your motherboard uses socket 462, which has since been discontinued. Finding a processor for it would be quite difficult (regardless of speed). Even if you do find a faster processor using that socket, I doubt the performance improvement would be that significant. Sure, as Ian said, FS9 performance scales with CPU but the jump you're making just isn't that big. A *very* rough guesstimate is ~10% by moving from 2700 to 3200, if that.If I were you, I'd just save up and get a new system altogether (CPU/motherboard/RAM/video card).Just my two cents worth.Hope this helps.Edwin

Thank you gents for your considered replies, I have to say I'm not surprised by your advice - over the years I've found that when it is time to 'upgrade' it tends to need it on all the parts, rather than one or two. I have learnt something at least - I thuoght the 3200 cpu's I'd seen advertised would be OK - I confess to not knowing the "Socket 462" was no longer available. As said however I'm fairly happy with my system - most of the time I see in excess of 45-50 FPS average, and I do have most of the sliders at max. In clear areas of low detail I've even seen as much as 80-90fps. I've the "smaller" alternative clouds substituted into my system but they seem no different than the default visually. I did get plenty of good advice (from these pages:-) ) about setting things up properly when I last updated the system, I think that is half the battle - getting things to work at their best for the system you have! Thanks again Chaps.Regards, Blue

Hi Blue, your post was perfect! :-) And Edwin is bang on with 10% max. I'ld even say a couple of % less (based upon the 'IT-rule': Doubling the CPU speed results in ca. 40% more performance). Besides, I think it's time you give US some advice how you maintain such high framerates at such a resolution and with practically all sliders maxed! :-) Please come back more often! Wishing you heaps of fun, good luck and kind regards Jaap PS, one thing will definitely bring the fps down a bit and that is turning on Vsync. The positive side of 'being in sync with your V': No more 'tearing' and a smoother feel (IMHO). That the fps comes down is purely technical and it doesn't necessarily mean a real performance decrease.

Jaap, Thanks for your input - I seem to recall you were one of the individuals advising me last time I was setting up or had a problem. Hope you're doing OK.You've probably guessed my question :-) "What is Vsynch?" I'm not sure about that.You obviously think my frame rate is OK - (I'm happy but it is not always as smooth as I would wish - mostly but not always :-) )I am going away from this forum to see exactly what I have got my system set at - always difficult to remember unless you're constantly altering it - I spent a great deal of time with trail & error set ups initially , then I've left it alone to enjoy the flying.Stand by - I'll come back with some other details.Regards, Blue

Hi Blue, sorry for not being clear enough. Vsync is a display adapter setting and provided you have triple filtering enabled, Vsync activation causes the display adapter to buffer frames. AIM, although the fps number drops, one will usually observe less image tearing and - IMHO - a more regular feel. Please note this is simply put and has nothing to do with eventual stutters or other general smoothness. BTW, since you have a CRT monitor, you could also experiment with the resolution and I'm pretty positive if you reduce it to say 1024 or 1152x, that you'ld obtain further smoothness. Since you were prepared to maybe upgrade the CPU, here's a further thought: If you have a good power supply which delivers ca. 18A on the 12V lead, you could get a 3000 AMD64 CPU and a nForce3 mainboard with AGP interface. This would be a relatively cheap upgrade which deserves the name and it shouldn't cost excesively more than getting a 3200 Athlon XP alone. Hope this adds to thoughts, good luck and kind regards Jaap

Jaap and All.Your reply re. frame rates prompted me to get some facts (as much for me as yourselves) generalising isn't very scientific is it?System as said in previous post - this thread: I did a clean "boot" - System NOT connected to internet (during test - although I fly on line quite a bit) I've done it this way so anyone should be able to fly the flight and make a roughly straight comparison. I use on board sound.As near as possible I kept it to default FS9. For a fairly active area, I set a flight on runway 34 KSEA. FS default "Cold front" weather set (to give cloud etc.) Current date - daytime. Default Cessna Caravan. (I don't think I've any add ons that affect this area.)The FPS readings are whilst aircraft is "Flying" as pausing the system give false (higher) readings. When I was first setting up my system, I used to be able to get "Average" FPS readings but I can't remember how I did it at present, so these are as read off the screen at the various places.FS settings: (I've taken a note of them all but will try to abbreviate a little otherwise I'll be typing all night:-) )REALISM: All sliders Max. G effect on.Scenery. Display. Terrain: Terr. Mesh. Comp. 100 Terr. Text. size. Max: Terr. Detail Land & water Max:Water effects Low: Dawn/Dusk Text. Blend.Special effects. detail. Max: Scenery Objs: Scene. Complex. Very Dense:Auto Gen: Very Dense: Aircraft. Global High: VC. Max: reflections/A.c shadows/Land. lts. enabled: Weather: Sight dist. 100miles: Cloud draw: 60 Miles: 3D cloud 50%:Cloud coverage density, High:Hardware; Target Frames Unlimited: Display; 1280X1024X32 Render to Text. trans. & lighting Enabled:Filtering, Trilinear: Mip mapping 5 ; Rendering lts. Max:Global Texture size Massive (Max):Sound Quality, Max:Traffic, Airline & G.A. enabled Density 50%.Frames per second readings on the test flights. KSEA first:On R/W 36. V.C. - 22-24fps. 2D Cockpit 26-27.From Cont. Tower 44-46Spot A/C 36-37Airborne 1500' following runway centreline, from below (a/c, sky & cloud0 58-63fps. From above 55, 2D cockpit out of frontscreen 2300'. 42-43fps. from VC 36fps. From Lft VC 42, Right VC 27fps.Further on - Looking down at water Spot view 66fpsHeading downwind, KSEA 2 AI a/c in view: 2d cockpit, 28-29. VC 26-27fps.Close in downwind - abeam the runway - Spot view 31-32fps. (26 with Dash 8 AI on the screen) 37-39fps from left cockpit view. (VC)Approach; VC 22-23, 2D 26fps.Low fly-by 500', VC 20-21 2D 24fps. (18 upto 27 looking around using side views etc.)Maintaining runway heading looking directly at the city & harbour, 500ft. 2 AI a/c in screen, V.C. varies between 17-25fps. This was 22-25 flying around (500') city and docks.To Compare this with my usual flying areas I did a similar flight from Bella Coola, British Columbia. I do have some enhanced scenery loaded at this location and uprated mesh (LOD7) for B.C.The other settings were identical.Briefly: On R/Way. 2D 42-43. VC 41-43fps. Tower view 46-47. Spot 42-43fps.Climb out: 2D 59-60fps. Airborne 1500' from below Spot 78-82fpsFrom above 85-86fps. Looking back at airfield 68-72.I do have "Autostart" freeware program that I normally use (but didn't for this little test) Afterwards, to compare I ran similar flights WITH the "Autostart" in use - I gained about 5-8fps. Clearly it is difficult to make identical flights, but the ground and runway shots give a good guide and they increased by 5-8 fps.I appreciate this is not a completley scientific test but may give you an idea. If you think these are reasonable figures for the system I have, the little test might help others decide if they have got their system "sorted".Observations - I fly lots of different a/c and love most of the default ones:-) I have the Real Air Spit. and the 2 famous MAAM aircraft that I fly alot. I fly both 2D and VC cockpits depending on the flight and lots of other things - I look around alot too. As said before, I'm pretty happy with the setup - but am always looking to learn a bit more to make it better.Thanks for your help. If you have any comments or ideas I'd be happy to hear them.Regards, Blue.

