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

[Guest JonP01]

>Hasnt anyone figured it out yet... >>INTEL SUCKS!!! Any AMD can kick the Pants of an intel. Get >an AMD ATHLON XP 2800, that will fix everything An extremely well-informed, well based and technically sound contribution to the discussion. And your fully tabulated, double blind test results performed on multiple platforms and hardware combinations would be where exactly??? :-roll

[Guest PaulL01]

>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. Doesn't mean squat if its not apples to apples, you can also read about amazing performance increases with every new driver and version of DX that comes along :-roll, doesn't make it so.>Paul; Perhaps you should learn how to read what is writtenI quoted you directly MG, here:"it's also GPU dependent and ram dependent. Just like all games are. Some more than others. FS2k2 certainly is no exception."Uh, just like all games are?Sorry, you know not of what you speak. "What you're reporting is no surprise to me."Funny though, it is a surprise to most everyone on this board, including those that build gaming rigs for a living. :-roll>rather than just dismiss anything that tends to contradict >your CPU only theory. Since the first Fs2k2 beta came out more than 18 months ago I have always said that Fs2k2 performance was about 4 to 1 in favor of the CPU, when Fs2k2 final was released with the help of whole team of developers I was able to pin the performance down to:55-60%CPU 15-20%memory-subsystem 10-15%video card, the rest is variable to BIOS&settings,OS&settings, drivers, sound cards and way to much more to pin down. This was accurate enough to nail what kind of performance increase could be had in Fs2k2 with the then to be released GF4TI just based on its specs alone because of its similar architecture to the GF3.all of those post still exist here in the archive if you ever want to challenge it.>While a good CPU is important with >FS2k2, it ain't nothing without the rest of the system.so True, we can agree on that. >I've been flight simming since '98 with four different >systems. I think I've figured out what's important and >what's not. and every year you get closer to figuring it out! :-lol, Just kidding MG! 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. well now, actually there are some extreme P4's running on air up in the 3.4GHz range using the 9700P and even while in the CS727 VC at LAX with full PAI-atc on stayed up over the 18 FPS mark and that is really exceptional, I can do 16+fps AAx2Q in the CS727 VC at most airfields with 100%PIA-atc but not at places like LAX.So, yeah I'll take a 5GHz machine! :)

[Guest flightpro08]

>INTEL SUCKS!!! Any AMD can kick the Pants of an intel. Get an AMD ATHLON XP 2800, that will fix everything Very constructive comment. :-rollWhy does every, mature, very imformative thread about computer hardware have to have somebody come along and post something like that? 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!

[Guest PaulL01]

John,I would agree 90% of what you said (well based on word count it's closer to 96% :-lol)My caculations are based on many systems as well as other users who know FS and PC's Builders and developers, many personaly setup to test Fs2k2 by me, all kinds, if I had to count, it would be close to fifty for FS2k2 alone in the past year or so(about thirty soon after the release of Fs2k2.As for the "CPU speed improvements continue to diminish as CPU speeds increase" that is as you point out hard to nail as it would seem that way... and then a new MB-chipset comes out that changes the results for the same given CPU, take for example the latest P4-b MBs as well as the new GforceII boards I have personally seen increases using the exact same CPU that are up near 10-15% better as a result, still the fact does remain that there is a diminishing return if you look purely at "well here is a 300mhz gain" yeah, but now it is only 15% increase for a 1.7Ghz to a 2Ghz, comparing to a PIII@600 to 900 was almost a 35% increase, well I think you know what I mean..So if you still look at a 10% increase in CPU cycles in the same box you can still find a 5-6% increase in raw unfiltered power for FS2k2.Make sense?

[Guest tascaso]

PaulLO1 is right on the money!!! When I upgraded to a new Box P4-1.5 to an AMDXP2100 the performance gains were very nice. Whether I ran FS2002 with a GF3 or GF4 vid-card did not really matter when looking at FPS. The CPU horsepower did....when I built my brother his P4 2.53 533 FSB system it just screamed with FS2002. The evidence is cold and hard check the threads in this forum. What is up with your system I do not know. But you can always send me the chip!!!!!Tony Ascaso, RN

[Guest PaulL01]

>Hasnt anyone figured it out yet... >>INTEL SUCKS!!! Any AMD can kick the Pants of an intel. Get >an AMD ATHLON XP 2800, that will fix everything :-lol :-lol :-lolwell if anything Sucks, its the VIA chipsets certainly not Intel!Get real man! :-lol

