Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Upper limits with cpu ??

Recommended Posts

Thought I would throw in this question since I am about to go out and get myself a processor. Were do you quys/girls believe there is the upper limit in processor speed to go for were no further improvements can be noticed in regards of runnig fs2002 / FlyI am running on SDRAM 512 on a asus P2B F motherboard with a PIII 450 processor with tnt2(which I will along with the cpu replace with a Geforche 4)

Share this post


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

I have a similar system. Not sure what you are asking however - with your setup you will really need to replace both the motherboard and the CPU to realize a meaningful gain. Anything else would be a waste of money, IMO.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of talk about stutter in fs2002, the more dense the scenery gets the more noticeable. If you have a similar system as I have the you should have noticed. Therefore this question, from what point on upwards will we not see a difference in fs2002 regardless how high we go in cpu speed. My board can take up to 1000 mhz and therefore I was wondering if someone has had an experience with similar speed and higher and if there was a difference.I do not agree with you that I will need to get a new board for a 1000 mhz cpu, however if I go higher than that I have no choice.But does FS20002 benefit noticeably and worth the money above betweeen 1001-2000 mhz, ofcourse with the support of high speed card and ram. That is my question - to those who have experienced this with different systems !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 1500mhz cpu, and quite frankly, I think another 1500 would help :)its an AMD XP1800+ which is 1.53Ghz.My ram is 512 PC2100 frame rate is still in low teens to 6-9 with a bit of stutter..but very little, at LAX and some of the higher scenery AI areas. Res @ 1600x1200x16...I do have all sliders full right.I had been using a very low end video, but now with overall upgrade and a GF3Ti500...it is still in low to mid teens....As stated before in many threads, even in the teens, the sim is pretty smooth in most locations. Once over 5000feet or so, the fps goes up dramatically.....Not sure where we need to be in reference to frame rates...I really don't believe that number is all that significant in FS2002...except when below 10...but even at 6 or 7, things seem pretty smooth in most areas....Its not like most FPS games, e=where fps is a direct correlation to how things move on the screen....10fps is a slideshow, whereas in FS2002, the plane is still flying and things update pretty nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asus P4T 1900 mhz , 512mb ram, XP os, Geforce4 4600Everything maxed but not using water reflection.(huge hit)1600x1200x32, anisotropy = 32, FSAA = Quinconx.Tweaking with Riva Tuner.Around major cities,airports Frame rate betwee 15 and 18Away from major cities,airports Frame rate 25 +BobG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Were do you quys/girls believe there is the upper limit in processor >speed to go for were no further improvements can be noticed in >regards of runnig fs2002 / FlyThere isn't one and wont be one for at least another year, you can look for a P4-3.0 by the 4Q this year.Quite frankly if you want the fastest platform that will continue to scale up you should pick up one of the new Hot P4-2.2-2.5/533-FSB DDR setups. These are reliable and quiet with a much longer "life" expectancy than any current AMD offering as the current iteration of the AMD chip is near or at its end. You can look for a better CPU from AMD soon, but it looks as though Intel has taken the performance crown and will keep it for a while.On the other hand there are a ton of bargains that can be had on some great AMD systems that will do a decent job of running FS2k2, an XP2100 in combo wth a good MB, fast DDR support and Video card will run FS2k2 flawlessly until you start to add tons of detailed scenery, mesh and extra ATC etc. So to some up, FS2k2 will no doubt outlast ANY hardware until the next version is out and then we can all start the process over again. :-lolMe? Going to throw in a XP2100 O/C to XP2400 into my current system in just a couple of weeks. :)Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Were do you quys/girls believe there is the upper limit in processor >speed to go for were no further