New System Stuff

[Guest evansgg]

I am going on holidays in a few weeks and will visit some friends in Florida. I was thinking of going down the PC upgrade path seeing as SanFran 2006 is going to be out soon and there was a message from AGTim about a new 14.5gb UK scenery coming out too. Frame rates have never been plentiful with my celeron 2.8 system and I was wondering what cpu would be best. I was thinking about getting hold of an Athlon 64 FX57 cpu and bring it back to Oz. Anyone got a state of the art machine they are happy with in FUIII and some advice please?

[Guest fu3]

Um er...I use an Athlon64 (3k - an old one!) with an ATI 9800XT video. Works better (IMHO) than the FX57 for the money.I now find that framerates are rather arbitary - sometimes the frame counter is a blur, sometimes it only blurs between 18 and 32fps :-rollEither way, you'll seriously enjoy the performance :-wave

[Guest glidernut]

evansgg, I think the grafix card is the most important thing, folowed by your PCs CPU speed.I dont know what a Athlon 64 FX57 cpu is.I went for an ADVENT PC bicous thay hav a tendansy to leed the feald in CPU speeds.As I understand it, the CPU speed is how fast a PC can read info, the higher thenumber the beter.I do my FU3 flying in a resaloution of 800x600, apart from that, everything els is maxt out, and framerat anyoiansis for me are mor or les a thing of the past.So my advice is to get the best you can aford.ADVENTRADEON X700 PROCPU 3.8GHz glidernut.

[Christopher Low 5,324]

John,The Athlon FX57 CPU is probably the fastest single core CPU currently available for the PC.Well, at

[Guest glidernut]

O,!So how fast is an Athlon FX57 CPU then? I wish all PC manufacturas would use the same way of meshering therCPU speeds, so we could compair speeds.glidernut.

[Guest fu3]

You cannot compare any more, because there is no ONE speed! Who cares how fast the core is, when the IO can't keep up with it? AMD only publish 'equivalent' speeds, as their architecture provides better support around the CPU core. For example, the Athlon64/3000 is measurably comparable to the Intel '3GHz' offering, yet it's core only runs at 2GHz! Even Intel have started steering clear of 'speed' numbers and have gone to identifying their CPUs by (seemingly) random numbers. Their reasoning is like AMD's - a '2.8GHz Celeron' is much slower than a '2.6GHz P4', so the stated 'speed' is somewhat irrelevant (except for cheapo shops that ONLY advertise the 'numbers', and don't say if it's a Celeron, P4 or AMD) :-grrIt's going to get MUCH worse over the next 12 months, as manufacturers start releasing more 64-bit and multi-core processors. One multicore I know of 'only' runs at 1.5GHz but processes twice as much data in the same time as the current 3.2GHz offering.What is going to make this work (or not) is the OS needed to utilise the architecture. You don't need new (application) software, but the OS must be able to take advantage of it. Right now, I am using a 64-bit build of Ubuntu (Linux) and am playing with a developer's 64-bit version of XP. I can definitely say that it opens documents faster than the 32-bit XP version on Dana's (otherwise identical) computer, but that might just be either a different caching scheme OR the fact that, being a Developer's version, it's quite crippled and therefore has more headroom to burn :-rollThe ONLY number I care about is FPS ;)

[Hans_Petter 1]

I'm probably going to buy a new computer soon and I'll be interested in getting this old sim running smoothly with all of the recent addons and everything maxed out. I'm inclined to continue running Win 2000 unless somebody convinces me that XP has its advantages. Unix or Linux might be superior but we're stuck with MS as far as most games are concerned, FU3 included.I agree that FPS is what counts (don't we all) but I realize that it's hard to know what level of performance each rig will provide. I will need a copious amount of harddisk space for film editing (Pinnacle) and I assume that other applications won't degrade the system as a game computer as long as I don't run several processes at the same time. Still, this is an important point to consider: Some people claim that a multi-purpose PC with lots of apps will perform less well. I assume that the problem is due to tray bar icons -- in other words, lots a programs tend to be semi-launched even when you think they're not. I've used EndItAll to fix that and generally decline the offer to install tray icons whenever I install a new application.

