Sign in to follow this  
KERNEL32

Sorry !!!, yet another upgrade question.

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking of upgrading my current Athlon XP1600+ chip to an Athlon "Thoroughbred" XP2400+. I've checked my existing motherboard will work with a bios update and hoping to leave all other specs (listed below) alone. I like all the add ons, DF737, PIC767, mesh, airports and currently get around 18 - 22 FPS at 1024x728x32 (no AA or multitexturing) and all sliders & tweaks averaged as opposed to maxed.Question is, will flightsim be as fluid as a fluid thing with everything maxed and better visually, or am I going to be disappointed ?Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.Best RegardsPaul MantonAthlon XP1600+EPOX 8KHA+ motherboard512mg DDR RAM PC 2100Geforce 3 Ti20040 gig hard drive

Share this post


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

Video card will be hurting you. The 2400+ is still only a 266 FSB chip, so you might want to look into a 2600+ in 333 FSB if your mobo supports it. Obviously, you will see some improvement from the 1600+ to the 2400+, but a 333 FSB chip and a Geforce4 would be awesome!MattAsus A7V333Athlon XP2000+512MB Samsung PC2700Gainward Geforce4 Ti4600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I upgraded to a Gigabyte 333 mbrd with 256 Mb 2700 ddr ram, Athlon 2100, still have a 64 mb PCI PNY video card and can see no difference in the frame rates.Next step is the TI4200 AGP.With the present setup I have seen 10 fps on outside view with aircraft on runway and only open fields in the background

