New computer? Or rebuild..?

[ndicki]

Following on from Rene's thread about hardware, I thought the time is coming to start a bit of research of my own.

Now then... I want to build a new computer in the near future as my current one is getting a bit wobbly, primarily to run CFS3 and Strike Fighters. I do not want to change OS, as I'm happy with Windows XP, have tried Vista and got so annoyed with it I reformatted and loaded XP (on my laptop) and don't want to spend more money getting 7. And I want to use the mos editor for obvious reasons.

I have about E 600 to spend, if I threaten the wife with all kinds of domestic violence, and promise to get the children back from school every day until they leave home.

Two possibilities here - either upgrade my existing processor (P4C 2.8 GHz) with a new motherboard, PCIe video card, more memory and SATA drives, or start all over again and build a complete new rig - in other words, as above but with a new processor as well. As I said, the only real consideration is getting as much out of CFS3 as the budget will support. I understand CFS3 uses only one processor, but that background programs are a factor.

So, which is it to be? Any recommendations?

[Pat Pattle]

I hope you get some good replies Nigel as I'll be doing the same in the not too distant future.

Obviously cfs3 performance is paramount to me but I'm also keeping a weather eye on what spec will be needed to run the SoW when it eventually gets released.

Take a look at the screenshots on this thread, and they get better further down the posts too.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=32407

[ndicki]

Admittedly very impressive. But from what I guess about Maddox games, there won't be much room for mucking it about... That's why I deleted IL-2. Got bored.

[flashgordon]

Has anyone investigated whether the amount of on video card memory affects cfs3 playability. Some cards now come with upto 2Gb installed but most reviews say that you should go for the overclocked versions of the card with less installed memory. Would cfs3 benefit from additional video card memory. As none of these reviews are done on cfs3 I would like to know if anyone has the answer.

[GearyMcS]

ndicki,

Which ever way you decide to go, please remember to check the power supply requirements if you change to a new motherboard and/or video card as you may need to upgrade the power supply also.

If you do need to upgrade the power supply, check that it has the necessary power couplings for your board and drives, ie. SATA and/or IDE (MOLEX) etc.

Either way, good luck with convincing the wife.


Geary

[ndicki]

Thanks for the advice - I'm very careful about PSUs and so on - been there already...

[hairyspin]

Hmmm. Don't think you're going to get an upgrade while hanging on to that P4C - that's a Socket 478 or somesuch? So go the whole hog: cpu, mobo, memory, PCIe video card and PSU. You might be able to run your old HD on that - my Gigabyte m/b has both sata and IDE sockets - but go for a new, much bigger sata HD as soon as possible. Don't buy the cheapest (slowest) memory: 800MHz DDR2 is not much dearer than 667MHz, although 1200MHz might be a tad pricey.

Since your main concern is CFS3 and SF2 I'd suggest a 3GHz+ Core2Duo (how about 3.4GHz??), or you might want to go down the AMD route since they're often cheaper, but go for a high clock speed rather than a multi-core monster for CFS3. Or ask Greg how his i7 rig performs?

Video cards change with the weather but not less than 512MB and the more pipelines and higher clock speed the better. I spent weeks scanning the online sellers, but I think it still has to be nVidia for the specular effects in CFS3. Twin video cards sound very exciting, but that's expensive on the m/b side and I'm not sure CFS3 properly supports this anyway.

Whatever you do settle on, don't rush it; mistakes can be expensive. Oh, and sata cables should have locking clips, don't settle for anything less.

Hope this helps. :wavey:

[flyer01]

I'm using a Intel core Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz 3.00GB OF RAM.
E8600 loves to be overclocked but have not had to.
Video card Geforce 9800GT with the the setting as high as thy can.
MOBO- Gigabyte GA-EP45_UD3P
HD-Barracuda Internal drive 1TB.
Around $600.00 US. This is also with a new tower. stayed with OS XP.

I'm Running FSX, Fraps, REX2 with the REX Weather Engine2.0 most all the time.
And at times Free track.
Joystick- Saitek X52.
Monitor- HP-19 or a VIZIO 42in screen.
Running FSX on ultra-high
getting 30 to 12 fps.

With CFS3 and the Expansions I get for 70fps all at 5 other then clouds. When using fraps I get 30 to 50 fps.
This is not the best set-up but works just fine with the sims I fly.

The only reason I spent this money was so I could make better Video. lol. But then I found I could fly FSX. I thought CFS3 was hard on FPS!
flyer01

[ndicki]

Tom, you may be right... They do make a PCIe-capable motherboard for Socket 478, so for a low-level upgrade, that'd be it. It's more the video card than anything else which is the trouble; my current one is a 7600GS AGP, and it's not up to much. Start with the fact that it's got bugs... Which Nvidia denies, but which enough users have picked up on. It claims not to be getting enough power when in fact it is (550W PSU) and the warning screen flashes up up to 100 times when you do a cold boot. Later drivers are better, but... Let it run a few minutes to warm up, and re-boot and it's right as rain. Gives me about 25-45 FPS most of the time with sliders on 3, except in ETO...

I intend to replace my HDs anyway - they are going corrupt. I made the mistake of buying Seagate/Maxtors, which have established themselves a reputation for unreliability of the highest order. Never again. At school, they use Western Digitals - I've knocked off one or two for the children, and despite being ultra second-hand with hours of use being them, they still perform well. So WD SATA drive(s), in any case. I prefer the idea of having two, because if one starts to go, you can back up onto the other. One big partitioned drive is perhaps less safe...