improvements can be noticed in >regards of runnig fs2002 / Fly>>There isn't one and wont be one for at least another year, >you can look for a P4-3.0 by the 4Q this year. >>Quite frankly if you want the fastest platform that will >continue to scale up you should pick up one of the new Hot >P4-2.2-2.5/533-FSB DDR setups. These are reliable and quiet >with a much longer "life" expectancy than any current AMD >offering as the current iteration of the AMD chip is near or >at its end. You can look for a better CPU from AMD soon, but >it looks as though Intel has taken the performance crown and >will keep it for a while. >>On the other hand there are a ton of bargains that can be >had on some great AMD systems that will do a decent job of >running FS2k2, an XP2100 in combo wth a good MB, fast DDR >support and Video card will run FS2k2 flawlessly until you >start to add tons of detailed scenery, mesh and extra ATC >etc. So to some up, FS2k2 will no doubt outlast ANY hardware >until the next version is out and then we can all start the >process over again. :-lol >>Me? Going to throw in a XP2100 O/C to XP2400 into my current >system in just a couple of weeks. :) Paul, I'm a bit surprised you would recommend the P4 when you're using an Athlon and plan on upgrading to a faster Athlon. I understand that in your situation (being a current Athlon owner) that upgrading to a faster Athlon and retaining your current setup is a much more feasible solution than buying a new mobo, cpu, hsf, ram(possibly), and psu (possibly) but I'm surprised you would recommend the P4 over the Athlon. Synthetic benchmarks aside, the Athlon is still competitive with the P4 in real-world applications (faster in some, slower in others). As far as there being an "upper-limit" to CPU speed and subsequent MSFS performance, there's no such thing, nor will there be. Faster hardware = faster software performance, given said software doesn't have hard-coded or "capped" limitations on performance. In other words, unless the MSFS development team decided to cap performance at some arbitrary level, we will never get to a point where faster CPUs will stop running FS at higher levels of performance. This is, of course, taking for granted that CPUs and all other system components relevant to performance do keep evolving and don't hit any sort of architectural ceilings that can't be worked around (i.e., the old GHz myth about CPUs).Just a small note about the new P4's benchmark performance: I find it somewhat interesting that literally ALL of the benchmarks on the web are either using RAM that is not certified for use with the i850E (i.e. PC800 RDRAM w/latencies higher than 40ns), or are even using PC1066 RDRAM which is extremely rare and also, not technically supported by the i850E. Gripes about the i850E having a faster memory interface than any competitive Athlon chipset aside, why don't we see any benchmarks with the new P4's using DDR or even SDR RAM? The vast majority of P4 systems nowadays do not use RDRAM, so why not benchmark the hardware that people will actually be using, and not some ultra-rare, super-expensive hardware that most people will never use?Sorry, that was my daily P4/RDRAM rant ;) I could go on and on here but I'll spare you all the horror :-lolMax Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PII (yes II) 350MHz394MB RamGeForce MX400 64MB RamNvidia 29.70 DriversWIN98(videoSpeed Benchmarked @ 170 MIP/S)Slider Settings:Texture Quality: MAXTerrain Mesh Compexity: 97%Terrain Texture Size: HighAutogen Density: NormalScenery Complexity: DenseDynamic Scenery: DenseEffects Detail: LowMax Visibility: 120 MWater Effects: DetailCloud Density: 25%Aircraft Texture Size: MassiveVirtual Cockpit: LowRefelections: checkedAircraft Shadows: CheckedLanding Lights: (I dont fly at night!)Resize Panel : checkedTarget Frame Rate: UnlimitedFull Screen Resolution: 1280x1024x32 (19" monitor)Transform & Lighting: checkedMIP Mapping:checkedAnti-aliasing: checkedTri-Linear filtering: checkedOTHER:LOD (GeTweak Utility): 0.