Got an old rig...need advice

Chock · 11-11-07, 07:39 PM

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.

Chock

Mr. Redbird · 11-11-07, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 11-11-07, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Redbird

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 11-11-07, 08:06 PM

Quote:

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.

Chock

11-11-07, 10:40 PM

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 · 11-12-07, 04:28 AM

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 · 11-12-07, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

11-11-07, 07:39 PM	#1
Chock Sea Lord Join Date: May 2005 Location: Under a thermal layer in chilly Olde England Posts: 1,842 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. Chock __________________

11-12-07, 04:28 AM	#6
stabiz Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 4,224 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	The difference is that they are two manufacturers, and at certain times one is better than the other. Right now nVidia is top dog. __________________

11-11-07, 10:40 PM	#5
-SWCowboy. Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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...