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

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

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

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,

>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.

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.

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

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

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

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,

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,

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,

>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 :)

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

Ray has it right Paul. You may want to look at this link regarding the GF3 vs. GF4 issue (good info):http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/revie...%20vs%20GF4.htmTrip