-03My observations: "As Good As It Gets!"No Blurry scenery - crisp and clear textures!FPS average abt 10-15aircraft: photo-realistic by comparison!At Meigs - flying towards SEARS TOWER average FPS 8-10 scenery crisp, banking turns are fluid but very slight stutter if in cockpit/panelNormally fly SPOT or cockpit/no panel!Can I justify upgrade: no,not yet - still very happy :)So go figure..... In fairness (and I have been simming for Years) when you have everything 'tuned' correctly FS2002 requires little in the way of resources.... I have read about soooo many simmers having BIG problems - it makes me wonder whether they have exhausted all the utilities and tweaks available to them... I can sympathise with the frustrations, but dont rush out and hope that your new GIGA-PC will fix all your problems.... the key elements to consider are as follows:1. System Resources - make sure MEM is not being bled-off by TSR's2. ALWAYS empty TEMP Folders before running FS20023. Close Down Internet Connection (unless in MP) ditto: FireWall and Antivirus....4. Scan your HD regularly for SPYWARE (see http://www.grc.com and http://www.lavasoftusa.com) this stuff can slow down CPU's!5. Download 'ENDITALL' to close down unnecessary progs!6. Adjust your LOD (-.01 to -.06) for better quality textures!7. DONT MESS AROUND with antialiasing - leave as AUTOMATIC!8. Dont MESS AROUND with ANISTROPHIC filters...9. Do use at least Detonator 23.11 drivers10 Set ADAPTOR (control panel/display/advanced) to default!!!I hope this post gives low-end users some confidence that there is no need to rush and upgrade - hey, if it was necessary I would have done it already! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Me? Going to throw in a XP2100 O/C to XP2400 into my current >>system in just a couple of weeks. :) >>Paul, I'm a bit surprised you would recommend the P4 when >you're using an Athlon and plan on upgrading to a faster >Athlon. I understand that in your situation (being a >current Athlon owner) that upgrading to a faster Athlon and >retaining your current setup is a much more feasible >solution than buying a new mobo, cpu, hsf, ram(possibly), >and psu (possibly) but I'm surprised you would recommend the >P4 over the Athlon. Synthetic benchmarks aside, the Athlon >is still competitive with the P4 in real-world applications >(faster in some, slower in others). I am not stuck in the "brand name" world. What is best today my not be best tomorrow. If the question is what is best now, then I think I answered correctly. As far as performance in real world Apps the majority of Faster now lies squarely with the P4-2.53. But that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now see that's the thing with FS.x: the bloomin thing doesn't scale up uniformly. This guys set up is downright slow by any benchmarks compared to top performers, yet FS is functioning very much reasonably. This was exactly how FS2000 behaved. NoelAt this juncture, I vote P4 all the way, with whatever fast ram, and lots of it. I'm betting the 2.53 will oclock to 3 or pretty close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>PII (yes II) 350MHz >394MB Ram >GeForce MX400 64MB Ram >Nvidia 29.70 Drivers >WIN98 >>>(videoSpeed Benchmarked @ 170 MIP/S) >>Slider Settings: >>Texture Quality: MAX >Terrain Mesh Compexity: 97% >Terrain Texture Size: High >Autogen Density: Normal >Scenery Complexity: Dense >Dynamic Scenery: Dense >>Effects Detail: Low >Max Visibility: 120 M >Water Effects: Detail >Cloud Density: 25% >>Aircraft Texture Size: Massive >Virtual Cockpit: Low >Refelections: checked >Aircraft Shadows: Checked >Landing Lights: (I dont fly at night!) >Resize Panel : checked >>Target Frame Rate: Unlimited >>Full Screen Resolution: 1280x1024x32 (19" monitor) >Transform & Lighting: checked >MIP Mapping:checked >Anti-aliasing: checked >Tri-Linear filtering: checked >>OTHER: >>LOD (GeTweak Utility): 0.-03 >>>My observations: "As Good As It Gets!" >>No Blurry scenery - crisp and clear textures! >FPS average abt 10-15 >aircraft: photo-realistic by comparison! >>At Meigs - flying towards SEARS TOWER average FPS 8-10 >scenery crisp, banking turns are fluid but very slight >stutter if in cockpit/panel >Normally fly SPOT or cockpit/no panel! >>Can I justify upgrade: no,not yet - still very happy :) >So go figure..... >>In fairness (and I have been simming for Years) when you >have everything 'tuned' correctly FS2002 requires little in >the way of resources.... I have read about soooo many >simmers having BIG problems - it makes me wonder whether >they have exhausted all the utilities and tweaks available >to them... I can sympathise with the frustrations, but dont >rush out and hope that your new GIGA-PC will fix all your >problems.... the key elements to consider are as follows: >>1. System Resources - make sure MEM is not being bled-off by >TSR's >2. ALWAYS empty TEMP Folders before running FS2002 >3. Close Down Internet Connection (unless in MP) ditto: >FireWall and Antivirus.... >4. Scan your HD regularly for SPYWARE (see >http://www.grc.com and http://www.lavasoftusa.com) this >stuff can slow down CPU's! >5. Download 'ENDITALL' to close down unnecessary progs! >6. Adjust your LOD (-.01 to -.06) for better quality >textures! >7. DONT MESS AROUND with antialiasing - leave as AUTOMATIC! >8. Dont MESS AROUND with ANISTROPHIC filters... >9. Do use at least Detonator 23.11 drivers >10 Set ADAPTOR (control panel/display/advanced) to >default!!! >>>I hope this post gives low-end users some confidence that >there is no need to rush and upgrade - hey, if it was >necessary I would have done it already! :) Yeah, but once you increase the visiablity from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile then I think you will finaly realize thats its time for an upgrade! :-lolHey, just goofing on ya! I ran Fs2k2 on my old p90/ running a evergreen AMD-K6300 O/C to 400 w/a GF2MX so I can relate. Keep holding out Dude, pretty soon we will all have 20gig CPUs! :)LaterPaul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This report says it all ! Likely the current design of FS2002 needs improvement in regard of technology and that no machine power will ever give us what I look for, smooth running sim or what i like to see when looking at a movie. Compared to X-plane and Fly2 at least this is my conclusion. They are easier on the eye than FS2002 at all its default settings, were it should (or at higer settings)run without having us to complain that it stops evry now and then. I wonder if other gamers experince this with other products from MS at moderate speed machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious about your post, in that I get consistantly 29.xx when locked at 30 with all the setting set to high on a Amd 1.4 GHz with 512Mb DDR and a GF3 and an ATA-100 80Gb drive.Just what do you think is required to get acceptable performance?On a side point, having been around since before the PC even existed, I have found the great upgrade myth to be exactly that, a myth. To upgrade an existing machine to the next level has generally required at a mimumum new ram, new cpu, new motherboard, new power supply/case combo, and sometimes other major components such as hard drives, sound cards, video cards.When you come to the conclusion that MOST of your computer needs replacement to upgrade, it generally becomes more cost effective to simply replace the entire machine and sell off the old one as a complete working system instead of part'ing it out as the whole is always worth more then the parts.If you are not at least doubling the performance via an upgrade, you are really wasting your money on stuff that is not going to make a whit of difference overall. A 10% increase is 3 FPS! increase in speed, hardly worth shelling out a dime on, when you can move one slider a quarter of an inch for the same net result.Time and time again, I have seen people put together high end cpu & ram systems then slop a MX graphics card and a cheap, high load sound card into the box, and drag it's performance down the tubes for nothing. People need to understand that most devices installed have overhead and tie up that cpu draining away the value of the upgrade. Looking at just a CPU & motherboard upgrade without factoring the other devices in is just looking at a part of the puzzle.FS 2002 requires (a) Disk, (:( Video, © Audio, (d) Ram, (e) CPU.Do some digging and find out where your weak spot is.Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I am curious about your post, in that I get consistantly >29.xx when locked at 30 with all the setting set to high on >a Amd 1.4 GHz with 512Mb DDR and a GF3 and an ATA-100 80Gb >drive. Yeah, I could say the same thing Ray, But as it is not even an O/C XP2100 will get us out of the teens when doing an approach with big iron at the busier cities and airports with even just the default ATC. And now through in some 30m mesh, a better high detail airport model and a nice POSKY AC and ...well we all know what happens. And I would add that FPS isn't anything if the image doesn't look very good as is the case even when your using most video card drivers "best image quality" settings. Start to make adjustments that give you the desired look and you just need more power.>Just what do you think is required to get acceptable >performance? 4gig CPU +fast memory sub-system +8x AGP NV30 video card or equivalent.