"Better" graphics card, worse performance?

[528646 0]

Hello all! New here, but certainly not new to flight sims/WWI warbirds...

 

A question for the experts out there - I have an older machine that I'm attempting to run OFF on. I know the specs are way towards the low end, so I'm going into this with the full understanding that OFF may not be practical for me until I upgrade to a newer machine altogether, but it was too tempting not to make a run at it with my current machine!

 

At any rate, when I first installed OFF, my specs were as follows:

 

XP

P4 3.0 GHz

1.5 GB RAM

256MB ATI clone video card (AGP)

 

I'm thinking "no chance it'll run with these specs". Well, actually...it ran pretty decently! I set the graphics sliders right at the low end suggested and it was a very passable gaming experience - I actually got between 30 & 40 fps. There was a little choppiness here & there and occasionally the fps would momentarily drop down towards the 20 range, but I would definitely say it was playable.

 

OK, flash forward to yesterday - I got an extra .5 GB of RAM to max out (ha) my machine at 2.0 GB and also received the clone NVidia GeForce 8400 512MB card (PCI) I had ordered. I'm thinking if it ran "passably" without the extra RAM and the 256 ATI card without making any of the card-specific tweaks laid out in the FAQ's, then even with no tweaking right out of the gates surely I'll see a performance boost with the new RAM/card...right???

 

Not exactly. The game absolutely crawls now. Exact same graphics settings netted me - at best - 10 fps. Cranking everything back to 1, I'm lucky to get 15 fps (maybe if I point the nose up at the sky so I'll I see is blue, I'm lucky to get up to 17 fps or so!).

 

I've tried taking a stab at some of the NVidia-specific recommendations on the FAQ's, but nothing has even phased it. What I'm hoping is, there is some obvious setting that I'm forgetting about and not getting assigned correctly that is causing the performance issues, because on paper it certainly seems like I should expect to see some improvement with this new card. On the other hand, my fear is I may just have a machine that is old enough (bought in 2003) that this new video card is "too much card" for it (if that's even possible??? I'm not a big hardware guy, I just know enough to get by!).

 

Help anyone? It would be much appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance!

[+Gunrunner 314]

You might actually have changed your graphic card for a less powerful model.

 

Yes, you have more video memory, but the video memory might be slower or be on a narrower bus, degrading performances.

You also have gone from an AGP card to a PCI one, making the data transfer to/from the graphic card 16x slower...

Also, the GF8400 line is notoriously bad at gaming, being designed mostly for office and video.

[Von Paulus 8]

Welcome.

 

I agree that you should at least have the same performance. But could you tell us what model was your ATI graphic card? Just in case...

I suppose you've run the cfs3config after the upgrade in OFF, because you stated that you tried some of the FAQ's tweaks for Nvidia, right?

Do you only play OFF? After the upgrade do you notice any performance change in your machine?

The first thing you should diagnose is try to see if that's a problem with your machine or with OFF.

I suppose you still have your old graphic card. Even if you don't have any other game I'd suggest to benchmark your system with a program

like 3DMARK06 with your original card and then with the new one.

Unless someone remembers something, that must be very obvious, than you should consider my suggestion.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Von Paulus

[528646 0]

Thanks for the quick responses, fellas! I definitely should have posted here first for advice BEFORE making the plunge for a new card...oh well, "only" spent about $40 bucks on it, I guess - just an expensive "lesson learned"!

 

I didn't realize that about the PCI slot being slower than an AGP slot, that's good info. Maybe at some point in the future I'll look to go to a 512 MB AGP card...in the meantime I think I'll roll-back to my old 256 MB card and just enjoy the game as-is. And of course continue to keep lobbying my wife to convince her we really do need a new PC!

 

 

 

 

 

[Von Paulus 8]

Yes, but what is the model of your ATI card?

[tofke 0]

 

Forget it . . with all my tweaks . . My Best was 17 FPS

 

 

Hi uncleal,

 

use Cpuiz + genclock + (for me) nvidia tweak, you may gain 7 to 10 fps, give a try

(what is your resolution in the game ?) 1280 x 1024 is a good deal

 

Tofke

[528646 0]

Yes, but what is the model of your ATI card?

 

 

I can't recall the model...unfortunately I'm at work, so I don't have it handy to look right now!

 

Doing some further research (which is what I should have done BEFORE buying the PCI card, ha!), it looks like it was a big mistake to go with a PCI card, period. And just to make it clear, I'm talking about plain-Jane PCI here - NOT PCI-express, which I understanding to be a big improvement over plain-Jane PCI.

 

Based on what I'm reading, it's really no surprise whatsoever that I would get better performance out of a 256MB AGP card vs a 512MB PCI card.

 

I think my best course of action for now is to roll back to my old AGP card and maybe look at investing in a 512 MB AGP card at some point in the future - it looks like they can be found quite cheaply these days, in the < $50USD range.

 

Edit: I'm looking at this one:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130452

 

Anyone see any specific reason to object?

Edited May 5, 2010 by 528646

[528646 0]

Well, I popped my old ATI card back in - which by the way is one of these:

 

ABIT Radeon 9600XT

 

And sure enough, the performance more than doubled compared to my new PCI card. Now that I'm up to 2.0 GB RAM, if I kick all the sliders back to 1, I'm usually easily within the 30-40 fps range, with occasional drops < 20.