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,The change of processor represents a 50% increase in processing power so you will see a 50% improvement in frame rates. 10 becomes 15, 20 becomes 30 but 6 only becomes 9.The GeForce3 Ti200 has only 64Mb of memory and will limit texture redraws. The GeForce4 Ti4200 would bring quicker texture redraws (but not improve frame rates) for a modest outlay.I upgrade every two years when I can double my processing power. I then see a big improvement in FS performance.If you're only running at 1024*768 I suspect you only have a 17" monitor. Consider upgrading to a 19" CRT (such as the Iiyama Pro 454) which will run FS at 1600*1200*85Hz with the more expensive GeForce4 Ti4600. The improvement in screen quality is dramatic and you can dispense with AA.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Paul, >>The change of processor represents a 50% increase in >processing power so you will see a 50% improvement in frame >rates. 10 becomes 15, 20 becomes 30 but 6 only becomes 9. >>>Cheers, You are kidding aren't you? How on earth can you concieve that a CPU clock speed has a direct relationship to frame rates, given the complexity of a PC's architecture? What you say may have been correct on the very old pre-hard drive, pre-graphics days of CP/M and DOS, but it just doesn't ring true anymore.And btw, the Athlon XP 2400+ represents a 43% clock speed increase upon the XP 1600 + - not 50% as you stated. AMD re-adjusted their rating scale because it clearly was becoming more distorted as clock speeds ramped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not kidding. FS has been CPU bound for as long as I can remember and having conducted frame rate surveys in the past on FS98 and FS2000 there is a direct correlation between processor speed and frame rates. Anyone with reasonable knowledge of FS and computers will confirm that the single most important item to achieve better frame rates is the CPU. Not the graphics card or memory or a faster hard drive or even the resolution at which you run.Okay, so with an XP2400 he can expect frame rate improvements in the order of 40% - not 50% given identical hardware.So now that you've had a go at me why not give Paul the benefit of your knowledge and keep the thread informative instead of negative?And just to keep it informative here's some figures from a FS2000 survey I did...Pentium II 400 10.0Pentium III 600 15.2AMD 1000 20-25AMD 1300 28-32Different graphics cards, memory speed and drivers make for some variation but the trend is reasonably accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute rubbish Ray. You evidently have not heard of the concept of scaling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to dignify your reply with an answer. You appear to have no manners whatsoever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I did'nt wanna start an argument here !!!Ray, your reply has helped me alot, my biggest concern was whether the geforce 3 would be a bottle neck to the CPU. I'd heard before that FS2K is very processor dependent and your post confirms that it is. frankly, if I see a 25-35% increase in frames rates or don't drop below 25fps then I'll be happy.You were right about the 17" monitor btw :-)Best RegardsPaul Manton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with you. Resolution is one of the best improvements for FS2002. I run OMEGA drivers at 1920*1440 (ran at 2048x1536 but my 19" monitor only supports it at 65Hz) and a I have almost no aliasing effect nor texture flickering. It's a great experience and graphics performance is just a little behind the 1600*1200.>If you're only running at 1024*768 I suspect you only have a >17" monitor. Consider upgrading to a 19" CRT (such as the >Iiyama Pro 454) which will run FS at 1600*1200*85Hz with the >more expensive GeForce4 Ti4600. The improvement in screen >quality is dramatic and you can dispense with AA. >>Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,I didn't want an argument either but some people seem happy to rubbish other's opinions and at the same time add nothing to the discussion.Keeping a system in balance is a difficult balancing act. Certainly the 64Mb on the GeForce3 will not be helping texture redraws but upgrading to the 128Mb Ti4200/Ti4600 will not improve the frame rates much but it will allow you to run at higher resolutions with no reduction in frame rates if your monitor allows it and it will support a second monitor if you have the space. And of course it will improve those redraws.Personally, I'd bide my time until a faster processor becomes available and then upgrade that. In the meantime if you want to invest in the Ti4600 (and maybe a 2nd monitor) it would be a good move. Undocking those PIC767 panels to the 2nd display is very handy!As far as frame rates are concerned I tend to switch off the display and rely on my instinct. I find the sim is quite smooth around 14-18 fps.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jalok,I too have the Omega drivers and the visual quality is stunning isn't it? You must have one hell of a monitor as I can only run up to 1600*1200*32 at 85Hz. Any lower and I detect flicker.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm thinking of upgrading my current Athlon XP1600+ chip to >an Athlon "Thoroughbred" XP2400+. I've checked my existing >motherboard will work with a bios update and hoping to leave >all other specs (listed below) alone. >>I like all the add ons, DF737, PIC767, mesh, airports and >currently get around 18 - 22 FPS at 1024x728x32 (no AA or >multitexturing) and all sliders & tweaks averaged as opposed >to maxed. >>Question is, will flightsim be as fluid as a fluid thing >with everything maxed and better visually, or am I going to >be disappointed ? Just going to add a few comments for you Paul,FS2k2 Performance is pretty close to 60/25/15%=cpu/memory-sub-system/video card dependant. (fully tested)That is, per "Raw" performance. (No FSAA No Aniso)So Just the Cpu Upgrade alone (50%+-)x60% will yield an increase of close to 30% in FPS raw performance.I would not recommend throwing money away on a GF4TI now when its performance is going to be just a few % over the GF3 in raw performance, and maybe 10-15% better in FSAA modes especially considering the performance to be had by puting that money towards the purchase of an ATI-R9700 or better still just waiting for the new GForceFX card by the years end.Just some Food to chew, er uh, some bytes for thought :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Ray is quite right. EVERY study that's ever been done with MSFS had concretely tied the framerate directly to the speed of the CPU with all other system specifications being secondary. I'd refer you to the FSBench MSFS benchmark data as a start. Or perhaps some of the excellent work on video cards done by Paul Leatzaw. Or any of the