Sign in to follow this  
Guest

P4 1.5 vs. P4 3.06 "disappointing results" - Pleas

Recommended Posts

hi guys,sorry for the long read. trying to give as much info. as possible without being too long. i'm considering sending this system back for a refund. after seeing the "numbers" i think you'll understand why. not the performance gain i was expecting plain & simple. but i thought i'd get some advice from you "pc gurus" here first. sytem specs. old and new and fs2k2 results are as follows:new system specs.-no overclockingAlienware P4 3.06Asus P4T533-C Mobo. latest BIOS updates512MB PC1066 RDRamWD 80GB 8MBCache Hard DriveGeforce4 TI4600 - Nvidia 4072 WHQL driversSB Audigy - latest driversPioneer DVD RW DriveUSR 56k PCI ModemWinXP Home (SP1) NTFS file systemWinXP "tweaks" - (this applies to both systems)- 1. anti-virus is off and screen saver is off b4 running fs2k2. sytem restore turned off, run desktop cleanup is off, new GUI is off - using "classic windows" look instead. no difference in FPS with "msconfig" settings at default vs. blkvipers "msconfig" tweaked settings. www.blkviper.comold system specs.- no overclockingAlienware P4 1.5Intel D850GB Mobo. latest bios updates512MB PC800 RDRamIBM 60GB Hard DriveGeForce4 TI4600 Nvidia 4072 WHQL driversSB Audigy - latest driversPioneer DVD DriveUSR 56k PCI ModemWinXP Home (SP1) FAT32 file systemFS2K2 Config./Settings/Addons (this applies to both systems)Full Install,(the following line also applies to both systems) "game Res.1024x768x32, in the Nvidia control panel-4xs AA,with texture sharpening "checked". best image quality & all else is at default stgs". "All" sliders max.except "Visibility" - set at 60 miles and"Water Detail" - set to "None""All" Boxes checkedAddons- PSS World Airliners 747/777, Bill Molonys Atlanta Skyline & Airport Scenery, Cas Stephens "default" 747,777,737 replacement textures. still trying to remain calm here. the new system has been rock solid stable - no lockups, no crashes, no memory error msgs. of any type. my FS2K2 performance with the new system is just plain "Lousy". not much of a performance increase at all. the following are some FS2K2 performance examples:P4 3.06 system - FPS slider-Locked at 25. clear skies - no weather sitting on Rwy at Meigs Field (C-172)-"2D Cockpit View - FPS=24-25"Spot View" - FPS=17-20at KATL & KSEA (PSS 747)"Cockpit View" - FPS=23-25"Spot View" - FPS=14-20P4 1.5 System-sitting on Rwy. at Meigs (C-172)2D Cockpit View - FPS=21-25"Spot View" - FPS=13-18at KATL & KSEA PSS 747"Cockpit View" - FPS=20-25"Spot View" - FPS=12-18so guys, the big question is "what in the world is wrong here? am i expecting too much from this new system? i am at my wits end here.i would greatly appreciate some help/input here. i'm not a happy fs2k2 simmer at this point. again, thanks in advance for your help. happy flyin fm