>On a side point, having been around since before the PC even >existed, I have found the great upgrade myth to be exactly >that, a myth. To upgrade an existing machine to the next >level has generally required at a mimumum new ram, new cpu, >new motherboard, new power supply/case combo, and sometimes >other major components such as hard drives, sound cards, >video cards. I would agree with you if you bought what the sales people suggest, yeah you'll probably get stuck with a difficult to upgrade system. But it is also true that it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Compared to X-plane and Fly2 at least this is my conclusion. >They are easier on the eye than FS2002 at all its default >settings, were it should (or at higer settings)I don't know whether it is FS2002's fault or not but on my meager PIII 500 FS2002 runs much better than FLY2. I like smooth flying therefore I had to switch from FLY2 to FS2002. Don't know about the X-plane however.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point MAX!!!I just read the review pitting the new Intel Chips Vs AMD XP2100...man that AMD chip has the minerals!!!! What a beast!! That is what I am building at the moment. It was interesting to note like you noticed no testing with DDR RAM...! RAMBUS is dead!!! My P4 1.5 box is being relegated to an e-mail server and other drool functions. The price of the P4's (new ones) of course is rather high to justify in GAME BOX!!!! The AMD is just great!!!Max, thanks for your insight and technical knowledge...!RegardsTony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Arni,With respect, I have run so many benchmarks on FS2K2 in the shop on such a wide variety of systems over the past six months. All I can say is claims like the gentleman made above are simply on the fringe. There are *always* claims like the above in every group... Reality, however, never bears them out. The same can be said for the inevitable claims on the other end of the "wishful thinking" spectrum that always surface saying the highest end computers get like 200 FPS in a new game like FS.Back here on earth, Paul has more of the correct pulse. This is *not* to say that good to great performance can't be had with some fairly inexpensive equipment today in FS, but thats not what you asked Arni. What you asked is what the upper limits would be. I fully agree that somewhere in the range of 3.0-3.5 GHz on the P4 or 2.5-3.0 GHz on the existing Athlon XP platform would be the ultimate sweet spot with 2K2.I also fully agree with Paul's recommendation as the "ultimate" system today for FS being the new 0.13 P4 at 2.3-2.5 (although the 850E that supports the new 533Mhz FSB is an RDRAM platform, not a DDR platform as suggested). All semantics aside, the new P4 with even RDRAM at 800 Mhz is the fastest CPU system you can buy - *today*. Which is exactly what FS relies upon the most.Cost, on the other hand, almost always plays its part in any decision. When taken into account today, an existing Athlon XP platform would indeed be my hearty recommendation. If you were to ask the same question in 3-4 months, I'd most likely be recommending the new Atlhon's (Athlon64 maybe? or too Nintendoish?) with 512KB of cache and 166Mhz FSB - for I'll assume considering long standing history, much less then a P4 platform at the same or better performance.But back to today. My recommendation if price matters:Athlon XP 2000+ABIT AT7 or KT7A v1.3 (bit expensive, but guarenteed compatible with near future 0.13 T-breds)512MB of Crucial (or similar Micron chiped) PC2100 DDRGainward's Ultra 650/XP Nvidia Ti4200 w/128MBMy recommendation if price isn't as important:P4 2.53BIntel D850EMV2 or Asus P4T533-C (in a few weeks)512MB Samsung PC800 or PC1066 at 533Mhz (soon available)Gainward's Ultra 700/XP Nvida Ti4400Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But back to today. My recommendation if price matters: >>Athlon XP 2000+ >ABIT AT7 or KT7A v1.3 (bit expensive, but guarenteed >compatible with near future 0.13 T-breds) >512MB of Crucial (or similar Micron chiped) PC2100 DDR >Gainward's Ultra 650/XP Nvidia Ti4200 w/128MB >>My recommendation if price isn't as important: >>P4 2.53B >Intel D850EMV2 or Asus P4T533-C (in a few weeks) >512MB Samsung PC800 or PC1066 at 533Mhz (soon available) >Gainward's Ultra 700/XP Nvida Ti4400 >>Take care, Hi Elrod! (heh heh just for old times sake!) :)Its great to "see" you back Elrond, hope everything is