[hairyspin]

Hmmm. I looked up and found two Socket 478 PCIe motherboards and one has SATA 150 connections - that's SATA I, half the speed of SATA II. Both also have a maximum bus speed of 800MHz and just two DDR2 sockets, maximum 4GB of memory. They're also microATX boards and have less room than a full-size ATX board. I'd be concerned about limiting scope for future expansion.

I've not properly checked fps results for a while, so I ran a few rough checks with ETO 1.31 on the current rig which is:-

Core2Duo E7400 2.8GHz
Gigabyte EP43-S3L
4GB DDR2 800MHZ
9800GT 512MB running at 1680x1050 32-bit colour
500GB, 16MB cache SATA 2 hard drive
Windows XP fully updated

In other words, nothing interstellar! All sliders are on 5 except clouds which are on 2. Dual-pass render is disabled and high-resolution z-buffer is enabled. Anti-alias is set at 4x.

I loaded Gerard & Luca's Bf109E, flying from Hawkinge in Era 3 at 2500ft on autopilot (Ctrl+Shift+A) and hauled up the Z statistics since Fraps is lurking in a neglected corner somewhere. The field of view is the widest. This aircraft model has a near-65K poly VC.

I get 43fps in level flight until RAF Manston comes properly into view, when fps can drop to around 37fps. There are lots of other facilities including Ramsgate harbour in the frame. Now here's the thing: switch off the autopilot and go strafe Manston and I want a narrower field of view for the gunsight, so fps climbs to the high 50s. I'm not complaining!

If I put the clouds up to 5, you can knock 3 or 4 fps off these figures. I'm still not complaining!

I built this rig with future expansion in mind: it has 8 USB 2.0 ports, 4 memory slots (max 16GB!)and supports 4 HDs, plus 2 CD/DVD/Blueray drives. There are plenty additional PCI slots for adding Firewire, a dedicated sound card or such. When I buy another HD I'll have Windows 7 going again in a dual-boot setup. With case and 550W psu it cost me about £450 last year - if I was doing the same now I'd be looking at a better video card (GTS 250) and a hopefully faster processor, but I'm quite ignorant on the i3, i5 and i7 processors and their hardware. It's boosting performance - automatically ... why wouldn't I want full pelt from the start???

Best of luck with your choices, whatever they are!
BTW, thanks for the tip on WD drives. :wiggle:

[ndicki]

The field is narrowing - it's looking like a Core Duo at the least. As single-processor clock speed seems to be important, then that's something I need to look into.

BTW, about drives - Ton's drive's corrupted (see other thread) and they are Seagate/Maxtors as well. Goes to show.

[lewis11777]

No offense but your equipment is a bit dated, I would build a completely new rig if I were you. Performance gains are limited by installing new components in an old rig. Sale the neighbors dog if you have to but get a new rig. A completely new rig of mid level components would be much better than an old rig with a couple new high end components. Just my 2 centavos!

[ndicki]

Lewis and Tom, I think you're right. Now if I could only figure out what constitutes a decent video card, I'd be a bit nearer the decision. It's all changed since I built this one! Nvidia, of course...

[lewis11777]

Nigel just my opinion here and I am very Nvidia biased. The latest series (GTX 400) has come down considerably in price and you can get the 460 w/shipping for under $200. Assuming of course you can get it purchased and shipped from a store in France. If that is till too steep for your budget you can drop down to the GTS 400 series which is just over $100 after shipping if you shop around. The GTX 470 is my next card when I upgrade and those currently run around $300 - $350. If I wait about 6 more months until the next generation cards are out then I can probably catch one for $250 - $275.

[hairyspin]

With the caveat that it's seriously geeky, you could consult Tom's Hardware Guide (no relation!!!!!). They compare all sorts of stuff and video card comparisons are a regular feature, plus best-for-the-price-band guides.

But it is seriously geeky... :mix-smi: :isadizzy: :icon_eek:

http://www.tomshardware.com/ (http://www.tomshardware.com/)

[lewis11777]

Actually reviews on "Tomshardware" are a great idea and they will give you the best performance for price point. Don't know why I didn't think of it, capitalism is never geeky!

[ndicki]

If this isn't geeky, I don't know what is... Bookmarked anyway!

[lewis11777]

Here is the page for the latest rankings:


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-radeon-hd-5570-gaming,2697.html

[htpcorsica]

Hi there Nigel,

You might find this site of use to you http://www.cpuid.com/softwares.html the cpuz one will tell you what your pc freq. is running at. What ever you do, match the motherboard fsb, cpu fsb and ram fsb so you will get the most out of your rig. In other words if your cpu is rated at 1300 fsb make sure your mb will be up to 1300 fsb too and your ram should be configured for 1300 as well. Also make sure in your bias the ram clocks and timings are set as the ram specifies (no good leaving it on auto cos that wont be the fastest). So with 1300fsb don't by ram that is 800, buy 1300 or 1600. You might already know this! anyway best of luck.

[ndicki]

Hi there Nigel,

You might find this site of use to you http://www.cpuid.com/softwares.html the cpuz one will tell you what your pc freq. is running at. What ever you do, match the motherboard fsb, cpu fsb and ram fsb so you will get the most out of your rig. In other words if your cpu is rated at 1300 fsb make sure your mb will be up to 1300 fsb too and your ram should be configured for 1300 as well. Also make sure in your bias the ram clocks and timings are set as the ram specifies (no good leaving it on auto cos that wont be the fastest). So with 1300fsb don't by ram that is 800, buy 1300 or 1600. You might already know this! anyway best of luck.

Er...

Don't know about all this. I think my RAM is the same as my MB, but honestly no idea.