Got an old rig...need advice

[Mr. Redbird]

Got an old rig and looking to upgrade. I want a system that will run everything in SH4 as close to max as possible. I'm considering the following system:

Intel QX6850
2 GB DDR 800
768mb Nvidia 8800 GTX
160 GB 10,000 RPM raptor Hard drive

Will this do the trick or is there currently no system with enough horsepower to run all the sliders at maximum?

[Chock]

I've found that Flight Simulator X runs better on Vista than it does on XP when the graphics are cranked up. This was claimed to be the case by Microsoft when FSX was released and Vista still had not been released, and many dismissed the claim as nonsense, now that Vista is available, detractors are having to eat their words a bit. I've definitely noticed that FSX does seem to allow the autogen scenery to run on full throttle when you have it on a Vista system, and the autogen is one of the big framerate killers in XP. The other bottleneck for FSX is RAM, or the lack of it, too little RAM and too high a setting in FSX results in the sim giving up even trying to display textures on the terrain at full resolution, resulting in what most people refer to as 'the blurries'. So you need plenty of RAM (and by that, I mean 4GB or more), but there is a caveat here; Vista will allow you to configure a USB flash drive as supplementary RAM, so you can boost performance a little in that way with the newer OS if you have to.

I'm not a fan of Vista in a lot of ways, and I certainly don't like the looks and layout of it, but I can't deny that it does run some stuff better than XP.

So, personally, I'd recommend putting Vista (yes, I really did say that) and lots of RAM high on your spec list too, if you want FSX on full throttle graphically.

Incidentally, the cheapest version of Vista does not support some of these features by the way, so be careful which one you buy if you choose to get it.

:D Chock

[Mr. Redbird]

I've found that Flight Simulator X runs better on Vista than it does on XP when the graphics are cranked up. This was claimed to be the case by Microsoft when FSX was released and Vista still had not been released, and many dismissed the claim as nonsense, now that Vista is available, detractors are having to eat their words a bit. I've definitely noticed that FSX does seem to allow the autogen scenery to run on full throttle when you have it on a Vista system, and the autogen is one of the big framerate killers in XP. The other bottleneck for FSX is RAM, or the lack of it, too little RAM and too high a setting in FSX results in the sim giving up even trying to display textures on the terrain at full resolution, resulting in what most people refer to as 'the blurries'. So you need plenty of RAM (and by that, I mean 4GB or more), but there is a caveat here; Vista will allow you to configure a USB flash drive as supplementary RAM, so you can boost performance a little in that way with the newer OS if you have to.

I'm not a fan of Vista in a lot of ways, and I certainly don't like the looks and layout of it, but I can't deny that it does run some stuff better than XP.

So, personally, I'd recommend putting Vista (yes, I really did say that) and lots of RAM high on your spec list too, if you want FSX on full throttle graphically.

Incidentally, the cheapest version of Vista does not support some of these features by the way, so be careful which one you buy if you choose to get it.

:D Chock

I was asking about a system that will run SH4 at max. I'm sorry about my confusing first post and I have edited it to be more accurate. Thanks.

[Sniper31]

I've found that Flight Simulator X runs better on Vista than it does on XP when the graphics are cranked up. This was claimed to be the case by Microsoft when FSX was released and Vista still had not been released, and many dismissed the claim as nonsense, now that Vista is available, detractors are having to eat their words a bit. I've definitely noticed that FSX does seem to allow the autogen scenery to run on full throttle when you have it on a Vista system, and the autogen is one of the big framerate killers in XP. The other bottleneck for FSX is RAM, or the lack of it, too little RAM and too high a setting in FSX results in the sim giving up even trying to display textures on the terrain at full resolution, resulting in what most people refer to as 'the blurries'. So you need plenty of RAM (and by that, I mean 4GB or more), but there is a caveat here; Vista will allow you to configure a USB flash drive as supplementary RAM, so you can boost performance a little in that way with the newer OS if you have to.