Share this post


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

Hi,I upgraded from an Athlon XP 1900+ to a P4 2.8 with similar disappointing results. What made the big difference for me was replacing my GF4 4400 card with a Radeon 9700 Pro. That gave me a significant boost in framerate and smoothness. Trouble is that is an expensive card but I took the risk and it worked for me.Pesi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess would be your video card is the bottleneck. Why did you get a 4600Ti when all the reports show the ATI9700 runs twice the speed at 4xAA. I'd just call Alienware, ship the unit back and have them reformat it and install an ATI9700. But then, my first choice would have been to ship the old unit back for an upgrade. They would have replaced the processor, ram and video card for a whole lot less than a completely new unit. But then, hindsight is 20/20. Maybe you have another use for the old unit? While FS2k2 is CPU dependent, it's also GPU dependent and ram dependent. Just like all games are. Some more than others. FS2k2 certainly is no exception. What you're reporting is no surprise to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pumrigar; I'll bet your image quality improved considerably too with that 9700???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no guru, but my theory on the issue is that base performance is a set cost and from there, the price of improvement escalates exponentially.. I would expect that a 3.0 Ghz system wont produce twice the FPS of a 1.5 ghz, rather a small incremental gain - which is exactly what your tests show. It's a bit like building a racing car. Lets say, $100,000 will build a car that will lap Laguna Seca in 120 seconds. But the average time for the class is 118 seconds and the leader is doing it at 116.5seconds. Assuming driver ability is equal, the mid range cars probably cost $350,000 to build and the most competitive machine $850,000. The same applies with computers. Measure it in terms of dollars per frame. Getting 20FPS in FS might cost you $50 per frame. Getting 30 will require bigger better everything, so the cost might be $110 per frame. but if you want the very fastest you can, lets say 36fps, you will find the cost escalates to $250 per frame.LonelyplanetXO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set your frame rate limit to unlimited and disable vsync and see what happens. I know that disabling vsync on my computer improved my frame rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he did it cos there a bit cheaper than the Radeon, and as a ATi customer their drivers and over all support isn't as good as nVidia's.nForce2 and a Radeon 9700 Pro... it is the dogs proverbials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi guys,thanks for the quick replies. the gf4 was my first thoughts as well. i remember reading a post here at Avsim or at Flightsim some months ago where someone stated they upgraded to a gf4ti4600 saying the card "scaled like an olympian" at higher resolutions. also, considering the ti4600 is not much over a year old and from a compatability standpoint i thought it would be suffice. i have seen the reviews and benchmarks on the 9700. i honestly didn't think that the ti4600 would be that much of a bottleneck. Mgdbottled, the upgrade route i agree would've been the way go. but i'm giving it to one of my sisters. this hobby is rather expensive isn't it? btw, is it really necessary to reformat just to upgrade to the 9700? i hope i'm not wrong on that one as well. again, many thanks for the help. happy flyin fm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Just having built a new system, p4 2.4 with Asus motherboard, I have no problems getting 30 fps with everything maxed. I only have a Gforce 64 pro. One program that came with the motherboard is called Intel Application Accelerator which when I installed these drivers, made a world of difference. See if you have these drivers installed or not.Hope this helps.Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the problem is, and I am no benchmark guru, but something is wrong with those numbers. You should see a better performance increase than what you are getting. First of all, you should not have to upgrade your video card already. The TI4600 is still the 2nd fastest card on the market. A few months ago I went from a P4 1.5 to a P4 2.26 and I got a noticable increase. I didn't run any numbers, but I can remember that using the Simflyers sceneries, my fps went from 6-8 to 10-15. Anyway just a few suggestions:Have you defragmented the hard drive fully? This is even necessary on a new machine. You may want to uninstall FS, defrag, then re-install and defrag again. A fragmented hd can cause some slowness in FS2002 (even if it isn't too bad). I do mine whenever it gets below 96%, even with NTFS.Also, try turning off anti-aliasing and see what that does to your frames. Third, change your fps lock slider to something higher. Bump it up to like 30 or so just to see if it changes anything. Seeing 21-25 fps with your lock at 25 isn't actually that unusual. Good luck - and if you can't get that system working better send it over to me and I'll try :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi ED,the system did not come with the intel app. accel. installed. so that was one of the first things i did b4 installing any programs. thanks for the suggestion anyway. happy flyin, fm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just wanted to say that I highly doubt that the GF 4600 is the problem. It should be more than sufficient for fs2k2. The only thing that might really bring it down is that u have set