Sign in to follow this  
Guest

fs2k2 cpu hog?

Recommended Posts

I don't think so. Upgraded from 900 Mhz Athlon with 768 Mb 133 Ram to a 333 Gigabyte MB, 256 MB DDR 2700 ram, XP2000+ CPU, kept the PCI GEForce2 MX400 video card...............tried turning my sliders up from about mid point to almost full and on final approach to airport, fps dropped to 7........way to go.........Had it locked at 25, only time I see that is at altitude, have tried various panels and not much difference.Secret has to be the video card. Son has a TI4100 and his benchmark went to 6000 with almost identical system with exception that he has the ASUS 333 MBoard. Mine sticks at about 2,000 so the video card is the key..:((

Share this post


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

You'll probably find its a combination of the two together.. When I upgraded I did the video card first (Geforce 2 Ultra 64MB) to a Ti4200 128MB. The frame rate increase was about 5 on average with clearer crisper images. When I did the CPU (AMD 1200) to a P4 24b running at 2900mhz, the sim really picked itself up... now with a few Bios and Vid card tweaks I have further increased another 10 frames.Try an AGP card as well... there's a bottleneck right there!http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/features...2314531,00.htmlChris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a common misconception that one thing only affects the performance of FS2K2. Some people say it's a cpu hog, others say it's a graphics hog.It's never just a single issue that determines performance, whatever your measure of performance may be.After many incremental upgrades over the years I've found that you always reach points that no matter how good your video card is you won't get the best out of it until you increase your cpu power. Likewise if you have the fastest cpu available you're not going to see the benefits without a good video card that can keep up with it. It's a constant game of leapfrog.With your Athlon 900 you were probably at the point where the cpu was ahead of the video card, so a video card upgrade would have been more beneficial. However putting in the latest and greatest video card available wouldn't necessarily give the most optimal performance because the video card would be underutilised. You would need a better cpu to get the most out of the video card. Catch-22.Of course if you have unlimited finances you can always upgrade everything at once to the latest and greatest, but this doesn't always make economic sense because the various bits of hardware are rarely in synch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I don't think so. Upgraded from 900 Mhz Athlon with 768 Mb >133 Ram to a 333 Gigabyte MB, 256 MB DDR 2700 ram, XP2000+ >CPU, kept the PCI GEForce2 MX400 video >card...............tried turning my sliders up from about >mid point to almost full and on final approach to airport, >fps dropped to 7........way to go.........Had it locked at >25, only time I see that is at altitude, have tried various >panels and not much difference. So I sold my Honda accord with the 160HP/120Lb-Torq moter that I used to be able to pull my two Yammah snowmobiles up over Whiteface Mt. at a constant 50mph, But now now with my Turbo charged cummings deasel powered Dodge Ram (300Hp/510Lb torq I tried hauling a flatbed loaded up with 15000lb Catipillar dozer and when I tried pulling it up over Whitface it wont go over 25mph!!! :-lol :-lol :-lolYour reasoning is about the same concerning Fs2k2 and the CPU.Try puting all your sliders back down to what they ALL where with your older PC and then compare as Fs2k2 does preselect its settings based upon your config at start-up.Video cards have very little to do with Fs2k2 performance they only allow you to maintain the FPS that your CPU & Memory sub-system will perform while you use Full scene Antialising (FSAA) or other filtering (anisotropy) for correcting the image sharpness as a result of mipmaping (Pixel shaders aside-FS2k2 does not make use of "programable pixel shader technology and even most older cards like the GF2 use a decent pixel shader). the only way to really test this is to test with no FSAA or aniso enabled as well as test at the >exact< same settings and situation as the better video card will effect performance to a very small percentage. For example go from a GF2MX to a GF4TI4600 and at best you will see average frames increase of at most 5-8% depending on your screen resolution and color depth of course.Testing for Maintaining good FPS while using FSAA as well as aniso is however Video card dependant and with the choice of R9700/GForceFX cards maintaining FPS in FS2k2 while using decent FSAA (4X/6X/8X etc)is now becoming achievable and in THAT regard important... But FS2K2 performance will still depend on a strong CPU & sub-system to send all the calculations that are done rendering Mesh terain, simulated flight, navagation etc. That my friend is why FS2k2 is CPU dependant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Chris,Hi from Grand Rapids. :-wave Hah, I also upgraded from a GeForce2 Ultra 64 to a TI4200 128 MB. Did you get yours at Computer Avenue? Great shop IMO. Just got back from the city today with the new card installed.I'm not seeing any 5 FPS increase, more like about 2. Picture is nice though.Are you doing any special overclocking CPU or GPU?Take care, Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of upgrading your computer this way...You buy a new car, say it's a Jaguar (or some fancy smazy, $100,000 car.) Though, to cut down on the buying price, you some how convince