Sign in to follow this  
Guest

upgrade Anthlon 1.67 to 2.00 - worth it for FS2004 ?"

Recommended Posts

I can only go from my XP2000 ( 1.67gz ) to an XP2400 ( 2.0gz )givenmy current MB ( which I am not considered changing at this time ).I am running W98, FX5900 w/det45.23, 512MB Ram.Not sure if that small step in CPU upgrade will make a lick of difference. Are Mesh and AI-traffic CPU bound - as those are the areas that I tend to experiment/adjust downward to gain FPS.Running 1600x1200, 2xAA, 8xAF, Clouds 100/max, autogen ( normal or dense - can't decide ), vis=60/cloud draw=60. Getting 12 - 18 on complex approaches, 25 - 40 or more out in the open.Thanks,myles

Share this post


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

Last week I upgraded my Athlon 2000XP to a Athlon 2600XP (266 FSB), the max my mobo would accept, according to ASUS. This is very similar to your situation. While the old cpu worked very well in FS9, I felt the added speed would help, and it has. I would'nt call it an astounding breakthrough but I have been able to notch up a slider or two and still keep fluid and smooth operations, especially in heavy density areas.So, I say go for it, especially since the price of the older cpu's has come down to a more reasonable level. My 2600XP cost $118 on line and I feel it was well worth the layout of money.Larry Shinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myles, This is my experience with the AMD 2400XP and FS2004. I'm sure readers will question my performance but I assure you this is what I am getting.....Running in 1600X1200/32 with all sliders "Maxed" except for water which is set at zero with very satisfactory results. ATC traffic set at 50% Have AA off as with 1600X1200 don't need it......Sitting LAX in the default B737 in Delta colors using the VR panel "this is the key" I'm getting 17-19 FPS and sim is very smooth. Rolling down the runway may see FPS drop to 13-14. Once airborne looking at aircraft from exterior see avg FPS 19-25 with very smooth operation and minimal blurring. This also with scat cloud layer set 100 dense and max auto gen....All this also with my old GF3 Ti200 slightly over clocked...Have FPS locked at 25. If you can maintain anything above 19-23 in any circumstances you will be thrilled with FS2004 set to the detail I've described.......Some of the lowest FPS will be on approach to high detail airports with traffic and may drop to 10-12 FPS for very short time but usually not below that......For the most part the sim is very smooth with all the settings maxed and I cant go back to anything lower......Hope this helps.......I must be doing something wrong based on complaints of poor performance from folks with better computers and vidio cards but "I ain't changing a thing". JayDubMy Current system.....Lian-Li Aluminum Case 400W Power SupplyAMD ATHLON XP 2400+Gigabyte GA-7VAX VIA KT400 Dynatron CPU CoolerWindows XP Home Edition /Windows ME Dual Boot512MB Corsair DDR 2400Maxtor 40GB 7200 Maxtor 30GB SlaveSony 16x DVD / 40x CD-ROMPlextor 16x10x40 CD-RWCreative Audigy XGamer 5.1MSI GeForce 3 TI200 Pro - 44.03 DriversViewSonic19 Inch Flat Screen ViewSonic ViewMate Office KeyboardCreative V.92 PCI ModemSaitek X36F/X35T Flight Control System

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the fps you are already getting I would say save your money.I very recently upgraded from an XP1800 to a XP2500 Barton, a change of FSB, L2 cache and almost a 50% increase in CPU speed and I saw very little improvement on fps in my 'heavy' test scenario.I saw more of an improvement when I upgraded my GF3 Ti200/64MB card to a GF4 Ti4800SE/128MB card.Save your money, wait for the 3GB CPUs to drop in price and then go for mo/bo CPU & (probably) RAM.Rgds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myles, Sorry I kinda got carried away with my response to your post. I went back to reread it and see your performance is great, as good as if not better than mine, and I did't say much to answer your question. We probably will not see much of an improvement over what we have without a major upgrade. I've just gone through a couple of weeks of frustration tuning FS2004 to run well on my machine and just got it right the last couple of days. Guess I let my excitement get the best of me. Anyway for now I'm a "Happy Camper". JayDub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed your video drivers JayDub, did you try the 30.82's, I got better performance with those on my GF3 Ti200 than the later ones.Rgds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your money would be better spent on upgrading to WinXP. I'm running FS9 on WinXP Home, 1.2ghz athlon and 512mb pc100 ram and a geforce 4 440mx and I have a super smooth sim running frame rates in the 20s and 30s and rarely get below 15, even on approach. And super smooth.It really is a superior OS than W98. That's a 5 year old OS. Just my opinion.Tim

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