Dissapointing fps on my am2

[Redkite 0]

My computer

AM2 5000+ (2.6 ghz)

EVGA 8500GT 256MB 128bit DDR2 DVI VGA TVO PCI-E

2gb 800 DDR2 Ram

 

Monitor 1680 x 1050

 

I am a new OFF user and have patched the super and the mini, I limited the framerate to 32 as recomended in the forum but am finding that I cannot run satisfactorily with sliders set to over two and clouds at 1. I am getting fps of 25+ with this which is ok but over this I am into the teens.

Should I upgrade the cpu ram and graphics card or would one of these have more effect than the others as I would love to crank up the visuals somewhat.

Any suggestions gratefully received

 

Thanks in advance

[Tanyrhiew 0]

Disable shadows in cfs3config overides. They are a real fps hog.

[gordohk 1]

My computer

AM2 5000+ (2.6 ghz)

EVGA 8500GT 256MB 128bit DDR2 DVI VGA TVO PCI-E

2gb 800 DDR2 Ram

 

Monitor 1680 x 1050

 

IShould I upgrade the cpu ram and graphics card or would one of these have more effect than the others as I would love to crank up the visuals somewhat.

Any suggestions gratefully received

 

 

Get the best graphics card your system can handle (if you have the funds) I'd go with an ATI card if you can (older ATI cards were beating Nvidia hands down for a while)

[Redkite 0]

Thanks for your help, I have just disabled shadows and will give it a test.

[gordohk 1]

If your PSU has sufficent Watts that is, if not be ready to change out that puppy. Also there's the little matter of the Developers, stating that OFF has always run better on Nvidia Based Video Cards, but they only wrote OFF, what do they know ?

 

Uncle Al you must have missed the "your system can handle".... that includes power supply. Also if you look closely at the spec you'll see both nvidia and ATI cards listed.

[BirdDogICT 3]

My computer

AM2 5000+ (2.6 ghz)

EVGA 8500GT 256MB 128bit DDR2 DVI VGA TVO PCI-E

2gb 800 DDR2 Ram

 

Monitor 1680 x 1050

 

I am a new OFF user and have patched the super and the mini, I limited the framerate to 32 as recomended in the forum but am finding that I cannot run satisfactorily with sliders set to over two and clouds at 1. I am getting fps of 25+ with this which is ok but over this I am into the teens.

Should I upgrade the cpu ram and graphics card or would one of these have more effect than the others as I would love to crank up the visuals somewhat.

Any suggestions gratefully received

 

Thanks in advance

Redkite,

 

FPS varies quite a bit, depending on where you're at: if you're near an airfield, near the front, or in a big furrball, an FPS of 25 is good. IF you're still seeing FPS of 25 flying solo at 10,000 feet, a graphics card upgrade would help, but this game needs raw CPU power. Consider 512MB of graphics memory a minimum requirement.

 

I've had good luck with a 512MB ATI and have tested all Catalyst drivers from 8.8 up through 9.10 with no problems. The developers recommend nVidia, but some users have reported problems with the latest nVidia drivers.

 

Good luck.

[Parky 8]

The most cost effective is the video card, go onto Ebay, get an 8600, 512 MB DDR2 or a 1 GB DDR2,

 

Upgrading from the 8500 to the 8600 would be a complete waste of time and money. The performance difference between the two cards isn't significant enough to go that route....regardless of the increase in onboard RAM. The jump to an 8800GT (at the very least, and if you can find one) would be my suggestion. Either that or a suitable ATI (4000 series) card that has similar to, or better performance than that of the aforementioned card.

 

Cheers and best of luck with your upgrade.

 

 

Parky

[sitting_duck 3]

imho, a 256 card just is not going to cut it for this game.

 

but, if you are stuck with it for the time being,,,i highly recommend homeboys/rabus settings for your cfs3config. They have always worked best for me on lower end computers.