FSAA to its highest settings 4xs (i think its called that), try lowering this to quincox (again, too lazy to look it up in my settings :-)), i doubt u'll notice image quality decreasing too much. Then also try to lower Ansiotropic filtering to 2x, again image quality will suffer not too much. (at least i cant make out much of a difference). On my system ansiotropic filtering causes a much higher drop in fps than FSAA (with a GF4 4200 that is)Also, as stated above, try upping ur max fps slider to at least 30, coz with it being set at the same settings as with ur old system, its kinda clear ur fps wont improve much, ull most likely only notice it running a bit smoother.So to sum it up, turn off some of the performance draining features of in ur display properties, wont cause much of a quality loss, but certainly should enable ur system to run at 30 fps.Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""is it really necessary to reformat just to upgrade to the 9700? i hope i'm not wrong on that one as well.""No. If you ship it back to Alienware, they'll reformat it before they install the radeon unless you tell them not to and they probably will anyway. All you should have to pay for is the difference in cost between the two cards. If you just call them and order up a radeon, they'll charge your credit card for the entire price and credit you the Ti4600 when they receive it back.If you are considering trying the radeon yourself, just make sure you get all the nvidia stuff off first or you'll have major problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a great rig, you just need video card help to run the AA and AF....The only fair way to compare the system vs system performance is to compare with Antialiasing trurned off (AA) and Anisotropic filtering (AF) (texture sharpening-via driver menu) also turned off- as this is all done on the video card and just one little difference in settings will give one system an unfair advantage over the other.That also would of course hold true for many settings in FS2k2, for instance when installed on your 3.GHz system Fs will load with default settings near max, things like mesh terrain detail, ground shadows etc. so ask yourself what settings you had been using in your old system, duplicate those in the new and re-compare.You should find a substantial gain. Still Fs2k2 will need at least a 3.6 GHz(intelP4-:( or 3.0GHz(XP-Tb) with a 9700pro or GFFX combo to really run most of the latest add-ons at completely satisfying FPS, we are very close, Ooops!!! FS2k4! :)I would take the advice to Talk to the vendor and tell them you are not satisfied with the system and that you want to return the whole system, don't let on that you are prepared to pay for an video card upgrade, let them make the offer, or at least ask them what options there may be, the 9700pro should run you about $120 more than your GFTI, you might also inquire about what GFFX they plan to offer as they are due out in February. but that will run you about $270 more untill the prices drop. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, thanks to All for the replies. the tests stated above were performed with Anisotropic Filtering turned Off. sorry, i forgot to include that in the original post. also, i tried the same tests first with the fps slider set to 30. results were the same. i too would have thought that with clear skies, no weather and the test settings above that 30 or 25 at the very least could be maintained in any "view" even in the above detailed scenery areas with this system. another 300-400 bucks for the 9700 card or any other card for that matter is very depressing to say the least. btw, i'm still pondering that. happy flyin, fm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Paul,the AA settings were the same on both systems as stated in original post. Aniso. filtering was turned off in both systems as well. please see my last post b4 this one. happy flyin, fm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Still Fs2k2 will need at least a 3.6 GHz(intelP4-:( or >3.0GHz(XP-Tb) with a 9700pro or GFFX combo to really run >most of the latest Judging by past history we may find out later that 5.0 Ghz will be this "minimum". And by "completely" satisfying FPS I mean *never* less than say 22 fps. Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> While FS2k2 is CPU >dependent, it's also GPU dependent and ram dependent. Just >like all games are. Some more than others. FS2k2 certainly >is no exception. What you're reporting is no surprise to >me. Pure Cocka!This is so old...ARGHHHHHhhhh!!! there. . . For the sake of others on this board, Fs2k2 is not GPU dependant, with AA and AF turned off there is a >very close< gap between a GF2/GF3/GF4 and 9700pro as the little bit of DX7 pixel shader use and T&L are handled well enough with a DX7-GF2GTS.Transfer of the raw data is next and having twice the core and memory speed of one video card over another will yield very little in performance gains. The data has to get to the card first from the CPU and memory subsystem, and if that delivers 20-FPS on the GF2GTS with no AA/AF it will deliver only slight improvement on a card with twice the core/memory speed, something like a 4-8% increase (tested), that's >not:)Don't confuse the message here, a really great video card is desired to be able to run AA/AF without a performance nosedive, but it will not give you the increase that most other games receive as FS2k2 is not GPU dependant.MG,I suggest you print this out and study it, sideways...upside down...inverted....then eat and digest it until you can ...never..mind...