Tried to install upgraded video card......can't get per...

[Guest melevine]

Good morning,The other day the video card I ordered (BFG 7950PCI-E w/512MB) arrived and I installed it, replacing an aging GeForce 6800 w/250MB. I took all the usually steps....deleted drivers, used driver cleaner, installed the new card, installed the latest Nvidia drivers (93.71). I booted up, did the usual things (FSAutoStart, stopped AntiVirus, fired up FS9) went to my startup location in a default plane (note: I have FPS locked at 25, so at this location the counter was showing 24.8). I then switched to more complex (requiring more hardware/software resources) saved flights (Pilatus at KPDX, Pilatus at KSEA, KDEN, etc) and found that the FPS that I had with my old card DIDN'T INCREASE at all (were averaging between 8 and 15 FPS). I had kept good record of FPS while using the old card so that I could compare "apples to apples" after the new one was installed.Subsequent troubleshooting involved ensuring that I had the latest BIOS upgrade, latest chipset upgrade, testing DX9 functioning (all tests were fine). Additionally I disconnected my Matrox TripleHead2Go hardware (which was running 3 21" monitors in an expanded view) from the output head of the new card, and hooked up one monitor directly into the card instead. I also removed a second video card from the PCI slot (this was hooked up directly to a smaller monitor used for GPS, ATC comm only). I had three long phone calls with BFG tech support....they agreed with everything I had done and finally suggested that one of two things could be the culprit to not getting ANY change in performance with the new card (even changing the cards attributes from "Quality to Performance" mode. 1)either the card is defective or 2)perhaps the power supply for my computer is not large enough and the card is "ramping" down its performance automatically since it isn't getting enough "power."I've returned the card and am awaiting the seller to send me a new card (same one)to install. In addition, I've found and ordered an upgraded Power Supply from PCPower and Cooling specific for my Dell 8400 (as there are well known incompatiblity problems with lots of Dell computers when trying to upgrade power supplies). Hopefully the new card and new power supply will solve the problem and get my performance up!QUESTION: Is there anything else we may have overlooked in getting this upgraded card to work with my existing system? (my current specs follow)Pentium - Running Windows XP SP2 - Dell 8400 3.6ghz and 2GB RAM w/350watt power supply; GeForce 6800PCI-E w/256MB; 166GB hard drive, CD/DVD RW, CH (yoke, throttle, pedals), TrackerIR, GoFlight modules (nine all hooked to 2 powered USB hubs), Matrox TripleHead2Go running 3 21" monitors. (I plan not to reinstall the second video card in PCI slot)Any thoughts???Mike

[Ray Proudfoot 9,050]

Mike,I can't help with your problem but I'll watch with interest any improvements you may get with a larger power supply.I recently changed my card from a 9800 Pro 128Mb to a X1950 Pro 512Mb card and my frame rates haven't changed either. I assumed this was because the CPU was working flat out.Whilst I have been able to run at much higher resolutions with no loss of performance I am disappointed that a much faster card hasn't delivered improved frame rates at 1280*1024.Like you I didn't change the power supply. I have a 380watt one whereas the card manufacturers recommend 420 minimum.Cheers,

[BillW 213]

I'm glad I saw this posting. I have the same old video card that you have and was ready to replace with the same card you now have. Please keep us posted on this topic.

[Murmur 3,971]

>I then switched to more complex (requiring more>hardware/software resources) saved flights (Pilatus at KPDX,>Pilatus at KSEA, KDEN, etc) and found that the FPS that I had>with my old card DIDN'T INCREASE at all (were averaging>between 8 and 15 FPS).That's probably because your 8-15 FPS were and are limited by CPU power, and not by video card.Your new video card will probably allow you to use max texture resolution with less stutters, and/or higher screen resolutions and AA/AF settings with higher FPSMarco

[Guest melevine]

Marco..(and others)....thanks for the replies.I should probably have my new power supply by mid-next week and will install it with my current 6800 card (I don't think the new card will get to me for a few weeks, since I just sent back the first one).I'll certainly post the results once I get the power supply installed, and also once the new card is installed. (please keep your fingers crossed for me).Marco......I've been monitoring Windows TASK MANAGER lately (and all during my FS9 flying). I doubt if the low frame rates are "limited by CPU power, and not by the video card" as you mentioned.....as the highest CPU USAGE I've seen while in these complex situations (scenery and aircraft) has been 58%. Unless I'm reading this wrong, the processor isn't maxed out!Others that I spoke with advised that my "specs" seemed okay and that a new Video Card should definitely boost performance (allow me to run with slider settings maxed ...if I desire....and increased framerates).Mike

[Guest Mr Chips]

My 9800 SE 128mb blew, so swapped in my old FX5600 256mb with no difference in FPS (as I expected) Then I installed a X1950 512mb AGP and I have a 500W PSU. I didn't expect any increase in FPS then either and I didn't get it. What I can do is run 1600x1200 with everything maxed, previously I needed to limit cloud texture size and visibility.I discovered that FS is CPU bound yonks ago. In that condition, a new GPU will not make any difference except to the maximum visual quality. The only way to increase actual performance is to overclock, get a faster CPU or reduce the CPU load.I suspect 2GB RAM would make a noticeable difference too, but I have yet to try this.

