PC hardware/CPU advice

[Duli]

Originally Posted by glenno

What would be my best up grade option. These are my specs .
Pentium 4 2.4 northwood.
gigabyte fsb800/dual channel ddr400 motherboard.(478 socket)
2 x 512 megs of ram.
Geforce 4 Ti4400 graphics card.
Would a better grapics card be the way to go(say a 6800) . Also would i be better of upgrading the cpu to fit the existing motherboard (say a Pentium 4 3.2ghz / 800 FSB 1meg cache ) or start again with a new motherboard and go for a (INTEL PENTIUM 4 Processor 640 LGA775 3.2Ghz 64bit 2MB L2-Cache 800FSB) . Thanks .

I would upgrade the Ti4400 gfx card to some 6800 or something like that. The CPU is still quite fine, perhaps you can overclock it (some of P4 2400MHz went all the way up to 3600MHz so I think you should be able to achieve 3200MHz).

[tycho102]

I use a Geforce 6800 Ultra with a 2.0 ghz AMD64 and 1.5GB of ram.

It stays smooth, except on the nav map when there's a lot of traffic at high time-compression. For example, in the English Channel at 1024x, it routinely drops down to <10fps, and I have to decrease to 512x or 256x compression to bring it back up above 30fps.

Here's the funny thing. When I use that DirectX Tweaker I was talking about, and use the "Force Shader P" option, I see an enormous difference in the nav map frame rate. I see a little bit of an increase when I'm using the external camera to watch explosions, but the nav map is entirely faster. Haven't really recorded any statistics for it, but it's probably 50%; I can leave the compression at 1024x, and it *never* drops below 30fps. Not ever! And that's on the bloody nav-map!!! What the HELL Ubisoft was doing on the nav-map, I don't know, but whatever it is, it destroys video cards.

And this is consistent with my upgrade from a 5900XT. Same processor, just different GPU. And I saw an immediate increase on my nav-map framerates, which doesn't quite make sense. I would think the nav-map is CPU dependent, not GPU dependent...

[capt-jones]

this is my pile o junk pentium4 1.8, 512 ram memory, geforce ti4600 128meg :rotfl: dont even ask about framerate it works like a snail on roids i can even host multiplayer games since patch 1.4 is that sad or wot i keep promising myself a new pc one day

[CPT STUBING]

Ok, so my package came today from Newegg.

Installed my additional 512 RAM to bring me up to 1 gig.

Installed my new 9800 Pro card.

I feel like a new man!

HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT!

[glenno]

I have come to the conclusion that the price of video cards in australia is ridiculous . I could only afford to upgrade to a ATI RAEDON 9600XT which cost me over $200 . A card like a NVIDIA 6800GT would have cost me 2 weeks wages .

[magick]

I use a old Asus Radeon 9600XT to and I must say that I have no complaints this far, it works just fine

[BadBreath]

My system:
AMD Athlon XP 2000+
1 GB memory
ATI 9800 PRO 256MB

I find that I only have problems in 1024 TC (lag) for the rest it plays fine.

BB

[Woof1701]

Until a few weeks ago I played with an Athlon XP 2000+ with a GeForce 4200 Ti card and 512 Mb Ram. It worked, but not overly well so. When encountering heavy traffic like with Rubinis Traffic Mod or a large convoy FPS sank below 15 FPS making the aiming a game of chance. In addition the FPS lag in time compression made playing above 512 practically impossible. I was playing at lowest quality possible. Vsync and AA (antialising) off, mipmaps and allow other stuff toned to lowest settings.

I then tried to upgrade the video card (6600GT), and it gave me some more FPS in traffic and convoy. I could even switch on AA and some other stuff. The addon memory I also purchased decreased the loading times somewhat, but in my opinion had the least effect on game play. I then got lucky and stumbled upon a new Athlon XP 3000+ FBS266 and a very affordable Asus board, so I decided to invest and sell the old parts.

As with the graphics card, this gave me a big boost. The best thing about it was the fact, that I could now play in 2048 TC and still be at 60 FPS. Frame rates even in very densly populated harbors normally do not fall below 30 and I have no problems with large convoys whatsoever.

From my understanding I would say that all the ships movements in TC are calculated by the CPU and thus with an Athlon 1.3 you're massivly too low for that, since my XP 2000+ didn't really manage to cope with that. (and I remember my last upgrade from an Athlon 1400 to have been a major advancement in gameplay already.) A better graphics card may help you a little when it comes to graphics, but ultimately I'd not expect too much of that.

