Sign in to follow this  
Guest GiZBUG

Hardware topic - motherboards with integrated video?

Recommended Posts

I couldn't seem to find a hardware related forum - and as this does directly relate to FS2002, I thought I would ask this question here.Not so long ago - when Pentium 3s were around the 800 meg-1 gigaherz range and memory was a bit more expensive and the max that most people had was around 128 meg, it was accepted custom that "gamers" should leave motherboards with integrated video to business/internet users. I have an old friend (82 years) who has a P3-500 with 128 meg SDRam and a TNT video card. He primarily uses it for general use plus he also flies FS2002 (but is not a totally committed enthusiast) . He has most of the scenery options turned right down and the machine only barely runs the Sim - it stutters and pauses.I have told him what he is missing by having the sliders set to minimums. He is ready and willing to upgrade - and there are many upgrade options available to him , BUT I can't see that he can really justify the expense of the latest Geforce4 cards to match these otherwise reasonably priced upgrade options (which usually revolve around a P4-2000 or AMD 2000)SO - what about the option of an AMD based motherboard with around an XP2400 - 256 meg RAM -- but with integrated video?.Is anybody using one of these fast processors on an integrated mobo?Any comments please? I would prefer to hear from people with real live experience of this rather than "theoretical" . Obviously , the theory says that one should match a fast processor with a fast video card -- but one does have to take cost and value for money into the equation.Thanks - any input would be much appreciated.Barry