[Guest melevine]

I'm confused.....you say FS9 is CPU bound. Then please explain why my CPU is only showing 58% and the framerates are that low? If the CPU usage would be showing 90-100% it would seem to make more sense to me, and I'd tend to agree. BTW I also have 2GB RAM. Wouldn't it seem logical then to assume that the Video card is the weak link and that it is unable to "paint" the required image at a higher framerate, and that boosting its processing speed and memory (by getting a higher end card) should result in higher FPS (as long as the CPU of the computer isn't maxed)....and....assuming that the power supplied to the card is adequate to allow it to function at its optimum?Mike

[Bob Scott 7,759]

The 58% is probably one virtual CPU running at 100% and some other processes on the other vCPU. 58% is the total for both. If you fire up task manager and look at the processes tab, you should see one vCPU flatlined at 100%.A 350W Dell power supply with a 3.6GHz P-4 and a 79xx series card is really low...both the CPU and the new video card are very power-hungry. I use a 550W Antec supply in my 3.06 GHz P-4 together with a 6800 Ultra video card. The Dell power supplies have a generally poor reputation these days, as well. Hopefully the new PC Power and Cooling PS will prove to be the cure.I get 22-25 fps in FS9 with a significantly (20%) less powerful CPU and a 6800.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Guest melevine]

Hello (again) Bob,You responded to other posts I made a week or two ago.So...it seems that you are in agreement with me, in that the higher end card and upgraded power should make a difference. Glad to hear it.Mike

[Guest JTEK99]

Mike:I'm afraid I wholeheartedly agree with some other posters in this thread that you will see very little, if any, improvement in FPS as far as flightsim is concerned with your new 7950 (and power supply). The card you sent back likely had no problems with it. FS *is* CPU-bound, that's a fact.Like you and others, I upgraded an extremely similar system (with a 6800-256MB as well, btw) with a 7950-OC (512MB). Fantastic card. I also have 2GB of RAM onboard.The benefit to FS is exactly as stated by some other posters: while I haven't increased FPS, I have been able to max everything out (high-res cloud textures, max this, max that, etc.) and retain nearly exactly the same fps I had before (28-30 in most every location). You can expect similar behavior; my suggestion is to enjoy the greater eye candy with the 7950. I certainly have. Naturally, if you play other games that are more GPU-dependent, you'll benefit greatly as well.Good thing you're getting a new power supply; it's absolutely necessary to have proper power for the card for it to function without problems.Extra Hint: if you want to gain a few FPS with your new 7950, just lower the mesh percentage slider OR change the TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX variable in the FS9.cfg to 19 or 20 (19 for 76m mesh, 20 for 38m mesh and 21 for 19m mesh). It will reduce CPU usage since FS spends less time calculating terrain. I lowered mine from 21 to 20 (in the FS9.cfg), and set the slider at about 80% in the Display Dialog. Hardly any visual difference for the vast majority of the world, and I am a Galaxy-class subscriber to FSGenesis mesh (i.e., I have just about every custom mesh from them installed). Good luck.

[Guest melevine]

Just when I start to feel a "high" I get more info (like you just provided and get a "low." Your extra hint is exactly what I want to do, and what started me off on my campaign to look for a way to increase performance (i.e. squeak out a few more FPS in certain complex airports using complex planes). To follow up on your suggestions....1)I'm already using 50% for the mesh slider 2) my VERTEX variable is set to 21 (though I am using Tyme's 38m mesh...so I will switch it to 20 per your comment). The fact that my mesh is already at 50 (and you said you lowered yours to 80) means I've already "leaned" things out in comparison. At addon airports (KPDX, KDEN, KSFO, KSEA, KSAN) using any of those planes in "fair" skys, flying in the day, with moderate AI traffic, the MOST I can get for FPS is about 10-12 (and in some cases 8).....as you know, that type of rate will start the visuals to be JERKY. I'm not selfish....I just want to get 6-7 FPS increase (or enough to smooth the visuals out while taxing and operating in these areas). So..my question begs......what type of frame rates are you getting using planes such as Flight1 Pilatus, or Eaglesoft Citation X, or a Carenado Cessna 182Q, or similar?....in addon airports such as I mentioned???Mike

