Sign in to follow this  
Guest

For those with older systems.. you might be interested

Recommended Posts

A HOT RUNNING COMPUTER SYSTEM is NOT the sum of one or two components but rather the TOTAL sum of its sub-systems. It's NOT just upping the CPU at all....or throwing in a hotter VID card. Uh uh...... Hello all!As you all know, I have/had by today

Share this post


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

Nice post Mitch,Having done the PowerLeap thing $$$ as well, and not to rain on your results...Just for thought: for the money if you just go $50 more you can get a whole CASE/DDR-motherboard/1.6Mhz CPU and DDR-memory (OK, only one stick of 256-PC2700).This will bring you up to an architecture than can realy use the CPU and memory and video much more efficient than the old stuff, As I said I did the exact same thing, well I was running a P90mhz-upgrade to 233mhz UG to 350mhz via PowerLeap and O/C to 500mhz filled the ram with the fastest and the mostest that it would allow, UG again PowrLeap PIII-700Mhz, cost me $400 real world performance was...:-roll ...So I did some quick bare-bones shopping and upgraded the lot for less $$$ and got much better the performance than any of these upgrades give as the MB is the limiting factor, as well as the old case and power supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul!Gotcha! But I had wanted to stay with the BX440 chip set. Even by today's standards, etc, and by testing at Tom's Hardware Site, the BX440 pumps its heart out to pass along the system performance goodies.Honestly, Paul...after reading all the (heartbreaking/BIG $$$ outlay) modest/minor real-world FPS performance gains and comments posted by others that had let go their 2-4 year old computers and went out to spec an ATHLON or Pent4 monster (by the spec's..by the spec's that tantalized them to purchase...) I decided to try a 'little bit of this, a little bit of hardware tweak, that'....and see where it got me.It got me HUGE gains, Paul.Huge satisfaction.I guess that is truly the bottom line....right?Cheers!Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Huge satisfaction. >>I guess that is truly the bottom line....right? >>>Cheers! >>Mitch yep!:-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, the timing of your post. I have been planning on swapping out my RAM for a couple of '133 sticks. I've watched the performance graph on FS enough to know that 256 megs will just get by, but given the more and more complex aircraft, I am starting in some instances to slide into "RAM deficit" a.k.a. "swap file stutters". Give 2k2 more than it needs, and it will reward you with great performance...-JohnAlso, I am still running with the BX chipset... My MB is an Iwill BD100+--been in my box for four years now. It's the most stable thing I've ever owned. I average 5-6 hours a day use when I'm in town, and maybe I get one lockup a month, and usually it's related to some of my coding on my FS projects. Can't get much better than that. The BX MB is very good, and what I lack in speed I still get in "quality time" with my favorite software titles.-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello John!I just came off of a flight from Detroit, to Chicago.The difference from HOUSEBRAND 256 meg to quality 512 inside the box is like night and day.No more stutters in FS2002, where I had them all the time. As far as I can see...a RARE need to load in textures. Before, I'd know of a need to get a hit off of the harddisk for textures or swapfile. Now? I'm not even aware....I am getting 15 plus frames all the time no matter what view, or over what scenery with all sliders set at Dense or a percentage of 70 percent. I have never had this kink of silky animation before.Yes..I do believe that it is in part due to the rock (as you said) solid BX440 chipset.With just upgrading my BIOS, slapping in 512 of fast CAS2 RAM, and upgrading to a 1.4 CPU...my tasks are done. This system isn't going anywhere for another couple of years!Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeha!MOST SATISFIED AND HAPPY!Mitch'ster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It think that it may be safe for me to say that not everyone will have the same results by simply upgrading their memory on such a low system, which some may believe. There are a lot of other factors to be considered. That's not to say that more memory won't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a few things as stated in my series of posts. Of a dollar value, it came to less than $300.00.What I have realized beyond a doubt with my experimentation and success, is that getting a high-end Athlon or Pentium 4 system does not truly translate out to actually better Fs2002 performance than let say, a Pentium III 500-900 based system. It's just not happening, with