well for you and yours.With regard to the above topic what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found this string to be extremely educational to me since I'm trying to weigh a similar decision as the person who posed the original query, and since I'm a low-tech moron. So here's some low-tech moron questions if you have the patience.If my computer is running 184MB PS sdram memory (I upgraded by inserting 128 in the expansion slot) and I want to add another 256 must it be sdram or rdram or DDR of another? Also, what's the difference? I'm just learning about tweaking the system and don't understand all the definitions being tossed about. FSB? TSR's? LOD(where do I find this to set?)My pittifully puny old (2years..HA) system is:AMD6 500mhzTrident Blade 3D184MB RamWIN 98Thanks for any assistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Paula, :-)Thanks for the sentiments - and the same to you and yours. Yes, my wife and I are fine, although my back is thrown out at the moment and I'm stuck at home. But, even if in some pain, at least I get some much deserved time off - its been too busy the past few months. Every since that freeware bru-hah-hah a month or so back that pizzed me off so much I've decided to spend more of my time in other game communities. I've been pretty active in the Dungeon Siege community and have really enjoyed myself - its such a wonderfully written and planned game when it comes to expansion possibilities. I highly respect those dev's at Gas Powered.As for future upgradability, I wouldn't touch one of the older P4's now. Intel has such a horrible track record with the P4 platform in this regard though, so its not much of a surprise (again). Hopefully they have the pin counts and voltages set in stone for more than a mere few months this time around... I haven't seen any documents to suggest otherwise this time. I think the 0.13 Northwoods will last for a least a year as far as pin count, so its probably a good time to invest if you are an Intel fan and upgradability is part of your goal (not you specifically of course :-)).As for the Athlon Platform, this is probably the worst time to invest if upgradability is part of your plate. The platform has been extremely stable and wholly based upon SocketA for the past few years... A VERY nice benefit to the Athlon platform in my opinion. SocketA should indeed still be useful for the next two Athlon intros: the Tbred and Barton (Barton possibly quite exciting). However with the introduction of the yet-to-be-named consumer version of Hammer 32/64, the pin count will dramatically increase for the first time since SocketA (754 for the consumer version, a whopping 940 for the Opteron). Once the chipsets are out for Athlon64, the stability of the platform should return and it'll be another good time to invest if upgradability is part of the goal.In all, investing this fall instead of now will be the best bet regardless. There are so, so many things coming down the pipe this summer and fall in just about every regard in hardware: AGP 8x, DDR400, PC1066, 32/64bit processors, finally a return to massive competition in the video arena, standardization on built in USB 2.0 and Firewire, possibilities of Serial ATA showing its face, etc. I've never quite seen such a barrage of hardware platform changes as is taking place all at once as right now. Very exciting to be a hardware enthusiast today!Of course, you already know most of the above. So this was more written to those who are wondering or on the fence of course.Good to talk at you too my friend,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JEH,A good basic understanding of all this stuff can be had by reading the stuff provided by Intel on their website.Most of it follows through for AMD chips (which are Intel chips, reverse engineered and improved on and/or fixed to a greater or lesser extent.)http://www.intel.com/technology/agp/toverview.htmYour computer is broken up into a bunch of components which talk to each other over various bus technologies. Each bus has it's own links to the mainboard chipset which in turn links everything together. Each one of these bus runs potentially at a different speed and width of addressing and width of data. These have all evolved at different stages and in differing directions. Some devices on a bus can exert control and load the bus which forces other devices to wait. Other devices need to be controlled (babysat) by yet another device. The