Jaap, Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry to come back with a couple of questions.How do I see what my "Vsync" is set at? Is it in the BIOS? What is "AIM" ?I shall look again at my resolution - however I think I tried several and settled on the 1280 X 1024 as giving a good display with reasonable performance.I did uprate my Power supply, it is 450watts now with dual fan etc. I don't know if that would fit the bill for the upgrade you suggest?Also - sorry to have to ask but, how is the 3000 AMD64 CPU different, and will it be compatible with the memory and Video card I already have? I assume the nForce3 mainboard is to accomodate the CPU - or am I still not understanding this? :-)Also, when I do upgrade I'd like to do it properly (so that it will last 2-3yrs )- would this proposed CPU be compatible with other stuff, or will I find - like my "Socket 462?" - it is soon obsolete?Very grateful for your assistance.Regards, Blue.

Hi Blue, thanks for posting your extended report. I'ld say leave it as is. Looks like you found your sweet spot. :-)Regarding your questions: - AIM = as I mentioned - NForce3 mainboards are for the current generation of AMD CPUs, their AMD64. They're availbale in both socket-754 (single-channel RAM) and socket-939 (dual-channel RAM) variations. And in case, I'ld recommend dual-channel. Later, nForce4 mainboards also introduced PCI-e interfaces for AMD CPUs. As you probably know, PCI-e is the successor of AGP. Anyway, nForce3 mainboards have the good 'ol AGP interface if you don't want to swap your display adapter when upgrading. The advantage of the AMD64 platform, is, the memory controller is integrated into the CPU. On your current system the mainboard chipset is doing that job (Intel CPUs also depend on the chipset to control RAM). Although the AMD64-3000 seems less performant than the 3200 you were contemplating, the newer technology will outperform the old Athlon XPs by a considerable margin. AMD will not switch to DDR2 memory before the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2006 and it will be implemented on the successors of the current s754/939 platforms. Therefore, your current memory is 100% compatible (unless it's some exotic kind which isn't supported by the CPU). Hope this helps, good luck and kind regards Jaap

Jaap, Many thanks for taking the trouble to explain all that - I think I understood most of it :-)Sorry to be a bother - "Vsync" .... where should I look for it? Or are you thinking best I leave it alone now?In any event - many thanks again for all your help. You clearly are a Computer Wizard!Kind regards, Blue

Hi Blue, thanks a lot for the compliment and no worries, my pleasure. Besides, I think you're the wiz looking at the framerates you obtain!! :-) Anyway, Vsync is short for 'Vertical Sync' and you should be able to find it there where you adjust AA/AF in the display properties. Just remember that the fps-numbers you're currently seeing will go down when experimenting. Case you don't like it, you can always turn Vsync off again. Good luck and kind regards Jaap

Jaap, How good of you to reply.I've located the "Vsync". I had forgotten about those settings - they are on my desktop (right click) for the nVidia card. I went into them in detail when I first set all this up and haven't touched them since - I'm afraid to play around with it too much - perhaps you advised me on this last time too?My "vsync" was set to "on" already.viz. Anti Aliasing "4X" Anistropic filtering "4X" Image setting - "Quality" Vertical synch - "On"Have I got the right thing? I'm not sure I know what any of them mean but they are in a little window that comes up and the settings can be altered from there - I hope that is right - in any event, these are the settings.Thanks again, Regards, Blue

Yep, that's it, Blue. And now, knowing you already have 'it' activated and seeing your framerates, I hope you don't mind if I call you Dr Blue Wiz in the future!?! :-) All the best, good luck and kind regards Jaap

Thanks for your help Jaap - and everyone. My frame rates directly reflect the help I've gotten from these pages. I also keep the computer "clean" and closely monitor what gets loaded at start up. I use "RegCleaner" and "CCleaner", and a couple of "Spyware" cleaners. I learned about these from here too:-)I'm going to post a separate query for the forum now - resulting from answers received on this one.Regards All, and Many thanks. Blue