 

wish i had the link for them on this computer, but i dont. when i find it, will post it,,meanwhile maybe someone that does have the link they can post it. think it started out with "want more eyecandy"

[Parky 8]

Normally, you can find a brand New 8800 on Ebay, although it's from a Chinese company, nobody ever heard of. Problem being, unless I'm mistaken the 8500's didn't even use a fan on the card, they instead used passive cooling, which is nothing more than a huge heatsink. It's primary use was when an extremely low wattage consuming card was required, due to a very small PSU

 

That PSU will need to be changed out, prior to benifiting from the 8800

 

The step to the 8600 would merely be to pick up the amount of video memory on the card. Whilst making do with a skimpy PSU. The picture won't improve, but the game should run smoother, because 256 just won't cut it

 

 

Passive heatsinks on graphics cards had nothing to do with power consumption. It was more about noise levels and catered to those who wanted something a bit quieter. Btw Al, those fans use next to NO wattage at all. It isn't an issue.

 

Also, I'll admit that more memory on the card is beneficial, but it's nowhere near as important as the integrity of the GPU that's sittin' on that PCB board. A s**tty GPU combined with even a gig of memory on the card isn't a winning formula......trust me. The 8600, regardless of the accompanying memory is a pile of junk when it comes to a gaming environment. It's more geared towards HTPC use.

 

By the way.....I'm not sure what you're basing your opinion that he's gonna' need to upgrade his PSU on. Unless I missed something, we don't even know what his current power supply is. A bit premature in your appraisal aren't you?? Not to mention, the 8800GT isn't exactly the powerpig you're assuming it is. I'll bet you a beer he could run that card on his current setup.

 

Make that a Heineken in a frosty glass.....

 

 

Thanks.....and Cheers,

 

 

Parky

Edited November 12, 2009 by Parky

[Redkite 0]

There is some lively discussion going on here, I am looking at geforce 9 series on ebuyer at the moment as I reckon if I'm going to upgrade it may as well be a good one, I have always had nvidia as I have never had a problem with them. My psu is 460 which I know is not massive but I found a psu calculator online and according to that my comp is using 251w and that is with likely future upgrades and everything I may connect on at the same time, I will stick another gb ram in too.

 

Thanks for previous posts.

[Von Paulus 8]

Carefull because not all Nvidia 9 series are better than 8800GT or a 8800GTS or 880GTX.

There is no big difference between 9800GTX and 8800GTS (later version 512MB).

Nvidia 9 series don't have big improvements from the 8 series.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Von Paulus

[almccoyjr 7]

If you can swing it, I'd look at the GTX 260 SP 216 card. It'll give you a major increase over the 8500 and will have a much longer gaming life than a 9800. You could even keep the 8500 and use it as a dedicated PHYS-X card,if you have 2 slots, but I'm not sure what kind of mileage you'll get with 256mb of memory.

 

Are you running a 32bit or 64 OS? If 64, then an additional 2GB will also improve your overall performance, but only after you've addressed the video card.

 

You may also want to investigate what is running in the background to free up resources taking as much load off of the cpu as possible.

 

plug_nickel (Al)

[gordohk 1]

There is some lively discussion going on here, I am looking at geforce 9 series on ebuyer at the moment as I reckon if I'm going to upgrade it may as well be a good one, I have always had nvidia as I have never had a problem with them. My psu is 460 which I know is not massive but I found a psu calculator online and according to that my comp is using 251w and that is with likely future upgrades and everything I may connect on at the same time, I will stick another gb ram in too.

 

Thanks for previous posts.

 

As mentioned by UncleAl make sure your psu can handle the card. Check out & post on forums at toms' hardware and read product reviews on newegg for info from other buyers that have a similar rig. I have a 9800 and it is nothing more than a repackaged 8800 (also have a 750w psu for my planned upgrades) . A 9800 GTX requires a min of 450W. Also browse Tom's Hardware for graphic card comparisons under articles and charts too.

 

Another consideration other than money, is system capability and balance. No need to buy a monster card and find out that your system can't fully utilize it (due to psu, OS, cpu, ram limitations) or some other bottleneck. Best of luck.

[Redkite 0]

There is a lot to digest. I haven't seen anything on ebay that I thought was a good deal but been looking at 94-95-9600gt cards with 512 or 1gb memory. They would seem to be an improvement on what I have at a reasonable cost.

[gordohk 1]

There is a lot to digest. I haven't seen anything on ebay that I thought was a good deal but been looking at 94-95-9600gt cards with 512 or 1gb memory. They would seem to be an improvement on what I have at a reasonable cost.

 

 

the 9600GT looks to be the best of the lot. But don't hold me to it.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9600-gt,1780.html

 

charts

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/benchmarks,30.html

 

check out newegg for prices and reviews

[Dutch_P47M 9]

the 9600GT looks to be the best of the lot.  But don't hold me to it.

