Video Card Help

[highlander]

There's no way a Pentium 4 at 3 GHz is the bottleneck; FS9 doesn't take advantage of dual-core or multiprocessors, and a 3 GHz P4 is just about as
fast as you can get a single-core x86-series processor to run at.

Sorry Jeffrey, I meant 6800GS

Did you disable the Intel graphics card in your BIOS? If not, do that.

Also, upgrade your nVidia graphics driver to the latest version from their website - http://www.nvidia.com

[Sovek]

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, 3.0 Ghz is by far not the fastest single core, you are an ignorant little **** People have pushed AMD CPU's to 5.0 Ghz, (although it
really aint practical) and this is a chip you can't get going very fast (well at least clock wise).

AMD's single core A-64s are rated at how fast it runs to its Intel brother (I am well aware of the debate of wether or not FS runs better on AMD or
Intel). For example my A-64 3000+ is supposed to act like an Intel 3.0 Ghz CPU. Now I am aware I need some more RAM (I just may pick some up this
week) but I have overclocked my CPU and with just a 200 Mhz overclock I achieved 22 FPS at LAX whereas I was getting like 15.



Post Edited ( 03-10-06 14:19 )

[jeffrey11190]

so i might need a new cpu. well i have a socket lga775? anygood with that socket

[Sovek]

whats your current video card first?

And there is plenty of Socket 775 CPUs out there, http://www.newegg.com is the best place to go.

3.0 Ghz is considered the low end of the gaming market, most games run well on a 3.6, 3.8 but for people with Intel sockets, its not cheap.

[RonMac]

[quote]jeffrey11190 wrote:
i have a pny gforce 6800gs IT SUC*S the frame rates are VERY bad in most payware aircraft.

i need some help from you guys.

Jeffrey,

Sorry to say that I returned my 6800 and went back to bog standard 5600 which is doing just fine.

All you have said, I experienced, with screen freezing at slightest scenery increase, say at landings and approaches to major airports.

To be fair, it worked fine in all other applications, but as FS is my only 'game' it was what I upgraded my old 4200 for!

A number of utilities exist from Nvidia and The Gurus of 3D web pages, but nothing I did made any difference.

Sorry again that I cannot help you, but only state my experience with 6800 (PNY) . PC World were good taking it back and refunding.
5600 was about £40 cheaper and is working fine..installed and up and running immediatley.

regards,

[jeffrey11190]

ooooh.

[highlander]

Sovek wrote:
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, 3.0 Ghz is by far not the fastest single core, you are an ignorant little **** People have pushed AMD CPU's to 5.0 Ghz, (although it
really aint practical) and this is a chip you can't get going very fast (well at least clock wise).

First of all, how dare you call me an ignorant anything? 3.06 GHz is as fast as Intel sell single-core Pentium core processors retail. Overclocking
is all very well and good, for people who are brave enough or savvy enough to try. There's no need to resort to childish name-calling. Save it for
the playground.

I build, repair and service PCs for a living, for a major IT-centric organisation, and for private sale. In the interests of keeping up to speed in
my own retail business, I make sure I know what is and is not available from any given manufacturer.

I'm well aware of Intel and AMD processors being pushed to the limits, but that's exactly what's happening - the cores are being pushed as far as they
can go, well beyond design specification, and this can cause a massive reduction in the operating life-span of your processor. You can even destroy
them completely if you're not careful.

A 3.06 GHz Hyper-Threaded Pentium 4 processor is the fastest single-core Pentium instruction-set based processor that Intel has to offer in a retail
package.

Sovek wrote:AMD's single core A-64s are rated at how fast it runs to its Intel brother (I am well aware of the debate of wether or not FS runs
better on AMD or Intel). For example my A-64 3000+ is supposed to act like an Intel 3.0 Ghz CPU. Now I am aware I need some more RAM (I just may pick
some up this week) but I have overclocked my CPU and with just a 200 Mhz overclock I achieved 22 FPS at LAX whereas I was getting like 15.

OK; I should have specified "32-bit processor" - the single-core Athlon 64 processors run 32-bit instructions faster than the 32-bit processors do
(both AMD's own as well as Intel's) - but since Flight Sim 2004 does not contain any 64-bit code, I neglected to write in 32-bit.

Your Athlon 64 3000+ should be slightly faster than the Pentium 4 @ 3.06 GHz out-of-the-box. I do have to say, though, that I get 15-20 FPS around
LAX, and I'm only on an Athlon XP2600+ (1.9 GHz) so I think there's something slightly wrong with your config. Or do you have a scenery add-on for
LAX? I'm using all of Project AI's airline, GA, military, and cargo packages, with traffic turned up to 100%, on the stock LAX scenery.