If you're lucky and can get yourself an "old" Athlon XP 3000+ or even 3200+ and a cheap but quality Socket A board for it and can afford a nice graphics card it will suffice for quite a while, but like myself you would be standing at the same point in one to two years with the next game that won't run properly .

[jhz37]

Originally Posted by magick

I use a old Asus Radeon 9600XT to and I must say that I have no complaints this far, it works just fine

yep the radeon 9600 9700 9800 are good and fast.
I have replaced my 9700pro with an X800pro 256 and there is almost no more fps in SH3. A waste of money

[BadBreath]

Yup, I'm saving for an upgrade but as I only have probs in 1024TC I am in no rush. But you are right, in other games I can tell the CPU is getting a bigger bottleneck. The video card upgrade at least postponed the upgrade time by at least a year.

BB

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by tycho102

I use a Geforce 6800 Ultra with a 2.0 ghz AMD64 and 1.5GB of ram.

I just picked up a cheapy Socket 754 w/ a Sempron 64 2800+ and 1GB of PC3200 as an entry level 'gaming system' with a eVGA 6600GT.

Originally Posted by tycho102

It stays smooth, except on the nav map when there's a lot of traffic at high time-compression. For example, in the English Channel at 1024x, it routinely drops down to <10fps, and I have to decrease to 512x or 256x compression to bring it back up above 30fps.

omg NOOOOOOO.

That's the whole reason I blew $300 on a new system. I thought my old Socket A system was too slow for good navigation map performance. (And thus the game takes so long to get on station I get bored and quit.)

You're telling me your mad sweet system isn't enough to resolve that?

Sigh.

Originally Posted by tycho102

Here's the funny thing. When I use that DirectX Tweaker I was talking about, and use the "Force Shader P" option, I see an enormous difference in the nav map frame rate. I see a little bit of an increase when I'm using the external camera to watch explosions, but the nav map is entirely faster. Haven't really recorded any statistics for it, but it's probably 50%; I can leave the compression at 1024x, and it *never* drops below 30fps. Not ever! And that's on the bloody nav-map!!! What the HELL Ubisoft was doing on the nav-map, I don't know, but whatever it is, it destroys video cards.

And this is consistent with my upgrade from a 5900XT. Same processor, just different GPU. And I saw an immediate increase on my nav-map framerates, which doesn't quite make sense. I would think the nav-map is CPU dependent, not GPU dependent...

I agree. I would expect it to be entirely CPU dependent to perform time compression.

In addition to faster framerates, does Force Shader P result in the clock not skipping at 1024x? In otherwords, can you use high time compression in heavy traffic areas without the game barfing and it actually be faster to run at a lower TC to compensate? I want to zip across the ocean at 2048x, not get bored and go take a shower and come back only to find I am _still_ not on station!

Thanks.

:hmm:

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by Woof1701

Until a few weeks ago I played with an Athlon XP 2000+ with a GeForce 4200 Ti card and 512 Mb Ram. It worked, but not overly well so. When encountering heavy traffic like with Rubinis Traffic Mod or a large convoy FPS sank below 15 FPS making the aiming a game of chance. In addition the FPS lag in time compression made playing above 512 practically impossible. I was playing at lowest quality possible. Vsync and AA (antialising) off, mipmaps and allow other stuff toned to lowest settings.

Been there. That was basically my system. I picked up the Ti4200 on Ebay for $49 this Spring. Amazing card. It's only finally on its way out just now.

Originally Posted by Woof1701

I then tried to upgrade the video card (6600GT), and it gave me some more FPS in traffic and convoy. I could even switch on AA and some other stuff. The addon memory I also purchased decreased the loading times somewhat, but in my opinion had the least effect on game play. I then got lucky and stumbled upon a new Athlon XP 3000+ FBS266 and a very affordable Asus board, so I decided to invest and sell the old parts.

I'm sorry.

I almost did the same thing, but someone saved me first. Socket A is dead technology. For the same price as a nice, new (AMD doesn't make them anymore) XP 3000+ CPU, you can buy a Sempron 64-bit CPU for a Socket 754 board. Or, if you want to future proof yourself into the future, get a Socket 939 board and go Athlon 64 939. (But don't buy the overpriced Athlon 64 CPUs for Socket 754!)