 

http://www.tomshardw...geforce-9600-gt,1780.html

 

charts

http://www.tomshardw...2008/benchmarks,30.html

 

check out newegg for prices and reviews

 

This outdated card will cost you $80 - $90, but why not getting a HD5750, HD5770, HD4850 or HD4770. They all need, according to the ATIsite a 450Watt PSU which is yours. I did not check the prices but I think the HD4850/HD4770 will have the same price as the 9600GT, but are better.  Personally I would pay the extra and go for a ATI 5XXX serie, it will bring you the newest directX11.  

 

http://www.amd.com/u...es/hd-4770.aspx

 

 

http://www.tomshardw...iews/Components,1/Graphics-Cards,4/  then check the november and may 2009 "best graphic card for the money" 

[Parky 8]

What OFF wants is computer speed ( 3 Ghtz) then Memory 3.5RAM w/XP, more with Vista, then 512 Video memory.

 

So....based on this, if I have any CPU running at 3 Ghz or faster, an unbalanced amount of RAM running in single channel with XP, and any graphics card with 512 meg of RAM, I should get pretty amazing performance, right??

 

Yep.....here's a card that's got you covered for sure: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814139038

 

 

I figure you could have a processor running @ 4 Ghz, 3.5 Gig of Kingston Value RAM running @ 400 Mhz on a crappy mainboard with this card and you'd be getting an average of about 4 FPS with your sliders set on 2.

 

 

Got any more good advice??

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

Parky

[gordohk 1]

This outdated card will cost you $80 - $90, but why not getting a HD5750, HD5770, HD4850 or HD4770. They all need, according to the ATIsite a 450Watt PSU which is yours. I did not check the prices but I think the HD4850/HD4770 will have the same price as the 9600GT, but are better. Personally I would pay the extra and go for a ATI 5XXX serie, it will bring you the newest directX11.

 

http://www.amd.com/u...es/hd-4770.aspx

 

 

http://www.tomshardw...iews/Components,1/Graphics-Cards,4/ then check the november and may 2009 "best graphic card for the money"

 

 

Dutch: I agree, but I believe Redkite's constraints are : 1. nvidia card 2. affordablity 3. psu.

[Dutch_P47M 9]

Dutch: I agree, but I believe Redkite's constraints are : 1. nvidia card 2. affordablity 3. psu.

 

1]. If it is only a Nvidia then it is his choice.

 

 

2]. the prices are in my country at the same level as an HD4770/HD4850 only the HD5750 is some 25euro more. But US market can be different on that

 

3]. The power consumption is lesser then a 9600GT [except the greenline versions maybe] , the HD57XX and HD4770 do not need a lot of power and can be used in his 460W PSU.   But always do a Watt calculation on beforehand.  

 

 

 

 

But I think it will be his Nvidia choice and I'm respecting this. 

 

CPU should not bring him limitations regarding playing OFF3, if so, then it is time for a clean-up and he can always try overclocking.

 

   

[dandy360 0]

hi everyone!

 

noob just signed up - looking at this sim with great interest, but before i make a purchase i was just wondering if my pc spec will handle this:-

 

athlon64x2 3800

asus m2n mobo

2.5gb ddr2 (667mhz)

nvidia 9600 gso 384mb pci-e

winxp 64bit

 

im guessing by previous posts in this topic that i would be looking at minimum settings, but would it be a smooth experience or a slideshow? running il2:1946 at max detail with AA and anisotropic filtering and 1280x960 res on this rig nicely, but its an old game now but it may give a hint as to how it would handle OFF? have oc'd the cpu but the most i seem to be able get is a 300mhz increase before it all goes tits up, the 9600 gso oc's like a demon!

 

cheers in advance for any advice by the way, im on a tight budget!

Edited November 15, 2009 by dandy360

[Redkite 0]

Thanks for your thoughts. Been looking at 9600gt esave from innovision and gts25o which according to asustek site psu calculator arrives at 450w. Will also look at ati now, dont know anything about them but obviously folks seem to rate them.

 

Any advice as to how much spare power you should allow with a psu?

 

I am also looking to possiblyt upgrade psu as it will remove that constraint. 460 psu came with case, probably a mistake not to buy seperate, but I thought 460 would be enough........