all the posts of let-down new owners.There is a threshold, and that is just about it.I'm getting 15+ with my upgrades (and I don't even have the 1.4 installed yet...still running with a non-overclocked 500) where I did not before. In fact...3-low 20's BUT...but the higher figure only up in the nosebleed FL's. I am getting 12-15 at taxi now. I did see an almost 90 percent FPS increase when I updated to my board's latest BIO. That's all I did there...but have gained another 3-4 in the swap-out of my generic 256 for 512 CAS2 7.5 nanosecond Crucial. I didn't touch my BIOS settings. I had already been running with a CAS2 setting when having run my CAS3 256 stick, so no need to adjust.In fact...as compared to the performance that others with high-end Ath's and Pentium 4 are getting...I'm not too far behind the acceptable performance threshold for FS2002. You get decent control surface with sustainable FPS of 12 and up. I'm there now. Others with a similar system spec to mine can also be.Most of past Penitum III(500-900 Mhz) owners would have never purchased another system if not for that they are flight simuholics, as is myself. I'm sure that all their other software titles and apps SCREAMED along with their past system...all except for FS2000/02.We (collectively) spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for one...yeah...one program to 'run right'.... I wonder what a shrink (who is NOT a fellow simmer) might comment if they were to consider the above...LOLCheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mitch,Great to see a post from a 440BX supporter!Around the time when everyone was experiencing upgrade fever some 15 months ago I did my best, via a few postings, to discourage those who a) could ill afford to do so and b)who probably didn't need to anyway.It was quite clear that FS2002 runs just fine on more humble systems providing you are not obsessively slider happy! After all, prior to its release it was being shown off on systems powered by PIII 750s and everyone was ecstatic.Trouble is, along came all the wonderful 3rd Party offerings designed solely to tempt us addicts.... and many of us, myself included, became somewhat disappointed when, in certain situations, those frame rates started to take a hammering...... and the rest is history!Having admitted to my addiction..LOLLOL..I can confirm that my original system is still providing faithful service in the appreciative hands of my daughter and son-in-law:PIII800E, 512MB PC100 ram at Cas2Soyo 6BA +IV MoBo (440BX - still performing superbly)GeForce2GTS 32MB (12.90 drivers WHQL)Sony MultiscanG200 17" MonitorSB Live! Value (LiveWare 3 + Driver ver. 4.11.01.0711)IBM Deskstar 60GXP 40Gig (Promise Ultra100TX2IDE Controller) Pioneer DVD-106Creative CD-RW RW1210EWindows 98SEDX 8.1AGP aperture = 128MB3D Mark 2001 = 2755It's perhaps worth noting my neighbour has a PIII750 with a GeForce 256 and a friend has an AMD 1Ghz with a TNT2 Ultra. FS2002 is stable and runs well on both systems (VIA Chip based) and both neighbour and friend remain very happy. In the case of my neighbour I even managed to tweak the MipMapping LOD and Anisotropy with Rivatuner to sharpen up his textures. He sees no reason to upgrade after all this time AND I have installed several freeware addons to enhance his experience and enjoyment.Doubtless, I will find myself going through these agonies all over again when FS2004 comes out. MS have a great deal to answer for!Cheers!Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I did a few things as stated in my series of posts. Of a >dollar value, it came to less than $300.00. >>What I have realized beyond a doubt with my experimentation >and success, is that getting a high-end Athlon or Pentium 4 >system does not truly translate out to actually better >Fs2002 performance than let say, a Pentium III 500-900 based >system. It's just not happening, with all the posts of >let-down new owners. Fine, but your first post only referenced upgrading to 512 megs of RAM. It will be interesting to see the results of those who will take that advice. It will surely help to some extent, but to get results to rave about like you have may be another story. And what about those who already have the faster CPUs, along with the same amount of RAM? "I now can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Are you saying that a Celeron, or P3, is better than a high end >Athlon, or P4 with this SIM? Again, I will await independent >confirmation.