Share this post


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

integrated video means that it shares system ram . This is a option I do not recommend to anyone who is interested in flight sims .You can get a GF4 ti 4200 128MB for less than $200 USD . As far as AMD based systems , it's all I use . While I like intel for office and server options I do not perfer them for gaming .This is just personal opinon of course. Everyone will have their own idea on which is better. You should be able to get a system similar to my specs for a decent price. I would atleast go to AMD 2400XP which is actually 2.1ghz and 512MB is almost must. Make sure it is DDR ram. If you can find a ASUS or MSI geforce4 ti 128MB you will have a GREAT fs2002 system. I run my setting with the following and never get stutters unless iam going into a wilco airport, which even then it's not horrible .everything max except clouds 60AI 85 using PAI only effects meduim. I really do not care about seeing waves on the coast or smoke from other AI planes no aircraft shawdows .KIIILLLLLLLLLLS the FPS espically with AI FPS locked at 25resolution is 1152X864 32BIT colour (refresh rate 100 hz) 4Xs FSAA 2x antisotropic texturing.I hope this helps :) avg FPS solid 20 Capt.Richard Dillon (KATL)www.jetstarairlines.comhttp://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpghttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg"Lets Roll" 9/11 -----------------------Specs AMD 2400 XP MSI KTV4 512MB DDR 2100Asus GF4 ti 4200 128MBSB Audigy Gamer Ch Products Yoke and Pedals(usb)Windows 2000 Serivce Pack 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The integrated graphics MoBo will still run with someone's chipset (nVidea, ATI etc.), and it may or may not have graphics memory onboard (most likely not, I think). What is the fastest CPU (with BIOS upgrade) that your friends MoBo will upgrade to? You may be better served with a CPU upgrade as I've found the CPU to be the "bottleneck" when running 3D apps. CPU upgrades are "relatively" inexpensive compared to Graphics cards...but keep in mind that a good G card will run all that eye candy, where a CPU upgrade may not.The nVidea FX line is coming out, so a GeForce4 ti 4600 (like mine) will probably drop drastically in price. Just keep in mind that one fix may "highlight" problems with the other...a new G card won't help an overloaded CPU, and a new CPU will only solve bottlenecks, but not improve "eye candy". I'm not sure what MoBo's you're looking at but I would check the graphics chipset and see if they come with onboard graphics memory, I have no idea if they do as I haven't dealt with these. Also keep in mind that his MoBo may only accept an Intel upgrade or AMD...not both. Not much help, I know...but... prowler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up something I was going to ask about..."locked" frame rates. Why lock the FPS? It would seem (to my less knowledgable self) that you would allow the FPS to run as fast as it can. What am I missing here? p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn, another question on your settings. "AI 85 using PAI only". I got the 85, no problem...what do you mean by PAI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because as I learned our eye only cares for 25FPS anything over can't really detect so it doesn't matter.When FS2K2 is locked at XFPS then once it reaches it it works on the other frames it is going to display later, kind of like putting it in a buffer instead of throwing MAX out and have nothing in reserve, basically it works on what it is going to display once the current frames are done and satisfy the MAX.as for MOBO with AUDIO and/or VIDEO on it DO NOT BUY IT, nothing wrong with them, but MOBO is a MOBO, VIDEO CARD is a VIDEO CARD... etc.etc.. and they ain't that expensive.. well depends on a budget I have to say..., but if you can don't buy MOBO with VIDEO and/or SOUND integrated, you will be better off having all components independent IMHO.PAI aircraft means aircraft form Project AI, designed to be lower on detail which will give you better performance and they really don't need to be so tip-top just so they are nice and have wings and gears :-)Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Andy...that explained a bunch! I'm off to lower my FPS. I've been letting it run amock, apparently . I didn't realize that it worked that way. You say the human eye is good to 25? So wouldn't you lock at 30 or so? I agree on the MoBo, but he seemed to be looking for alternatives. I wouldn't do it myself...if the Mobo and CPU are going to "choke" it's time for a new Sys. I have no knowledge of "project AI" so I won't speak on it. Thanks, Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>SO - what about the option of an AMD based motherboard with >around an XP2400 - 256 meg RAM -- but with integrated >video?. I've not had anything to do with AMD-based systems so don't know what's available graphics-wise. Do AMD-based boards use an AMD designed graphics chipset like Intel do? If not then the m/b manufacturers would be using 3rd party chipsets which potentially opens up the options more than is the case with Intel-based motherboards.If you're not locked into the AMD option read on.All of the on-board video systems I've had anything to do with use a shared memory system with the main system memory and at the most allow you to allocate no more than 4Mb to the video system. I would think 4Mb is on the lean side to allow for any decent display settings in FS2002. Generally the on-board graphics chipsets are not designed for the 3D gamer, the design principle is to offer a lowest-cost option.However Intel now have their 845GE chipset with "Intel Extreme Graphics" which they claim (at a channel conference I attended recently) performs at a level similar to the GForce2. The Intel motherboards allowed 8Mb of ram to be allocated to the graphics subsystem, as did a 845GE-based Gigabyte motherboard I had my hands on last week. The demo's looked pretty impressive graphics-wise. I came away from the Intel conference (after letting all the marketing hype dissipate) thinking that for a budget conscious user this wouldn't be a bad choice. It's still not up to the current level of graphics performance and technology but at least they've finally recognised that the budget end of the market does need a reasonably good graphics offering.In brief, on the Intel front I think you're friend would be disappointed with anything less than the 845GE. There are also boards that use the SIS chipset, but these fall into the lowest-cost model and I've not seen one that has decent graphics ability (from the simmer's viewpoint).On the AMD front, see what graphics chipset is being used and how much video ram you can allocate, that should give you a pretty good idea of what it will be like. A motherboard with say ATI Radeon 7000 graphics on-board shouldn't be any different to a system with an add-in Radeon 7000 graphics card, in theory. The difference is likely to be in the amount of video memory available.>. Obviously , the theory says that one should match a fast >processor with a fast video card -- but one does have to >take cost and value for money into the equation. That's true. In you're friend's case the cpu upgrade is of prime importance to get rid of the stutters and pauses. A better graphics system will give him more eye-candy, but I doubt you'll find anything that's going to allow him to max out any of the display settings in FS2002. I'm sure you'll be able to find something that will do a better job than the TNT he currently has though.RegardsAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought a 2.0 Ghz Celeron with the Intel 82854G/GL intergrated video. It claims to use 64 MB of shared memory. With 256 MB DDRRAM, it was a real dog in FS2002 (lots of stutters from disk accesses). After boosting the memory to 512 MB, it is a better simmer than I expected. I max all sliders on the first page of Options > Settings > Display except lights (6), Visibilty (60), Water (no reflections), and Clouds (67). Yes, Autogen and Scenery Density are set to max but AI traffic is at 50%. With the FR set to unlimited it hoovers around 20 - 24 and I can live with 15 FPS; so that's where it is set.My only complaint is that my only options for 32-bit operation are 640 x 480 and 800 x 600. I need higher resolution for some panels that I like, so I'm running 1024 x 768 (the max for my older 19" monitor) @ 16 bits. I hope that this helps. R-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I just bought a 2.0 Ghz Celeron with the Intel 82854G/GL >intergrated video. It claims to use 64 MB of shared memory. > With 256 MB DDRRAM, it was a real dog in FS2002 (lots of >stutters from disk accesses). After boosting the memory to >512 MB, it is a better simmer than I expected. I max all >sliders on the first page of Options > Settings > Display >except lights (6), Visibilty (60), Water (no reflections), >and Clouds (67). Yes, Autogen and Scenery Density are set >to max but AI traffic is at 50%. With the FR set to >unlimited it hoovers around 20 - 24 and I can live with 15 >FPS; so that's where it is set. >>My only complaint is that my only options for 32-bit >operation are 640 x 480 and 800 x 600. I need higher >resolution for some panels that I like, so I'm running 1024 >x 768 (the max for my older 19" monitor) @ 16 bits. I hope >that this helps. R- Thanks - this is interesting stuff. There is an article at http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecen...reports/4307/1/ that basically says that the time of integrated video is coming - especially for cost conscious non-fanatic gamers. I believe that this is something worth keeping an eye on over the next 12 months.Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I couldn't seem to find a hardware related forum - and as >this does directly relate to FS2002, I thought I would ask >this question here. >>Not so long ago - when Pentium 3s were around the 800 meg-1 >gigaherz range and memory was a bit more expensive and the >max that most people had was around 128 meg, it was accepted >custom that "gamers" should leave motherboards with >integrated video to business/internet users. >>I have an old friend (82 years) who has a P3-500 with 128 >meg SDRam and a TNT video card. He primarily uses it for >general use plus he also flies FS2002 (but is not a totally >committed enthusiast) . He has most of the scenery options >turned right down and the machine only barely runs the Sim - >it stutters and pauses.I have told him what he is missing by >having the sliders set to minimums. >>He is ready and willing to upgrade - and there are many >upgrade options available to him , BUT I can't see that he >can really justify the expense of the latest Geforce4 cards >to match these otherwise reasonably priced upgrade options >(which usually revolve around a P4-2000 or AMD 2000) >>SO - what about the option of an AMD based motherboard with >around an XP2400 - 256 meg RAM -- but with integrated >video?. >>Is anybody using one of these fast processors on an >integrated mobo? >Any comments please? I would prefer to hear from people >with real live experience of this rather than "theoretical" >. Obviously , the theory says that one should match a fast >processor with a fast video card -- but one does have to >take cost and value for money into the equation. >>Thanks - any input would be much appreciated. >>Barry Integrated Video = Avoid

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