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

[FlyinMisfit 0]

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

[FlyinMisfit 0]

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

[michal 44]

>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

[Guest PaulL01]

> 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...:)

[michal 44]

>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

[Guest flightpro08]

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!

[Guest PaulL01]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[FlyinMisfit 0]

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

[Guest flightpro08]

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!

[Guest]

thank you for posting this. im thinking of giving up on my old PII and buying a custom made CPU from dell. i had the same choice (P4 3.06) but im going with the 9700 pro card instead of the GF4. i thought about it but reading the reviews and by going over the posts here like this one i pretty much decided ATI was the way to go untill the price drops on the GFX. i do believe GFX will hold the number 1 spot on the market for awhile but dont forget ATI will be coming out with theyre next card not too long after. so who knows if itll beat the GFX or not. if you have looked at the trend lately, everytime NVIDIA comes out with a card ATI has been right in back of it with a better one. so might just be worth the wait.

[Guest]

after reading a tutorial on how to build a PC at http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/howtobuildapc/index.shtmli think im just going to build it myself! isnt rocket science like i thought it was!.. woohoo!

[Guest flightpro08]

>i think im just going to build it myself! isnt rocket science like i thought it was!.. woohoo! :-lol Very true.I just built my first system (whoose specs are in my sig) this past summer, and was surprised at how easy it was. My motherboard came with a very comprehensive manual, and that diffenitly made the experience that much easier.Think of building a computer like putting together an advanced set of legos. ;-)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 JonP01]

My personal viewpoint in these situations is fairly similar to Paul's, in that the CPU is a principal player in sim speed, but not to the total disregard of memory and graphics speed. I also tend to believe that as CPUs get faster, the improvements become exponentially smaller as well, and graphics card speed becomes more important. I actually tabulated the benchmark database here at Avsim a couple of months ago. After analysis of the top 100 results, it was clear that the gains from CPU speed improvements continue to diminish as CPU speeds increase. Unfortunately there does not exist sufficient data for over 2 ghz machines (and by that I mean at least 100 separate results for 2ghz machines or faster) to draw definite conclusions about how the graphics card influences performance at high clock speeds. I guess Paul will disagree with me here :-) but I prefer to see a large variety of results from many users rather than just relying on the analysis of a couple of people, no matter who scientific or thorough they are :-)In the case of comparing your old 1.5 ghz machine to your new 3.06 ghz machine, I would firstly make sure you are using the same settings for both when making the comparison. A lot of people complain there is little difference in performance between old and new machines until it is revealed that a few sliders were moved or checkboxes checked, or add-ons installed since placing the new machine into service. I would suggest (as an experiment only), to disable vsync, run the sim without any anti-aliasing or any anisotropic filtering at 640 x 480 x 16 resolution, and then compare the results using these settings on both machines. Just make sure the settings in the sim are identical and that AI traffic is disabled. Also make sure the test is precisely the same, with precisely the same aircraft in precisely the same place at precisely the same time of day with precisely the same weather. A pre-recorded video is obviously useful in this respect, but not neccessarily indicative of sim performance (simply because it IS a pre-recorded video rather than a real time flight). If you find the sim runs much better on the new machine in this situation, then a graphics card upgrade is most probably your answer. If you find little difference, then you have cause for complaint with the vendor, as something is defintely awry with the new machine.

[Guest]

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