[Guest markyc]

Hi Hans,Try using 'FS Auto Start' instead of 'end it all'. It works for all programs (Not just MS Flight Sims) It's biggest plus, is that it automatically restarts all the applications it shut down, as soon as you come out of your sim/game or whatever.It took me several attempts to set it up:-doh but now it works fine, and I don't have to re-start my computer every time I finish using FU3:)Mark:)

[Guest Seadog]

evansgg,An FX57 is certainly the most powerful single-core processor on the market today. At USD$1,011.00, it had better be. Source - www.newegg.comThe advantage of AMD chip architecture over that of Intel is the elimination of the intermediation of a bus between memory and the CPU, so RAM is accessed at chip core speeds. That's all very nice, but to maximize the advantages of such a fast CPU, you need 2 or 3 GB's of expensive RAM, high speed SATA 2 drives (3.0 GBps with ncq implemented), and the fastest video card you can find, all running on the best nForce4 socket 939 motherboard on the planet. These items alone will push the total cost to around USD$2,500.00 or so. Then there's the humongous power supply you'll need (at least 500 W) and the multiple case fans - this beast won't be quiet, and probably a new case, as well.At the end of the day, you'll find the limiting factor on frame rates will be how fast the hard drive can feed data to the RAM and to the Video RAM on the video card. The path beyond both those points and the CPU will be quite fast, but the path between them and the hard drive is the bottleneck.You'll also need a CRT monitor with high refresh rates. It is a little known fact that the refresh rate of the monitor governs the upper limit of the frame rate you experience, so long as vertical synchronization (V-sync) is turned on. And, on an LCD monitor, the upper limit of refresh rates is often quite lower than that available on high-end CRT monitors.The advice about ending all unneccessary system processes while gaming is very good indeed.If all you are concerned about is frame rates for DirectX-programmed flight simulation programs run at home in single player mode, then the CPU you've chosen, together with all the other neccessary things to complement it, is (IMHO) overkill.On the other hand, if your goal is to conquer the known universe in massively multi-player on-line role playing games, first person shooters programmed in OpenGL, then you can not pay too much.What I run with relatively low cost and great satisfaction is a GB of value RAM from Corsair on a DFI nForce3 GB250 mobo, ordinary PATA drives at 7200 rpm and an ATA 133 transfer rate, feeding an nVidia 6600GT card, all governed by an Athlon64 3000+ cpu, displayed on a Samsung 19" CRT with an 85 Hz refresh rate, v-sync enabled, all producing perfectly fluid frame rates. The literature on frame rates, by the way, suggests that above the range of 26 or so FPS, the brain can't discern the difference. Frame rate fanatics beg to differ, I know, but that's the reported science of the matter.You can get an Athlon64 3800+ with the Venice core (Venice essential for serious overclocking) and overclock the daylights out of it, for only USD$323, with all the other gear mentioned, and still have more CPU power than you can use for single-player DirectX flight sims - again, in my humble opinion. The DFI nForce4 board series would be a great match for overclocking, but the playing field is becoming more and more level in that regard.Hope that helps. If you plan to buy in the US, and have the time, I highly recommend NewEgg. If you receive your purchase in Florida, it will be free of sales tax. You can spend a few dollars more for expedited shipping. I've hand-built at least ten computers, and I've done business with them for a long time, with great satisfaction.-Seadog

[Christopher Low 5,324]

Doug,I would agree that buying an Athlon 64 FX57 CPU is a pretty stupid thing to do unless you have just won the lottery jackpot. The price does not justify the slight increase in power over something like a 4000+.Chris Low.

[Guest evansgg]

>Doug,>>I would agree that buying an Athlon 64 FX57 CPU is a pretty>stupid thing to do unless you have just won the lottery>jackpot. The price does not justify the slight increase in>power over something like a 4000+.>>>Chris Low.>After looking at those prices I think you are right! For some reason I thought they would be a lot cheaper in the land of the free. I will leave it and just buy an upgraded box with something around the 3500 or 3800+ later I think. Thanks to all for the input and comprehensive information.

[Guest CaptRolo]

I found a good article or maybe confusing but get the skinny on latest CPU's at www.extremetech.com .About price/performance.I'm personally looking at amd athalon 64 x2 3800+.I think it's time for yet another upgrade. This will be number 5 complete upgrade in same box. I have 3 other computers networked .Happy flying to you !!!See ya in the skys.CaptRolo