 

Also tweaked the overrides in cfs config, managed to get the scenery and terrain up tp 3 with framerate in twenties.

[Parky 8]

Thanks for your thoughts. Been looking at 9600gt esave from innovision and gts25o which according to asustek site psu calculator arrives at 450w. Will also look at ati now, dont know anything about them but obviously folks seem to rate them.

 

Any advice as to how much spare power you should allow with a psu?

 

I am also looking to possiblyt upgrade psu as it will remove that constraint. 460 psu came with case, probably a mistake not to buy seperate, but I thought 460 would be enough........

 

Also tweaked the overrides in cfs config, managed to get the scenery and terrain up tp 3 with framerate in twenties.

 

 

If you're pulling off mid twenties (sliders on 3) with your current card, the 9600GT might be a good fit for you. Bear in mind that the card requires a 6pin PCIe connector which I doubt is present on your existing PSU. The use of a 4pin molex to 6pin PCIe adapter is feasible, but I personally don't recommend it due to the potential for unstable power delivery via that type of connection.

 

In terms of PSU overhead.....it's a bit of a grey area, but my rule of thumb would be to get something with a good couple of hundred watts over and above what the system will use under full load. Remember that a good, efficient 450w supply will probably be more stable and reliable than a crappy 650w. In other words, pay attention to efficiency ratings, not just total wattage. Go with a brand name that has a good reputation ie: PC Power and Cooling, Corsair, or OCZ (which I believe is now owned by PC Power and Cooling).

 

Not too familiar with Innovision. I usually go with EVGA, XFX or BFG, which all have excellent reputations as well as industry leading warranty coverage on a number of their products.

 

Also remember that interior case dimensions can come into play once you start getting into cards with a dual slot design. The 8800GTS and dual slot 4850's are almost 10 inches in length. Make sure if you go that route that the card will clear the HD bays at the front of your tower.

 

There's an extremely valuable article here: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3234

 

You'd do well to take the time to read it. Pay close attention to the power consumption charts and remember that they list total system usage. Also pay close attention to the performance differences between the 8600 and 9600. The difference is substantial and will give you a pretty good idea of the kind of performance increase you'll see over your current card.

 

 

Best of luck with whatever you decide.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Parky

[Von Paulus 8]

More important, or at least as important than w in a PSU is the amp value and the number of rails, specifically in +12v.

But in doubt choose always a good brand name. Brand names like the ones specified by Parky and BeQuiet and Cooler Master should be the choice.

 

But if you want to to calculate how much power your rig need you can use this calculator:

 

http://extreme.outer...ucalculator.jsp

 

About the brand names for graphics, I personally choose Asus and EVGA.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Von Paulus

[Redkite 0]

I have a coolermaster 460 and I have used that psu calculator, actually I ramped it up a bit allowing for ram upgrade, cpu upgrade, which I am considering and 100% peak load and aging capacitor. Result was 416w with a gts250 1gb.

 

Putting the gts250 into my current setup gives 339w also with the 100% peak and aging capacitors so I reckon this could be ok.

 

I looked on ebuyer for the coolermaster power supply reviews and buyers were running 9800gt cards and faster processors than I have and reportingthat the power supply was fine.

 

I was a bit concerned that the psu rating differed on on other calculators namely the asustek but thie extreme power one is a lot more detailed so I presume this is more accurate.

[Parky 8]

I have a coolermaster 460 and I have used that psu calculator, actually I ramped it up a bit allowing for ram upgrade, cpu upgrade, which I am considering and 100% peak load and aging capacitor. Result was 416w with a gts250 1gb.

 

Putting the gts250 into my current setup gives 339w also with the 100% peak and aging capacitors so I reckon this could be ok.

 

I looked on ebuyer for the coolermaster power supply reviews and buyers were running 9800gt cards and faster processors than I have and reportingthat the power supply was fine.

 

I was a bit concerned that the psu rating differed on on other calculators namely the asustek but thie extreme power one is a lot more detailed so I presume this is more accurate.

 

 

That PSU comes in about 4 different variations (see here: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/550 )

 

The good news is it probably does have the required 6pin connector. The not-so-good news is I'd hazard a guess you're cutting it a bit close in terms of reasonable (and safe) maximum power overhead. I'm sure it would work, but an upgrade to something closer to the 600w range is probably advisable.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Parky