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Pure Cocka! >>This is so old... May be true but I am not fully buying this CPU dependence either and posts like this when someone doubles CPU speed and essentially gets the same performance (with everything else being constant) only reinforce it. There must be other parameters in the system that clearly bottleneck the FS2002. I am still waiting for a convincing 'white paper' that would explain all that once and for all.Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 6-7 months ago, I had an Hewlett Packard Pavilion Rig with a P4 1.3GHz processor, 512MB RDRAM, etc. etc. etc. The comptuer came with a Voodoo3, but I immediatly upgraded to a RADEON 7200 64MB VIVO card. After awhile, I got tired of the old RADEON and bought myself a shiny new GeForce 4 128MB Ti4600. I got home, reformated (I needed to anyway, and put in my GeForce 4 Ti4600.I was very disipointed at the results. I didn't gain a single FPS in FS2k2, and noticed very little improvment in Counter-Strike. In fact, at times, it seemd that I had lost FPS with FS2k2.Shortly after purchasing my GF4, I built a new system (which specs are in my sig.) I just put the old RADEON 7200 card back into the HP system, and put my GF4 in this rig. My Frame Rates in FS2k2 with this new system are easily two-three times better than with my old system.So, in conclusion, from my personal experience, the GPU in your system doesn't do a thing in FS2k2. As always, your results may vary.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)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 42.01 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click Here to Download my American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, post like this one are rare Sir.Do some real testing yourself, I have been doing this the right way (real FS2k2 benchmarking)along time.And if you check the threads I am sure you will find about a 20 to 1 responce with real results infavor of CPU if you want to count.CPU55-60% memorysubsystem15-20% videosubsytem10%-15%Thats how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Michael. I said the sim is CPU dependent, ram dependent and GPU dependent. I have also read over and over and over of the success stories of members who have upgraded their GPU and discovered substantial performance increases using the same CPU. It all depends on where the bottleneck is. Paul; Perhaps you should learn how to read what is written rather than just dismiss anything that tends to contradict your CPU only theory. While a good CPU is important with FS2k2, it ain't nothing without the rest of the system. I've been flight simming since '98 with four different systems. I think I've figured out what's important and what's not. BTW; they haven't made a CPU yet that can run FS2k2 in all its glory with demanding aircraft and 100 percent AI. Perhaps a 5.0 gig machine will show us the light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi All,once again many thanks for all the help, suggestions, and the kind words on the new system. after reading all the replies and much pondering, i've decided to keep the new system and play the "waiting game". i'm gonna check out the reviews and see what the GeforceFX has to offer b4 i make a final decision on the video card upgrade. the main reason i'm still a little skeptical about this one is this.... i'm sure most of you read nvidia's claims "if u want to run those games at hi resolutions with FSAA cranked up then the gf4 is the card your looking for." and to a certain extent, alot of the reviews i saw confirmed this. needless to say, i decided to take the GF4 plunge - (all this was with the old system). well, there was 1 positive and 2 negatives in taking the plunge. first, the settings in the game and the vid. card settings were identical and FSAA at 4x in the following scenarios... the positive was the visuals in the VC's of the default a/c was better and the panning in the VC's was smoother. the 1st negative was no fps increase at all. the 2nd negative was i increased the res. to 1280x1024x16 from 1024x768x16 and to my surprise took a 5+ fps hit. i'm not speaking for everyone here but from my experience only. hopefully, you can understand my skepticism on this. also, i hope this will help others in making their next system/video card upgrade. i have some info. now that might be "old news" to some while "new" news to others. according to a post over at the Maximum PC forum i read some months ago actually, i think it was a link to MS's web site that someone posted. it stated that beginning the 2nd or 3rd qtr. of this year that MS would be dropping tech. support for the win98 OS. if this is true i wouldn't be surprised at all if the next version of FS doesn't support win98. sorry for the long post. happy flyin, fm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea. The GeForce FX should be a great card. The only downside I could see about it would be its price. While I don't know the exact numbers, I wouldn't be surpirsed to see it sell for $400-$600.I'd recommend holding off buying it for a little while, and wait for the initial reaction from the "general public". As the card is quite advanced, and introduces revolutionary technology, there's a chance it might have a few compatibilty bugs right out of the gates. Though, I'm sure nVidia will correct thess issues ASAP if they turn out to be reality.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)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 42.01 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click Here to Download my American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

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