combination of all these factors is what we see as an end result.Since the marketing folks always force developers to maintain backwards compatibility (shoot 'em i say!), we have this horrible mix of design requirements and standards that is todays PC. For each leap forward, we end up having to replace parts on *that* bus to keep up, hence the perpetual upgrade cycle. (like all the poor folks who have spent a fortune on a brand new shiny nVidia 128Mb Geforce 4 card that happens to not support the AGP 8X bus standard, which will again cause them to buy their Geforce 5 card etc ...)RayAs to your ram question, you are pretty much stuck to whatever chipset your motherboard used as far as what support for ram types and combinations you can use. Since you didn't list your specific motherboard model, I'd just be guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elrond,If you were directing your comments towards me, with respect, I am being quite truthful here... I see you also live in Ontario. I am in just North of Oshawa and cordially invite you to come over to my home and judge for yourself - I am not making wild claims here, my system works just fine - come on up here and have a play!sincerely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Terry,No disrespect to you meant in the least: I hope you didn't feel any. I fully believe you are satisfied with the performance of your system as you state and I wouldn't have it any other way. Theres nothing more we can ask from our particular hobby than that.While my testing on a wide variety of systems has not provided the same experience as you have had on your own system, I wouldn't presume to tell you that you are wrong. What I am saying is regardless of claims on both ends of the spectrum, the middle ground is where most experiences will fall and where recommendations must come from for them to have meaning to more than one person - it is with that regard that I made my recommendation.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray: Thanks for the considerate and detailed answer. I'm working my way up the curve. At play from the marketers must also be "product developement", first invented by the auto industry and since copied by everybody else. This says, design it's obsolesence so the dumb yucks will have to buy a new one. Helps insure you stay in business with big profits.Well I'll muddle along til this one's finally paid for and then I'll get in line.Thanks againJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, thats all part of the big upgrade myth ... we'll change the pinouts and voltages just enough in each design to ensure that you need a new style of power supply and a new motherboard which of course will require a new type of ram and maybe throw in the odd bus change to add the video card type (agp 2x/4x/8x) into the mix :-lolWhile you may be able to upgrade the odd part now and then assuming you only did a partial upgrade and didn't max out your system when first built, generally you are getting a few percent overall improvement ...Video cards are the perfect example here, while the Geforce series has grown in great leaps and bounds in the last year or so with the advent of the Geforce 3 and now the 4, they are still capped by the AGP 4x standard which means that the card developers have had to increase the memory on the card itself since the card no matter how fast is capped by the AGP slot 4x fastwrite/sideband maximum bandwidth. Slap another 64 Megs on the card (aka Geforce 4 128Mb) instead of deal with the real problem (AGP 8x or 16x)Once the AGP 8x boards ship, people will be buying 32 Meg cards that will outperform the new 128 Meg cards simply because they can use your system ram once again without the chokepoint being there.It becomes really annoying, because we all want performance now, not tomorrow, so we become victims of our own wants ;-) yet we know whats coming down the pipe and knowingly go out and spend the money to be temporarly lulled into the "it's better now" syndrome :-lolThe more you learn, the more you'll wish you didn't know, because when it comes time to upgrade, all those silly little parts that system builders normally put into the clones become just not good enough for YOU :-lol and the price climbs dramatically for that extra 10% that you get out of the superior parts... The more you know, the lighter your wallet as my wife puts it :-lolRay

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