|
Post by trevorselby on Apr 7, 2009 7:07:02 GMT
I’m hoping that someone in the HJG family will be able to assist me.
My system specs are:
Intel Dual core @ 1.80 Ghz System ram 2.0 GB Video nVidia 8600 GT with 512 MB ram Power supply 350W HDD 160 GB
With this system my fps sitting on the runway threshold at FACT ( no weather; default traffic set at 50%; all other sliders - max) are 75 - 79.
I have now replaced the dual core processor with an Intel E7400 (Core 2 @ 2.80 Ghz). This processor has a faster FSB of 1066 and 3MB of cache. My motherboard (gigabyte S) does support this processor and the bios was updated to accept the new processor.
My problem is that my frame rate of 75 -79 is unchanged. I was definitely expecting a noticeable increase.
Question 1: Should the fps increase ?
Question 2: If yes, then what is wrong with my system ? Is there something I need to do / update ?
Otherwise, I believe I have wasted a lot of good money and a dual core 1.8 is just as good as a core 2 2.8 processor.
Question 3: What frame rates are you folk getting ? Climbing out through heavy, heavy, heavy clouds my fps go right down to 9 -11.
Can someone please shed some light and possibly make my day !!!
Regards Trevor
|
|
|
Post by skyking on Apr 7, 2009 11:15:55 GMT
Is there a reason for a frame rate greater than the mid twenties?
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Apr 7, 2009 11:34:55 GMT
To the best of my knowledge, I don't think you would see much difference in FS due to the increase in MHz, FS is a RAM-hog. But you might backup your fs(x).cfg and let FS build you a new one after you've upgraded, so FS can take your new configuration into calculation...
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Apr 7, 2009 13:23:26 GMT
Ok this is a tough one and I am sure others will jump in and offer their thoughts. First off is it XP your using as Vista I am not sure about except that it runs loads more in the background. check what processes are running on your PC by ctrl + del + alt If you have more than 30 start looking at shutting some down, you will find loads of stuff wanting to start as soon as windows does, a lot of the time its not needed and can be called up when you run that program it refers to, go to run in the start menu and type msconfig then go to services check the hide all Microsoft services and look at what can be stopped, also go to start up and do the same unchecking all the stuff that you should not need, however keep your anti virus stuff firewall, audio/video stuff. If you make a mistake you can go back in and restart stuff. Ok with all that done see what it runs like then. Now have you in the bios got the right setting for your CPU like the clock speed etc? if you right click on the My Computer icon this Will show you what your CPU is running at. How does the new CPU perform in other applications besides FS compared to the older one? You find in FS that CPU and ram are the essential things but also make sure you have decent video drivers I use nvidia 181 version. set your FPS to a max of 30 your eye wont see anymore honest, that way your CPU etc does not need to make extra effort and also hopefully it should be running smoother in heavy scenery settings, its hard to say what I am getting compared to you in fps as we all have different settings etc, however if your running FSX there are big differences with AI and autogen and water settings all frame cripplers. I run a single AMD 3800 clock speed 2.4ghz and it runs pretty well with max ai and max clouds active sky 6 and a load of scenery all settings on max and it never drops below 15fps in very very heavy scenery normally I can hold 50 fps easy... I would expect you to be able to run FS9 as I do only much better, maybe your PSU is a bit on the low side but then again you would be having shut downs, have you lots of spare hard drive space? as windows likes a few gb I reckon on 10gb spare for swap files etc. Also defrag that can cause bottle necks. It could be loads of things but I would check around the internet and search Google for tips etc like www.blackviper.com/WinXP/supertweaks.htmIts a case of trial and error, please let us know how you get on. I find this an interesting subject as I am considering upgrading my CPU and motherboard to either the Intel E8500/E8600 or the Phenom II 940 Best of luck Tony
|
|
|
Post by gus on Apr 8, 2009 9:28:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Apr 8, 2009 9:56:59 GMT
Yes I thought about that one too Gus, but it is related to FSX only, but if that is what Trevor is using then it's actually very good.
|
|
|
Post by trevorselby on Apr 9, 2009 9:38:38 GMT
Hi guys
Thanks for all the positive response.
I've been trying and testing a WHOLE lot of different things. However, after speaking to a couple of techies and doing a lot of forum surfing, my processor upgrade will not make a difference (you were correct Dan). I am still using FS 2004 and this sim does not recognize multi-core processors.
However, what I did find, which improved frame rates dramatically when flying through very heavy cloudy weather and in spotplane view, was to reduce the 3d cloud % from 100% to 20%. This really helps (no drop in frame rate) OR I guess I must just stay in 2d cockpit view.
I did a test on the nVidia website (nZone) and my computer passes the FSX test with flying colours !!! Maybe I need to move over to FSX which does recognize multi-core processors.
Question: What is the difference between FSX and FSX deluxe ?
Question: Which patches / packs do I need to add ?
BUT I have no add-ons for FSX and to purchase them all over again for FSX would be a waste of money. Maybe I'll run both sims and wait for a good affordable add-on.
BTW - I do notice a speed difference in other apps. I guess FS2004 is just very old technology.
Thanks again guys for your assistance - most appreciated.
BTW Tony - go ahead with your upgrade BUT only if you are using FSX. It will make no difference in FS2004.
Regards Trevor
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Apr 9, 2009 13:17:33 GMT
Trevor, yes FS204 wont make use of multi core CPUS, however other items such as active sky etc will I think run better as the other cores help, CPU speed is important otherwise we would all be running 1ghz CPU's. I had an AMD 1600 before jumping to the 3800 and I noticed a huge leap, ok they are single core but if you go for a clock speed increase it will make a difference. FS9 uses brute force of the cpu so the bigger the better. I have FSX and to be honest dont like it, simply because nothing from FS9 ports over very well, I have too much invested in FS9 and WONT pay again for FSX which in shapes and sizes is a beta for FS11 which will never come to fruition. I hate losing FSNAV in FSX I hate the cartoony textures and sky. It does have plus points but these are vastly outweighed by the negative ones. Now FSX delux is the better option then go to MS and download the two huge patches they had to produce to get the slide show to run! Best of luck with it Final thing is your new cpu 2.8 per core? if so it should be a boost on the old one, plus they apparently overclock very well indeed with little problems read a bit about it and the multiplier can be uped a little so it will run at 3ghz without too much problem, usual risk but takea look around on the web
|
|
|
Post by killieman on Apr 9, 2009 15:43:29 GMT
I run FSX and its quite good though I haven't been able to compare it to FS9 as I got a new machine and FSX Deluxe for it (since you get more planes and more detailed airports and missions) and I can run on almost maximum with Traffic X on excessive traffic and the graphics, while not being a huge improvement over FS9, are quite good.
You can also get a lot of good freeware for it but nowhere near as much as you can for FS9.
|
|