[jnr641802 6]

I too upgraded from a 6800 to a 7950gt 512 and also a 650 watt power supply but noticed an immediate 20% approx increase in frames.p4 3.4 2gb ram.regards Jim

[Guest JTEK99]

Mike:Yes, I know the "high" and "low" feeling regarding this matter as well. I, too, started out with plans to do a "mini-upgrade" (just a GPU) to get some extra months out of FS9 which I dearly love and am still having a blast with.You're right about the 21/20 vertex rating and the 80/50 slider. In several tests I performed in more complex mesh areas (e.g., the Alps, Glacier National park, Grand Canyon), I found that using 50 on the slider with a vertex of 21 worked just about the same. I had mentioned that particular "tweak" because I thought that, perhaps, you had your vertex set at 21 and had the mesh slider up at 100%. At that setting, I lose a few FPS every time with my current CPU.Regarding the addon/payware airports and aircraft you mentioned... More complex commercial aircraft are what I use a majority of the time (LD 767, PMDG 737, PSS 777) and for my GA flying, I use the Carenado 182RG, Q, and 206 as well as the DF A36 and Baron 58 (the latter two being most hard on frames). There are variations in frame rates with the above aircraft, of course, and your mileage may vary. However, I just wanted to point out that any of the information I gave in my last post wasn't driven by the idea that I use default FS9 aircraft. Here is some more information about now having a more powerful graphics card and a "bottlenecked" CPU:As I really enjoy real weather, I use ActiveSky 6x and ActiveSkyGraphics. More than anything else - both with the old and new cards -- I've found that CLOUDS are the biggest frame eaters no matter what. With my old 6800, I used to force ActiveSkyGraphics to use 128k/DXT clouds. They aren't the "clearest" and most beautiful clouds, but at least they didn't eat frames that much and I could have voluminous cloud structures whilst flying everywhere.Now with the newer 7950, I can use full 32-bit, 512k hi-res clouds in ActiveSky Graphics with no change in frames. Call it silly, but JUST this fact makes the card worth it.Secondly,... with my old 6800, I had AA set at 4x. Now I can set that higher to 8x, AND additionally set the Alpha-band Anti-Aliasing for higher quality as well; again, with no reduction in framerates in comparison with my previous card's performance. Absolutely no jaggies of any sort. AGain, call me silly... but this little setting is the icing on the cake and was well worth the $250.00 invesetment.I still use some of the tweaks found around the flightsim forums (like the TextureMaxLoad variable in the FS9.cfg) of course, and still my frames around airports such as Aerosoft's Mega Frankfurt, FlyTampa's series, etc. are right around the same I had with my 6800... with those two major differences listed above. Much "tighter" graphics due to higher AA settings and MUCH more beautiful, non-fuzzy clouds. The higher GPU will enable you (as mentioned by another poster) to use larger texture loads; but it will not help your CPU make non-graphic calculations (such as terrain modeling, aircraft modeling, etc.). The CPU is inevitably the bottleneck and that, as they say, is that. I originally had the impression that I'd get radically higher FPS with a new graphics card; however, the research I did pointed out that that would never happen. I went with the purchase regardless, fully armed with this knowledge. And lo and behold, it was true. Hence, no false expectations and no dreams of miracles.There's another by-product of the new card as well. I have FSX installed as well and fly online using SimConnect with a friend once in a while to share a cockpit and shoot some approaches. Again, my framerate has stayed pretty steady around the areas we fly, but I've been able to raise the texture load so that it looks rather nice. It's not FS9 with all the addons available, but at least I can enjoy it with a friend for now until a whole new PC is purchased (which I can't do since no one out there really knows what's best for FSX at this point).Hope all of this gibberish helps. It's hard to face the facts of what PC upgrades can and cannot do, but on the other hand, the benefits that you will get with the new card (and power supply, don't forget!) in relation to FS9 are well worth it, at least for me.Best regards,J.P.S.: Did I mention that MegaScenery and other photoreal titles and ALL their associated "blurries" are gone with my new card? Yes, Virginia, it's true. And just another plus in my book and validation of my purchase. If you fly photoreal titles like I do, the 512MB will accomodate them much better.

[Guest melevine]

J...thanks againWell, it will be interesting to be able to max out the sliders (for a change) without a LOSS of fps. Also, I have many of tbe MegaScenery, and MegaCity titles but was a bit put off by the time they took to load and the blurries. Once I installed GE PRO on top of the Ultimate Terrain, BEV, Mesh, etc. I liked the look so I disabled those other titles. Once I get the new card I may investigate the photoreal stuff once more.Mike

[Guest melevine]

also...forgot to pose my question again. Are you getting the FPS in the 20s in the type of airports we discussed. What type of CPU do you have???Mike