AH2 cpu limited?

[United]

Karnak, Ive got an Intel P4 3.2GHz and a much worse video card than you, Geforce FX 5200 128MB.  I get around 80-100FPS on the runway, and around 40 with full smoke and things.  Thats at 1024x768 (I think 768) resolution.

I do think that your processor is limiting you, but its not only that. Your memory is rather sluggish for todays standards.  You also will realize how much better your FRs could be if you add another 128MB of memory or so.  When I run AHII, it says I use around 600MBs of memory during the game.  So, I gather that with enough memory I can get better FPS.

So on your next upgrade, you may want to get 128MB of memory or so and a new processor.

But, dont take my word on it.  I know slim to nil about computers.

[Hyrax81st]

Originally posted by United
You also will realize how much better your FRs could be if you add another 128MB of memory or so.  When I run AHII, it says I use around 600MBs of memory during the game.  So, I gather that with enough memory I can get better FPS.

I agree.

If you take a look at my PC specs posted earlier, I have the identical processor, FSB speed, etc... using XP Home Edition. The key difference is that I have 1GB of RAM (which helps out XP quite a bit) to his 512MB, and my FPS are lots better than his on the ground and in the air.

Eagl, try the cheapest thing first... another stick of 512MB.

[United]

Originally posted by Hyrax81st
I agree.

If you take a look at my PC specs posted earlier, I have the identical processor, FSB speed, etc... using XP Home Edition. The key difference is that I have 1GB of RAM (which helps out XP quite a bit) to his 512MB, and my FPS are lots better than his on the ground and in the air.

Eagl, try the cheapest thing first... another stick of 512MB.

Yeah, ive got a mid-range video card, but with 2gigs of RAM it pretty much makes up for it.

[bloom25]

AH2 seems to be mainly limited by system memory considerations.  By this I'm referring both to quantity of memory and to bandwidth/latency.  On my system I've noticed that AH2 is using close to 600 MB of system memory.  It's probably one of the few games out there that would benefit from having more than 512 MB of system memory.  That's also the reason why your system feels sluggish when you Alt-tab out of AH2, I'll bet you have no more available ram and you are swapping to the hard drive.

The Athlon 64 performs well in games because of its on-die memory controller.  Typical memory latency on an Athlon 64 is about half of either the Athlon XP and Pentium 4.  SSE2 instruction support is no doubt a benefit, but it's the reduced memory latency that makes the biggest difference from a gaming standpoint.  Also, remember than an AGP mode transfer between graphics card to or from system memory does not involve the CPU directly.  The on-die memory controller on the Athlon 64 in combination with its 1600 MHz effective (Socket 754) or 2 GHz effective (Socket 939) link to the Northbridge (which is where the AGP controller is located) does have an real impact in cases where the video card does not have sufficient onboard memory and must use system memory.

Just as a sidenote, the primary reason why the Prescott P4 is slower than the Northwood P4 for gaming is that its L2 cache requires an extra clock cycle to access, which has the effect of increasing L2 cache latency by 25%.  The fact that the L2 cache size on Prescott is 1 MB, versus 512kB, cannot make up for this.  (Why did Intel do this?  It gives Prescott a bit more clockspeed headroom to allow a few more speed bumps until the P4s replacement is released in '05.)  Look at Commanche 4 benchmarks between Northwood and Prescott to see what I'm talking about...

[humble]

Originally posted by eagl
What resolution?  What texture size?  Where are your sliders again?  

You're likely running 333mhz FSB (166x2) instead of 266, but I'm not positive because it's possible to make AMD cpus run at all sorts of odd FSB/multiplier combinations and you can even run your memory asynchronously from the cpu bus on some mobos which can either help or hurt depending on the application or game you're trying to run.

It's possible you're making up the performance on both the additional cpu and FSB speed.  133/266 memory is PC2100 if I recall correctly.

I've rechecked, and I'm not running anything in the background that would account for any measurable cpu load.

Texture and sliders are at default, resolution is pretty high...well above default but not 1200x1600 (I'll check tonight). The gigabyte board I have allows alot of overclocking options. So I can change just about every variable. The T1-4200 also overclocks easily. I'll doulbe check to see if I have anything OC'd. I fooled with it but since the game performance is just fine I think I just reset to default. I have 5-6 systems at home so I'll double my memory tonight and see what happens...also play with the OC settings and see what difference their is...

[Karnak]

Originally posted by United
Karnak, Ive got an Intel P4 3.2GHz and a much worse video card than you, Geforce FX 5200 128MB.  I get around 80-100FPS on the runway, and around 40 with full smoke and things.  Thats at 1024x768 (I think 768) resolution.