other comparisons of CPU vs. other system factors in determining MSFS FPS. Many of the "conventional wisdom" idoelogies simply don't apply to this sim. We ain't playin' Quake here....Trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Ray is definitely right - I've had 3D accelerators since the very beginning with the 3dfx Voodoo Graphics chip and ALWAYS you've needed a fast CPU capable of pushing tons of triangles to the video card to get the most out of it. I could take my old Pentium II system, slap my GF3 in it and it's gonna run like pure trash, but stick it in a brand new P4 or Athlon XP system and it'll max the card out. The system is only as good as it's slowest component.This is why I'm planing to upgrade my whole system core arond Feb or March next year - I'll get the fastest CPU, new RAM (probably DDR400) and the new GeForce FX card - that should scream and hopefully FS will run extrememly smooth for me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Paul,I haven't seen you in this neck of the woods for quite some time. I've always enjoyed your posts - good information supported by facts. Much of what I've gained in my personal flight sim optimization can be directly attributed to your fine work. I hope you'll be able to come around more often.:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just don't forget that about one year from now, the next version of MSFS should hit the shelves. Then the viscious cycle of trying to build the optimal system for FS will probably repeat all over again. Of course you can bypass this by sticking with FS2K2. I have to admit that I've been pretty happy with it. But I just know that MS will eventually lure me over to the dark side :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the old test--lower your resolution and see what effect it has on framerates. If the effect is substantial, then your graphics card is the bottleneck. If not, the CPU/memory subsystem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi chaps,I just wanted to thank you all for confirming what I was saying last night was basically correct. I really had to control my temper at one stage.I hope all the comments help you Paul to reach the best decision for you.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" QUOTE- Don't forget the old test--lower your resolution and see what effect it has on framerates. If the effect is substantial, then your graphics card is the bottleneck. If not, the CPU/memory subsystem is."That is very interesting and works just like you said. One comment I have and I would like to verify the validity of it-I have been having lockup problems not related to heat, drivers, O/S, sound, etc. (maddening really!)anyhow, I tried replacing my GF3 with a GF4 (not the fastest one really inexpensive one- not sure of the model) and it was SLOWER than the GF3! I couldn't run 1280x960 but at like 9 FPS, whereas I'm getting about 14 -18 FPS with the GF3! But when I switched the res on the GF4 to 1024x768 it had decent frame rates. Amazing. Brought the GF4 back as it still locked up.I fear it may be the processor itself, as I have tried everything in the book. But my question here is about the comparison of the GF3 and GF4 can that really be right?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom - If the GF4 had an "MX" designation in the model number I'm not surprised. Those are basically reworked GF2's and are often (always?) slower than the GF3's.Trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trip,I guess that means then that I have to disagree with both of you. Either that or perhaps there is a misunderstanding as to what exactly I am objecting to with regard to Ray's comments.My objection was based upon these initial comments from Ray:"The change of processor represents a 50% increase in processing power so you will see a 50% improvement in frame rates. 10 becomes 15, 20 becomes 30 but 6 only becomes 9".As you can see, Ray has assumed a direct linear relationship between CPU clock speed and frame rates. This is specifically what I am disagreeing with. I do agree that the CPU is of principal importance to frame rates. But what I do NOT agree with is Ray's premise that increasing the CPU clock speed by 50% also increases their frame rates by 50%.Trip, you have refered me to some benchmark studies that prima facie confirm Ray is correct. Firstly with regard to Paul Leetzaw's findings. I am not sure why you have even refered me to them, as they only go to prove my point. Paul's findings are encapsulated in the statement (quoted directly from this thread also):"FS2k2 Performance is pretty close to 60/25/15%=cpu/memory-sub-system/video card dependant. (fully tested)"Paul does NOT say that FS2K2 is 100/0/0 cpu/memory-sub-system/video card dependant. In order for Ray's statement to be correct, the net effect of the memory-sub system and video card would have to be zero. Secondly, you refer me to FSBench. Again, this also confirms my point. And to save people looking it up, I've even summarised the results into an Excel table that I have attached below. In column one, I have classified the various CPU speeds, begining with 500 Mhz as the baseline, all the way up to 2 Ghz. In column two, I have indicated the percentage amount of improvement that would be required for the faster CPU to scale in a linear fashion - that is, to be consistent with Ray's original statement - e.g 50% more mhz = 50% more frame rates. For example, an 800 Mhz processor is a 60% improvement in clock speed compared to a 500 Mhz processor. Then, in column three, I have tabulated the top 100 results from the latest FsBench that I could find at Avsim:http://avsim.com/fsbench/2k1024.htmI have summarised the data and averaged out the percentage frame rate improvement from increasing clock speeds.As you can see from these results above the 500 mhz baseline, there is not one single result where the FS frame rate scales at the same rate as the CPU clock speed. So as far as FsBench is concerned, the results shown there are also inconsistent with Ray's original statement.So in summary, what I am saying is that, yes, the CPU is the most important ingredient, but the frame rate in FS is still influenced measurably by other sub-systems within the PC. That is why I contend that Ray's statement is incorrect, because he drew a distinct linear relationship between Mhz and frame rate. There are many factors that influence frame rate apart from the CPU - operating system, mainboard, RAM quantity, RAM type, RAM timings, drivers, AGP bandwidth, video card architecture, video memory, video bandwidth, bus speeds, HD access times, background tasks, FS settings, the particularly aircraft you fly in FS, FS add-ons - just to name a few of many. So to make a comment that Mhz is directly proportional to frame rate seems quite ridiculous to me.

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