I currently have a system built around an Intel 8400, 4 GB of RAM, and Windows XP. I recently overclocked the CPU to 4Ghz with underwhelming results. Yes, there seems to be a few FPS increase but not much. My videocard is a couple of years old and is a Nvidia 8800 GTS 320Mb. I have my videocard settings at 1600x1200. How much improvement would I see on an overclocked i920? I know I would have to purchase new motherboard (I have my eye on an ASUS P6T SE LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX) and 6 to 12 Gb of DDR3 RAM, but that would be okay. I'd go with a Vista 64 with an upgrade coupon to Windows 7.But what kind of improvement would I, and others like me, see?Thanks,RH (an unhappy E8400 owner).

The E8400 isn't your problem... it is the 8800 GPU. (In my humble opion.)I have just upgraded to a Quad Core CPU (AMD 940) expecting to see a big jump in performance. PCMark05 benchmark jumped by nearly 30% over the dual-core that was replaced (AMD 5600+) but real-world FSX gains are just about nil.Next stop: Radeon 4870My GPU is also an 8800 by the way...

I currently have a system built around an Intel 8400, 4 GB of RAM, and Windows XP. I recently overclocked the CPU to 4Ghz with underwhelming results. Yes, there seems to be a few FPS increase but not much. My videocard is a couple of years old and is a Nvidia 8800 GTS 320Mb. I have my videocard settings at 1600x1200. How much improvement would I see on an overclocked i920? I know I would have to purchase new motherboard (I have my eye on an ASUS P6T SE LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX) and 6 to 12 Gb of DDR3 RAM, but that would be okay. I'd go with a Vista 64 with an upgrade coupon to Windows 7.But what kind of improvement would I, and others like me, see?Thanks,RH (an unhappy E8400 owner).

Just to clarify: it is not the 8800 GPU that is holding him back, it is the meager 320MB video RAM that is preventing his GPU from stretching its legs.

Just to clarify: it is not the 8800 GPU that is holding him back, it is the meager 320MB video RAM that is preventing his GPU from stretching its legs.

I thought about that. I have in mind to check out a 250GTS 512Mb, which is a newer card. What do you think?

I thought about that. I have in mind to check out a 250GTS 512Mb, which is a newer card. What do you think?

That would be a decent upgrade, but depending on price you may want to look at a GTX 260 or 275.

That would be a decent upgrade, but depending on price you may want to look at a GTX 260 or 275.

I believe my current processor (Intel E8400 overclocked to 4 Ghz) is throwing more data than my 320Mb 8800 GTS can handle. That is why, I believe, my framerate increase has been so small between the E8400 clocked at 3.0 to the overclocked 4.0 Ghz - hardly noticeable. So, if I stay with my current E 8400 processor, the question then becomes, what card should I upgrade to to get the base framerates? I have to keep in mind that on Win XP (and Vista 32) that every MB of additional video RAM blocks the same amount of system RAM from being accessed due to hardware address mapping. So if I slap on a 1GB GTX260 or 275, I just lost 1GB of system RAM. In effect, a fourth of my RAM is now inaccessable because those addresses are assigned by Windows to the 1GB of RAM in the video card instead of system RAM. That's a first-class ticket to FS Out-of-Memory Hell.The 250GTS 55 nm has the 512Mb option. I think I will go with that one because I am using XP. The 250 uses less power than my 90mm 8800 GTS 320Mb and the 250 also has GDDR3 memory. Those factors should all get my framerates up to where they should be based on my E8400 4Ghz overclock.Do you guys see any better bang for the buck option other than the 250GTS for my situation?Do any of you guys use XP with a 1Gb card with lots of addons who don't run out of memory.RH

I have to keep in mind that on Win XP (and Vista 32) that every MB of additional video RAM blocks the same amount of system RAM from being accessed due to hardware address mapping. So if I slap on a 1GB GTX260 or 275, I just lost 1GB of system RAM. In effect, a fourth of my RAM is now inaccessable because those addresses are assigned by Windows to the 1GB of RAM in the video card instead of system RAM. That's a first-class ticket to FS Out-of-Memory Hell.

I thought Vista SP1 took care of that problem.

I thought Vista SP1 took care of that problem.

Oh no, not at all. Only transition to a 64-bit OS will fix the issue, because in ANY 32-bit system, 4GB is the maximum amount of RAM addressable, so the hardware address mappings have to be taken from the same 4GB address space the application will occupy. In 64-bit XP, Vista or Win 7, the hardware address mapping is done at addresses above the 4 GB boundary (a 64-bit OS has available address space all the way up to 128 GB), leaving all of the 4 GB that can be addressed by a 32-bit application unblocked and available for use by applications.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I believe my current processor (Intel E8400 overclocked to 4 Ghz) is throwing more data than my 320Mb 8800 GTS can handle. That is why, I believe, my framerate increase has been so small between the E8400 clocked at 3.0 to the overclocked 4.0 Ghz - hardly noticeable. So, if I stay with my current E 8400 processor, the question then becomes, what card should I upgrade to to get the base framerates? I have to keep in mind that on Win XP (and Vista 32) that every MB of additional video RAM blocks the same amount of system RAM from being accessed due to hardware address mapping. So if I slap on a 1GB GTX260 or 275, I just lost 1GB of system RAM. In effect, a fourth of my RAM is now inaccessable because those addresses are assigned by Windows to the 1GB of RAM in the video card instead of system RAM. That's a first-class ticket to FS Out-of-Memory Hell.The 250GTS 55 nm has the 512Mb option. I think I will go with that one because I am using XP. The 250 uses less power than my 90mm 8800 GTS 320Mb and the 250 also has GDDR3 memory. Those factors should all get my framerates up to where they should be based on my E8400 4Ghz overclock.Do you guys see any better bang for the buck option other than the 250GTS for my situation?Do any of you guys use XP with a 1Gb card with lots of addons who don't run out of memory.RH