the dealer to leave out the engine, and instead, put in your old 1983 Toyota (to offense to Toyota, they're a great compnay) engine in your new Jaguar.Ok, that was probably a stupid analogy, but oh well. ;-) The point is, you almost have to upgrade your computer in a ratio, one that allows each side to be of equal value. For instance, I went from an ATI RADEON 7200 64MB DDR VIVO video card to a Visiontek XTASY GeForce 4 128MB Ti4600, but kept the rest of my system specs identical (P4 1.3GHz, 512MB RDRAM, Windows ME, etc.) I noticed no difference in FS2k2's frame rate, no one sticking FPS :-lolAbout two months later, I upgraded the rest of my system (specs are in my signature.) My FS2k2 frame rates about doubled. Go grab yourself a GeForce 4 Tixxxx, and you'll have a sweet system. :-)Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)SAN TRACON Lead ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Tester-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click [link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here to Download my American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a life.It's NEITHER the videocard NOR the CPU NOR the RAM NOR the mainboard NOR the harddisk.It's the way in which all those components work together.If I have a CPU that can feed my videocard enough data to generate 100fps but the card can only calculate 10fps from that data, I get 10fps.If my videocard can do 100fps but the CPU can't generate data for more than 10fps, I still get 10fps.If both can do 100fps, but the mainboard cannot get more data from the CPU to the videocard than is needed to display 10fps I still get only 10fps.If your CPU, video and mainboard can all together generate 100fps but your RAM is so slow the CPU cannot get the data from it quickly enough you still will get lower fps.Harddisk only comes into play when you need it for swapping. It's effectively an extra-slow additional amount of RAM. There is of course also an effect on loading time, if you have a faster harddisk FS might load longer when you start it, but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is the GFX card that slows down your sistem at this point.I have 900MHz AMD. I had a GF2MX400 and then upgraded to GF3TI200the performace boost was obvious, but still now the weakest point in my system is the CPU, so planing to do the same upgrade as you(2000XP+). I went to a friend that has AMD1.4Ghz and we put my GF3TI200 in his system, FS was running much better that on AMD900my 4.6 tolars (err 2cents)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Want to improve your frames only = CPU2)Want to improve your picture quality & maintain frames = Video Card (providing you got a decent CPU). A 9700 won't give you desired results on a PII500 rig.3)Want to improve your overall smoothness = Ram4)Want to improve everything = CPU, Video Card, Ram, Good Mobo.5)Want to run with good quality AA & AF = more expensive high end video card providing you got a decent CPU and ram.I just got into racing sims. They're a blast. However, they are the same as flightsims and FS2k2. And FS2k2 is not unique in this respect. You need fast CPU, fast video card, and fast ram (and plenty of it) if you want results in all of them. And a well tuned machine. I prefer to let the experts build my rig as I just want it to work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, email me again regarding the signs and stuff..we'll talk about hte card there. I lost all my info when I reinstalled the computer and never got to get back to you!!Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, folks, as I said, I went to the upper shelf by getting the faster CPU, fast ram and fast mobo. Still about the same as before so I agree that the combo has to be right, otherwise you are spinning your wheels. PCI card is the bottleneck, I know that but we will find out when the new video card is in just how much it does for the system.All aside, the comparison with duplicate systems and the difference between my PCI MX400/64 mb card and the TI 4100 really showed me what a difference the video card made on the video benchmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Go grab yourself a GeForce 4 Tixxxx, and you'll have a sweet >system. :-) >>Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool >VATSIM Pilot/Controller >ZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3) >SAN TRACON Lead >ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Tester >> >----------------------------- >My "Home Made" System Specs: >Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz Processor >Turbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power Supply >EPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G Chipset >Visiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers) >512MB PC2100 DDR RAM >40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard Drive >Windows XP Home Edition SP1 >*No CPU or GPU Overclocking* >3dMark2001SE Score: 11298 >----------------------------- >Click >[link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here >to Download my American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200! Don't go buy a GF4 now. GF5 is due out in a month or two, either get a GF5 or get a GF4 when the GF5's come out. NOW is not the best time to be buying a GF4 and stay away from the GF4200, its an economy card. You want the 4600.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a life.Get a life? Hummm... Nice response PAL! I suggest you do the same. I still say that's the case in this example!See ya!

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