----------------------------------------------No...no..not at all. Not at all. What I am saying is that for present owners of a Cel or a Pent II/III... to perhaps sit back...sip the coffee...and look at their 'upgrade' needs from a different angle.Pent 4 and Ath XP's are getting sustainable FPS's in the low to mid 20's. Of course I can't match that! But...for what they (the owners) spent, and as another poster put so well.....how much did each FPS over 15 cost them? Let's say, 1,000.00 divided by 5 (extra FPS's over their 'old' Pentium/Athlon system...so, that would actually cost:(in this mean average system cost upgrade example) ---- $200.00 PER FRAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geez...kinda expensive entertainment....whew!I'm making the point that perhaps, a present Pentium III/Celeron and or a 'older chip' Athlon-based system owner might look at upgrading their present sub-systems as I did, and might be very well most pleasantly surprised at the much less cost/FPS ratio.A thought, anyway....Cheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike...you said it, partner!I was on my way to getting either a Pent. 4 or an Ath' X(whatever gigger) myself until I sipped that coffee ...and sat back..and READ...yeah..READ about those that took that path before me...and you could JUST hear in the 'read-between-the-lines' that some (not all) wished they hadn't. Hindsight is 20/20...right?So...armed with that...I said..let's see what I can do, here. 'Here', meaning my Green Machine 500.New and hotter RAM (check!)New 1.4 gigger via the PowerLeap PT370/T (check!)Update the BIOS for the BM6 (check!)all of the above came to less than $300.00 ..and with a now sustainable 15+ frames in FS2002...where I did NOT have close to that before...the Pent.4 or the Ath XP is no longer being considered.I just saved myself HUGE...(did I mention HUGE?!?) bucks, and don't feel I'm (at 15 FPS) a third cousin to the 'big iron', LOLLife is good...Cheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Mitch!it may seem that I'm pursuing you but then... I am!I just got amazed with your results!Now, can I upgrade a BIOS without change the MOBO??? will that directly improve FPS???And, wich GeForce 4 chipset card would you choose??? I mean wich is the BEST in your opinion? Thanks,Jean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have FS loaded on two systems. The first is my old Dell XPR-S PII450 upgraded to a PIII800 with the BX440 mobo and a GF2GTS64 Herc card with AA maxed out. I initially had 256mb of crucial ram. I added a stick of 128 bringing it to 384mb running win98. The ram made a nice improvement in smoothness overall. It got rid of the stutters in the turns. I locked the frames at 20 and run it at 1600x1200x16. The sim looked nice and ran nice with sliders on dense and very dense autogen with mesh at 80 and AI turned off.My second system bought this summer is a PIV 2.53 533 with 512mb PC1066 and an ATI 9700 Pro card running on XP with a D850EMV2 Intel mobo. I run with the frames locked at 20, at 4xAA & 16xAF and at 1600x1200x32. All sliders are maxed out, visibility at 100mi and AI on default. The sim runs nice and smooth.My conclusion: there's absolutely no comparison. FS is a completely new sim and shockingly beautiful. Absolutely stunning with a remarkable improvement in the flight models. Every single aircraft just feels better. I find myself scrolling around the outside of the aircraft in Awe. I look at the buildings and the airports on approach and see detail like never before with no shimmer. Just a slight sparkle in the tree tops. I slice through the clouds like they're not even there. I pause the sim just to look at all the beautiful colors and all the trees and objects and terrain that was never there before. The lighting is beyond my wildest expectations. That's why I fly in the evening so much. The difference is night and day. Especially in the image quality. Pics just can't show what I now see.So, yes; a PIII modest processor with a good amount of ram and a mid range video card will do the job nicely; but!!!! and it's a big but!!!!; you'd be amazed at what a higher end system will produce on the screen. Money well spent, I'd say. And they ain't made a processor big enough for FS2k2 yet. More power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! desired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,I beleive I used to see you on the Dell Hardware Upgrade site whenI was going through the upgrade thing a while back. I had a Dell PII 400 with the 440BX MOBO. I droped in a PIII 1 GIG processer and added a VisionTek g-force 3 Ti/200 AGP card and increased the RAM to 384, guess I will add some more now. I have no plans to replace it anytime soon. It runs FS2002 very smooth, but the kicker is CFS 3.I have no problem at all with it and most of the sliders are mid point or more. I know many people with much much faster systems that can't even get it to load let alone run smoothly with exceptable frame rates, So I am very happy with my upgrade and am in fact afraid to get a new system for fear it will not run as well.Steve

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