I do think that your processor is limiting you, but its not only that. Your memory is rather sluggish for todays standards.  You also will realize how much better your FRs could be if you add another 128MB of memory or so.  When I run AHII, it says I use around 600MBs of memory during the game.  So, I gather that with enough memory I can get better FPS.

So on your next upgrade, you may want to get 128MB of memory or so and a new processor.

But, dont take my word on it.  I know slim to nil about computers.

Are you sure this was directed at me?

I've got an AthlonXP 1800+, 512mb DDR266 and a GeForce4 Ti4600 128mb.  My frame rates are OK, but I like better than OK.  This is the first time in this thread that I have listed my hardware or mentioned my framerates.

My computer is nearly three years old and will be older than that when I have enough money.  This is the first major upgrade I've contemplated since I put it together in October, 2001.

[214thCavalier]

Couple of thing to keep in mind if you are trying to compare frame rates.

Use  the same map, and field.
You can go to similar fields of same config on the same map and get widely varying frame rates.
As an example on NDisles map i went to 2 large fields, at A11 i was getting 43 fps and at A33 102 fps.

Also it would be best to compare with all the sliders set to either max or min.
Using default is not good for comparisons. Default for one card is not likely the same for all cards.

[Blue Mako]

I ran a few tests on AH2 to try and figure out why everyone was griping about framerates.  My conclusion:  The trees are the big framerate killers.

I conducted my test by changing vid settings and returning to the same field, runway and aircraft and comparing the fps.  I found that changing the game resolution, max texture size, preloading of memory onto system memory and/or vid card memory, detail level, object display size level, killing background processes (using FSautostart), all had only a minor (<5%) effect on frame rate.

However, changing the ground detail display range from max to min changed the framerate from approx 30 to almost 50.  I also noted that my framerates were pretty much maxed when looking around at towns, field objects and smoke but as soon as I looked at a hill with lots of trees my fps would drop from 70 (monitor limited) to mid 30's.

What's up with the trees?  Why are they such a huge performance drain?

I also noticed that if I alt-tab out of AH2, my system is running like a dog even though over 300MB of memory is still free...

My rig is a P4 2.4 with HT, 1024MB RAM, WinXP, ATI Radeon 9600 vid card with 128MB RAM, latest ATI catalyst drivers, Dx9b.

I think I'll hold off a little longer on resubbing until AH2 is more than a slower version of AH1...

[United]

Originally posted by Karnak

Are you sure this was directed at me?

Whoops!! Sorry about that, I must have seen your name beside last reply and thought you started the post.  It was meant for eagl, not you.

Again, sorry.

[eagl]

Blue Mako, that's pretty much what I'm seeing too.

I think I'll just have to run the sliders down to almost nothing and do my best to ignore the ground

[Blue Mako]

eagl

I don't understand why the trees should be such a drain on performance.

I run FS2004 and LOMAC fine (albeit with some tweaking) with the same rig which should mean that it should be able to easily handle anything AH2 demands...

[Aqualung]

I have the same processor, mobo, sound card, and video card as eagl (I do have 1 Gig of memory though) and I see similar framerates when the trees pop into view. Are the intel guys that are around the same speed seeing the same slowdown?  I think all the slowdown threads that I have read have been from those of us running AMD processors.


aqua

[Overlag]

yes ahii is cpu limited, but with that new gfx card you can probably up the quality and fsaa settings and still get the same fps with it off...

[ergRTC]

I recently went from a gf3 ti200 to a 5900xt 256 gold edition gainward (480/750)  on a pentium 4 2.8 (overclocked to 3.1 ghz).  My fps went no where.

Why?

Cause I increased the texture size.  At 256 I get those monster fps, but at 512 and 1024 I get CRAP for fps.  512 is more than playable 20-75, 1024 is not 8-75 fps.  I think there is still some streamlining to be done at HTC with this.

How many of you guys are running 256?  how many 512?  how many 1024, and what are the fps differences caused by that?

[ebgb]

Same scenario as eagl's EXACTLY

P4-2.5
1gig DDR333
ATI 9800pro
ECS L4S5A mainboard

although it consistently shows 23 - 30 frames, I'm certain the video card is having no trouble whatsoever.  When rotating about a viewpoint (taking a huge chunk of terrain and spinning it) there is absolutely no jittery motion at all - smooth as silk.

Doesn't matter if vidcard settings are maxed or not - same frames always.  My research has led me to believe that these new modern video cards capable of AGP8x just don't like some older motherboards and are limited by the mainboards AGP.

Does anyone else run an ECSL4S5A with a 9800, 6800 card???

g