[FlyinMisfit 0]

hi Jon,well, first of all i can assure you that the settings Both in the game and in the video card control panel was the same in Both systems during the testing. by checking and double checking and, not to mention the fact that i pretty much from day one (talking about the old system here) ran fs2k2 with All sliders maxed except visibility - set at 60 miles and the water slider set to "none". this is another reason why i chose the settings for these two sliders as well as the other settings for the rest of the sliders and the video card settings as well for the tests. i was very familiar with the fps i was getting with that system and those settings. to me it was a fair comparison between the two. also, for me the trade off was for better visuals over more performance. especially when fs2k2 ran much smoother at much lower fps than fs2000 ever could. my thinking for the testing was...we all prefer to run fs with better "visuals" and to do that means stressing the video card as well as the CPU. also, if your going to try and get a pretty good idea of what your system is made of especially when it comes to gaming, why not stress as much of the system as possible rather than just part(s) of the system. thanks for the info. happy flyin, fm

[Guest]

hmm well iam not surpised at the FPS level here. When cranking up everything to max in Fs2002 it will kill the strongest of systems and this proves it. If anything you should notice a great deal of improvemnts with just turning AI down to 50% .Fs2k2 AI can't handle alot planes well anyways.I have learned to just settle for a nice medium between good looking graphics and playablity. Now I only have a 2.1 ghz but I can get a between 17-25 fps in most cases and with weather unless it's a big set of gray clouds which drops the performance to a slide show due to bugs .I would do the followingFirst get the 41.09 drivers Get nvrefresh or refreshlock to fix 60hz bug in winxp and win2kturn off all services you are not using to free up memory. most of the stuff that is turned on in 2k and xp is not need by default . now turn on fs2k2bring the AI to 50%bring the clouds to 65%bring visabilty to 90 miles turn aircraft shadows off FPS locked at 30now before going and cranking up the resolution and FSAA etc just see what the performance is like at 1024x768 at 32 . You should be able to get a solid 30 at megis with the default cessna with that set up.Now you can start to tweak things to a better level. I run fs2k2 at 1152x864 32 bit color refresh rate 100hz FSAA 4x+9 tap AA 2x I can get 25 in most cases although with heavy AI and storms it can go to 10-15 as stated above. I would thinking you should be able to get a solid 20 in all cases as long as certain aspects of FS2k2 state within a usable range.AI being the major one.If you use project ai only you will see great improvments .I do not use FS2k2 AI default planes at all.This is what works best for me :) 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

[Guest]

try setting or unsetting "T&L acceleration" in the hardware options, and see if it makes a difference.regards,

[Guest]

Just do your own experiment. Go to BestBuy or Circuit City and purchase a 9700 and try it out. You can always return it with no problem. Robb

[Guest LarryJ_KMSO]

Paul01,I wonder what you think of the recently uploaded FS2002 benchmark test. The benchmark is contained in the file#24975, FS2002 Utilities, FS2002 benchmark v.1.2 by Maurizio Losso.I'd personally like to see a thread started with the results of this test posted, if the test is valid and repeatable. Paul, my experience is that FS2002 performance is very dependent on CPU, just as you said. (Having just spent 2200$ for a Asus P4PE 2.4 GHz, ti4600 128 MB, 1GB DDR, from a 1 GHz P3 384 SDRAM G2GTS 64 MB, the somewhat less than satisfying experience is fresh on my mind! {;-))Larry JonesFlorence, MT

[Guest JonP01]

Yes, it does make sense (you always make sense :-)) I guess the key is that the figures need to be kept a little rubbery to allow some lattitude here and there. I mean I'm sure the introduction of the Barton, for example, is going to boost figures # 1 and # 2, and make figure # 3 (the GPU) a little less critical, at least for that archtitecture. I certainly agree with chipsets throwing spanners in the works as well. My feeling is that future versions of Geforce FX technology (say by the end of this year) and ATi technology around the same time will well and truly put the emphasis back upon the chipset/cpu/memory trio. I guess because FS2002 really only starts to look good once you hit resolution, AA and anisotropic filtering reasonably hard, current generation cards have their work cut out a little (much less so the 9700 Pro though). Even in my own case, my only performance complaint is the effect of 4x AA / AF or higher on frame rate. I'm sure these concerns won't even be an issue at all with any state of the art GPU available in the near future. Certainly in my own case, I am more than happy with the horsepower of the Athlon XP 2400 + to run FS2002. Where I would like to improve my FS2002 experience is by running higher resolution and higher level AA/AF. So in my particular case I only need concern myself with a new GPU.