I'm not a fan of Vista in a lot of ways, and I certainly don't like the looks and layout of it, but I can't deny that it does run some stuff better than XP.

So, personally, I'd recommend putting Vista (yes, I really did say that) and lots of RAM high on your spec list too, if you want FSX on full throttle graphically.

Incidentally, the cheapest version of Vista does not support some of these features by the way, so be careful which one you buy if you choose to get it.

:D Chock

I was asking about a system that will run SH4 at max. I'm sorry about my confusing first post and I have edited it to be more accurate. Thanks.

The specs you listed in your first post should run SH4 at max settings no problem. My system specs are just below that, and I am running SH4 with all settings maxxed, at 1680x1050 resolution and many graphic intensive mods installed. Everything is running smooth and problem free. I am using Vista Home Premium as well. SH4 looks absolutely gorgeous maxxed out!

[Chock]

I was asking about a system that will run SH4 at max. I'm sorry about my confusing first post and I have edited it to be more accurate. Thanks.

In that case, yes, I do think that system would run SH4 pretty damn quick, quite possibly quicker and prettier in Vista, although I daresay it would still breeze along in XP at an impressive frame rate, so maybe you could hold off on getting the newer MS OS and worry about that when they've brought the price of it down, leaving you more cash at present for some decent RAM, which is another important point; don't just consider the specs of the RAM, consider the make of it too, the dearer stuff from companies you've heard of is very often better in terms of performance and matching pairs, if you use multiple sticks of it.

:D Chock

[-SWCowboy.]

I'll also be looking at upgrading in the near future, I've been running nVidia cards ever since I started playing computer games in 2002 but I haven't bought my own desktop in nearly 2 years.

Am I asking for problems with a multiple processor system? I could've sworn I've heard some games won't run well on a quad-core setup like what I've been thinking of building... And between ATI and nVidia what's the major difference in the two cards? I've never understood it...

[stabiz]

The difference is that they are two manufacturers, and at certain times one is better than the other. Right now nVidia is top dog.

[DrBeast]

The difference is that they are two manufacturers, and at certain times one is better than the other. Right now nVidia is top dog.

Some games will run better on ATi graphics cards, others on nVidia. You can't win them all, I'm afraid.

[Rockin Robbins]

The difference is that they are two manufacturers, and at certain times one is better than the other. Right now nVidia is top dog.
Some games will run better on ATi graphics cards, others on nVidia. You can't win them all, I'm afraid.
Yes, one card might be marginally better than another at a certain point in time. If you can see the difference between 100 frames per second and 85, you're a better man than me Gunga Din. The only important thing is "can you play the game enjoyably (possibly at wide freakin' open graphics settings if that's important to you. It is to me)." I'd say marginal differences between cards are of secondary imporatance.

Of PRIMARY importance is what happens to your cash when your $350, $450, dare I say $600 if you like spending too much money ;), does this:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Dead%20EVGA%207600GT/100_6177.jpg
See all those little electrolytic cans there. They aren't supposed to be vented at the top. Actually, I'm told they exploded, as would my money with most game card companies. That's why you want a company like EVGA standing behind it. They have a lifetime warranty on all their cards and mean it. Read this:http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=690417&postcount=103. Any possible reason to buy a card from somebody else? Nope.:up:

[DrBeast]

Holy cripes, Rockin Robbins, was there a serial killer with a tin can opener on the loose on that card?! :rotfl:

On another note, I noticed Mr. Redbird has opted for an Intel QX series CPU. If I'm not mistaken, that's a quad-core CPU, right? One thing to bear in mind about multi-core CPUs is that most games are not optimized for such processors, meaning that all the extra processing power is squandered. If you like multi-tasking, that's an entirely different cup of tea; you'll find the quad-core much to your liking. So, my advice would be to get a dual-core Intel (the 6750 seems to be the best bang for the buck, though I haven't checked in on newegg for quite a while now), and overclock it. Them new Intels just BEG to be overclocked!