I don't think you can get an nVidia 260 or higher GPU with less than 896 MB any more, so a 250 with 512 MB looks like a good choice for Win XP. A 9800 GTX would also work well.What's the RAM configuration in that PC (amount, speed, timings)? Memory could be a bottleneck as much as your GPU--if the CPU is having to sit idle for a large number of clock cycles waiting for memory, the OC to 4 GHz isn't going to produce much of a change. RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

"What's the RAM configuration in that PC (amount, speed, timings)? Memory could be a bottleneck as much as your GPU--if the CPU is having to sit idle for a large number of clock cycles waiting for memory, the OC to 4 GHz isn't going to produce much of a change."I don't know. My RAM is good low latency GSkill RAM. It is set on automatic. So, if I go into my memory timings, what do you suggest I change them to manually. I will give it a try and post back. I am using an ASUS P5Q motherboard.Thanks,RH

"What's the RAM configuration in that PC (amount, speed, timings)? Memory could be a bottleneck as much as your GPU--if the CPU is having to sit idle for a large number of clock cycles waiting for memory, the OC to 4 GHz isn't going to produce much of a change."I don't know. My RAM is good low latency GSkill RAM. It is set on automatic. So, if I go into my memory timings, what do you suggest I change them to manually. I will give it a try and post back. I am using an ASUS P5Q motherboard.Thanks,RH

Well, automatic rarely gives you optimum settings, usually it defaults to loose timings far below what the RAM is capable of. I can't make a suggestion unless I know the specifics of the DIMMs you are using--model number perhaps, or the rated voltage, speed, and timings.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I will have to fool around with the settings because everything is on automatic except the actual overclock of the CPU by way of the front-side bus. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though.RH

Oh no, not at all. Only transition to a 64-bit OS will fix the issue, because in ANY 32-bit system, 4GB is the maximum amount of RAM addressable, so the hardware address mappings have to be taken from the same 4GB address space the application will occupy. In 64-bit XP, Vista or Win 7, the hardware address mapping is done at addresses above the 4 GB boundary (a 64-bit OS has available address space all the way up to 128 GB), leaving all of the 4 GB that can be addressed by a 32-bit application unblocked and available for use by applications.

Maybe we're talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105.

Maybe we're talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105.

We are talking about different things, and it's easy to confuse the WDDM virtual video memory address space with hardware address mapping.Hardware MappingThe BIOS, as part of the startup process, has to assign a fixed range of addresses that the DMA controller(s) will use to read/write from/to the physical video memory located on the card. So if you have 1 GB of video memory, the system assigns 1 GB of address space to the video memory, and any read/write to those addresses will be redirected to the VRAM array. Because 32 bits only allows 4GB of addresses, in a 32-bit OS, these addresses must come from the OS's half of the 4GB pool that is normally split 50-50 between the application and the OS. If you have 4GB of RAM in your 32-bit system, every byte of address space redirected to the VRAM results in a byte of physical system RAM that is "blocked"...in other words a read/write to that address goes to the video card and not the RAM, and the system will never be able to use the RAM at that address. In a 64-bit OS, the hardware memory mappings occur at addresses above the highest physical RAM address, so this reassignment doesn't block any of the addresses being used by system RAM.Virtual Video Address SpaceWDDM and DirectX also maintain a virtual image of the video array in the application's address space as well. Before the SP1 changes to Vista, if your program was trying to make use of 320 MB of video resources, the application and/or DirectX would still maintain a fixed 1GB shadow copy of the entire video RAM address space within the app's limited 2GB address space, regardless of whether it was using it at the time. So if you had a 1GB video card and the app was using 320MB of the video address space, you had 1GB blocked by the hardware-address mapping in the OS's half of the 4GB space, and an additional 1GB used up by the need to maintain the virtual video array in the application space. The changes to WDDM/DirectX in Vista SP1 and later allow the OS to maintain a virtual video array that reflects only the video resources actually being used by the app--in our example 1GB of hardware-address mappings from the OS address space, and 320MB of virtual video memory would be actually allocated from the application's address space, freeing up 704MB in the application's limited 2GB address space.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I went to Best Buy yesterday and purchased a PNY 9800 GTX+ 512 to replace my old 8800 GTS 320. I am hoping that will help increase my FPS since overclocking my E8400 to 4Ghz. I will keep you guys posted.RH