I compared the prices and for $300, including new PSU (quality CoolMax), 1GB PC3200 (cheap brand, slow timings), Biostar Socket 754 NForce3, and Sempron 2800+ 64-bit, plus a cheapy case, was only slightly more expensive than buying a new ASUS Delux 7XVwhatever and an extremely expensive Athlon 32-bit XP 3000+.

It wasn't worth it unless I got an Athlon XP that did PC3200/FSB200MHz and that was going to be expensive.

Originally Posted by Woof1701

As with the graphics card, this gave me a big boost. The best thing about it was the fact, that I could now play in 2048 TC and still be at 60 FPS. Frame rates even in very densly populated harbors normally do not fall below 30 and I have no problems with large convoys whatsoever.

Absolutely. The limiting factor with SH3, even if you have a tried and true Ti series card, is the memory/CPU I/O interconnect. You bumped up your FSB and that greatly increased your performance.

Originally Posted by Woof1701

From my understanding I would say that all the ships movements in TC are calculated by the CPU and thus with an Athlon 1.3 you're massivly too low for that, since my XP 2000+ didn't really manage to cope with that. (and I remember my last upgrade from an Athlon 1400 to have been a major advancement in gameplay already.) A better graphics card may help you a little when it comes to graphics, but ultimately I'd not expect too much of that.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Woof1701

If you're lucky and can get yourself an "old" Athlon XP 3000+ or even 3200+ and a cheap but quality Socket A board for it and can afford a nice graphics card it will suffice for quite a while, but like myself you would be standing at the same point in one to two years with the next game that won't run properly .

If you haven't made your purchase yet, seriously consider either AMD's Socket 754 or AMD's Socket 939 options. 939 will cost you about $125 for the least expensive CPU and about $60 for a mainboard, but it's solid into the future. You'll likely get a board with PCI-E/PCIe, so expect to have to upgrade your AGP video card, too. You may need a new PSU if upgrading to a 6800GT, though.

Meanwhile, Socket 754 is the new value Sempron platform. You can still pick up NForce3 based mainboards for about $50 starting, and the Sempron 64-bit 2800+ was only $76 when I bought it. It has less of a future than 939, but if you don't want to spend a lot it's a cheaper solution and it now buys you 64-bit, too. (Of course, unless you run, say, Linux or FreeBSD, 64-bit Windows does _not_ get you much of squat. Plus, from what I hear SF doesn't work on 64-bit Windows yet anyway. So no SH3 for you.)

But, seriously, don't do anything with your old Socket A system. It's not worth the investment. This comes from someone that tried to make a Socket A system upgrade work from every mathematical angle, failed, and finally decided Socket 754 was an inexpensive upgrade solution that still has a future.

[tycho102]

jasonb885:

Give it a try, both ways. Download DirectX Tweaker, and save it back to a folder. Doesn't make a difference where.

Run the game at default settings, and use FRAPS to check your frame-rates. There's also some kind of frame rate control for SH3, but FRAPS will let you log your framerates, and give you a running average. Mess around with the external camera, spend some time drawing pretty lines on the nav-map. Take a run through the english channel at high time compression.

Then use DirectX Tweaker. You have to "add new entry", and point it to "d:\games\sh3\sh3.exe", or whatever. Make sure you tick the "active" box (which records your settings to the registry). Then select at least "Force Shader P"; I also select "high priority", for what it's worth (it only priorities I/O, not processing). You will find that explosions have BLUE in them, rather than the usual red and orange. Kind of looks cool, like vivid burning ethanol, but highly un-realistic. I haven't used DXT much, but I could immediately tell the difference on the nav-map, specifically at high time compression through the English Channel. And I could tell a color-gradient difference on the sea depths, making them MUCH more readable (greater color contrast between depth zones).

Like I said, the only real graphic anomaly that I noticed was the fires/explosions. For people with slower cards (5900, 5950U, 6600), the performance difference should be fairly large. Whatever it is about the nav-map, I have absolutely no idea, but it responds to increased graphics processing power...

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by tycho102

jasonb885:

Give it a try, both ways. Download DirectX Tweaker, and save it back to a folder. Doesn't make a difference where.

I intend to. My new parts should be here today. Maybe tonight I'll have time to build a box, go through the annoying process of installing Windows XP for the first time, then install SH3 and test.