[Rockin Robbins]

Holy cripes, Rockin Robbins, was there a serial killer with a tin can opener on the loose on that card?! :rotfl:

On another note, I noticed Mr. Redbird has opted for an Intel QX series CPU. If I'm not mistaken, that's a quad-core CPU, right? One thing to bear in mind about multi-core CPUs is that most games are not optimized for such processors, meaning that all the extra processing power is squandered. If you like multi-tasking, that's an entirely different cup of tea; you'll find the quad-core much to your liking. So, my advice would be to get a dual-core Intel (the 6750 seems to be the best bang for the buck, though I haven't checked in on newegg for quite a while now), and overclock it. Them new Intels just BEG to be overclocked!
I'm having a great time playing SH4 WFO with an Athlon 3700+. At some point I'll get bored and drop an Athlon X2 in there. Don't get too hung up on the latest greatest processor. Get something decent and open those throttles wide! The major bottleneck is the graphics card.

[DrBeast]

What comprises the bottleneck depends, really. On my rig it's anything BUT the graphics card. I recently bought an ATi X1650 Pro to replace my Radeon 9600 Pro. A fine card for the 77 Euros I spent on it, but it's limited by:
a) the motherboard which only supports up to AGP 4x,
b) the P4 Northwood running at 2.6 GHz overclocked,
c) the 1280MB of plain DDR RAM PC2600, and
d) the PATA hard drive.

But yes, I agree with you that what one might find enjoyable the other might find appaling. I'm fine with the 20 fps I get with most of the settings cranked way up and a mild 2xAA and 4xAF...
...unless there's stormy weather...and/or multiple ships... :damn:

But eh, I can still play the game and enjoy it!

[AVGWarhawk]

Got an old rig and looking to upgrade. I want a system that will run everything in SH4 as close to max as possible. I'm considering the following system:

Intel QX6850
2 GB DDR 800
768mb Nvidia 8800 GTX
160 GB 10,000 RPM raptor Hard drive

Will this do the trick or is there currently no system with enough horsepower to run all the sliders at maximum?

In short, yes you can run the game maxed and launch the Space Shuttle all at the same time.:D

[Doolittle81]

I run SH4 at max settings/options and at 1920X1200 resolution.
My Rig:
ASUS P5N32-E SLI, 680i
Dual core E6700 Cpu (Mobo upgradeable to Quad-Core)
2GB OCZ PC2 8800 (1100Mhz) RAM (Mobo upgradeable to 4Gb)
BFG 8800GTX Graphics card (upgradable to two cards in SLI config)
Audigy2 ZS
4 Seagate 400GB hard drives in a 0+1 RAID array
Plextor PX-800A
Samsung 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor 1920X1200 native
Windows VISTA 32bit

SH4 has run perfectly with fantastic graphics. However, I'm thinking about upgrading to 4Gb...VISTA eats up a LOT of RAM, sometimes pushing a whole Gb it seems. I have had an occasional SH4 lock-up oddity/CTD after recently installing the RunSilent run Deep Mod, which I think might be due to having only 2Gb RAM. In a separate thread, I'll be asking if others have experienced such lock-ups.

[CaptainHaplo]

The Ati/Nvidia argument comes around every so often - and each camp has valid points. In the end, the final results are this. Both makers make good cards. On AVERAGE - Nvidia cards tend to be a little higher on rendering quality (and we are talking a very minor amount here) - while ATI tends to be a bit "faster". Now - before people start getting nitpicky - this is a generalization - not a hard and fast rule - as things such as drivers and such also play a huge role in these things. All things being equal - both are very good chips that - because they compete - help keep the price of the other semi-honest. One recent (last 12 months or so) has been AMD acquired ATI while Intel bought Nvidia - so there is a valid reason to match hardware - Amd and ATI or Intel and Nvidia. Performance-wise you will see a tiny bit improvement when you match it up. Additionally - some games are developed primarily for one chip or the other - this also lets that one game run a little better (or prettier) on that vid chip.

Hope this helps muddy the water a bit.