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

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