 

My complaint is that - even with sliders cranked all the way back, I'm still getting occasional choppiness when the fps periodically takes a dive.

 

I've been doing a lot of research on options for a replacement AGP card, and the funny thing is that it looks like this 9600XT actually has very decent specs for an AGP card. I can easily find cards with more RAM, but few cards meet the 500 MHz clock speed. I'm finding a lot of NVidia (which supposedly runs CFS3 smoother) cards out there that on first glance would appear to give me a boost, but I've noticed a lot of those appear to have lower clock speed than their ATI cousins...like a lot of the NVidia chipset AGP cards are in the 300 MHz range, from what I've seen.

 

So what gives? Based on the above specs I posted for the 9600XT, is anyone aware of a card (perhaps an NVidia chipset, assuming the rumors about it running CFS3 better are true) that would give a signficant above & beyond performance boost? If I can't get a significant performance boost, I'm thinking I may be better off holding out for a new PC in the next couple years sometime.

 

Thanks again for all the informative responses! I've really learned a lot.

[Parky 8]

For what it's worth.....

 

The advantages of running Nvidia over ATI graphics (specifically where OFF is concerned) is overhyped as far as I'm concerned. The only thing the ATI cards lack is the ability to render cockpit glass reflections. Nice bit of eye-candy for those who insist on being finicky when it comes to graphics detail, but that's all it is, a very minor detail that in terms of overall performance, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

As far as the ATI cards not "running OFF as well" as their Nvidia counterparts, that can be easily addressed with the appropriate tweaks. I'd be so bold as to say that some of the ATI cards will even outperform their Nvidia equivilents when one looks strictly at a price vs performance scenario.

 

Let me make this real simple. If you were really serious about breathing some new life into that aging system of your's, here's what I'd recommend you do. Order yourself up one of these: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814150433

 

That little gem is light-years ahead of your 9600, will literally wipe the floor with the 7600GS and can be had for under $100.00, and yes, it's AGP. The last time I checked, it typically requires a very modest PSU and runs cool and quiet for a card that allows for the kind of performance increase you'll get. It doesn't hurt that XFX offers a lifetime warranty either. The worst-case scenario is you may end up having to pick up a slightly better power supply, but those can also be had for very reasonable prices if you shop carefully. I'd be surprised if your current PSU wouldn't be up to the task though.

 

The only other thing you'd need to worry about is applying AMD's AGP hotfix in order to get the card up 'n running, but I have a feeling you were already aware of that little detail.

 

Best of luck with whatever direction you decide to take......and welcome to the forum.

 

Cheers,

 

Parky

Edited May 6, 2010 by Parky

[528646 0]

Actually, I am in fact using a 19" widescreen LCD...the only modern part of my entire setup (unless you count the wireless mouse/keyboard!)

 

That looks like a killer card for sure, Parky...but the notes say it requires a 400W power supply - yikes! I'm pretty sure my stock power supply is somewhere in the < 300 range. And it's a good ol' Sony Vaio, so it's got the weird sized power supply that the Vaio is (in)famous for - replacements are very pricey!

 

In the meantime, I've finally had some luck twiddling with the ATI-specific sliders and the weird stuttering choppiness has gone away! I still get pretty nasty slowdown when I get too much going visually, but I can play through it. I might take a flier on a higher powered ATI card at some point, but for now I think I'll just enjoy the game on a lower graphics setting and keep working on talking my "squadron commander" into a new PC at some point in the not too distant future (which we are probably due for anyways...)

 

Thank you all again for the help & advice!

[Von Paulus 8]

The Human eye can only detect 24 FPS.

I've to disagree with you on that, uncleal. That's the 24fps myth.

http://www.cookieofdoom.com/2009/07/01/busting-framerate-myths/

http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html

 

About the card... The ATI that Parky showed, in my opinion, is better than the Nvidia. More powerful and I'm sure it will work well with OFF. Like Parky said that card will blow away the 9600XT (I had one for a couple of years).

But the problem here might be another, that card might be too much powerful for your CPU. This means that you will not fully use it's capabilities if your CPU cap the system. It might be true that your system is now caped by graphic card, but going to a better card like that ATI and Nvidia the cap factor will be your CPU, I'm pretty sure about that. So with that in mind, it might also be a good choice to go the Nvidia that uncleal showed because it's cheaper.

 

But before buying why not tell us your system specs? CPU, Memory, power supply characteristics?

[528646 0]

I've to disagree with you on that, uncleal. That's the 24fps myth.

http://www.cookieofd...ramerate-myths/

http://whisper.ausga...man_eye_can_see

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html

 

About the card... The ATI that Parky showed, in my opinion, is better than the Nvidia. More powerful and I'm sure it will work well with OFF. Like Parky said that card will blow away the 9600XT (I had one for a couple of years).

But the problem here might be another, that card might be too much powerful for your CPU. This means that you will not fully use it's capabilities if your CPU cap the system. It might be true that your system is now caped by graphic card, but going to a better card like that ATI and Nvidia the cap factor will be your CPU, I'm pretty sure about that. So with that in mind, it might also be a good choice to go the Nvidia that uncleal showed because it's cheaper.

 

But before buying why not tell us your system specs? CPU, Memory, power supply characteristics?

 

Here are my current specs:

 

XP

P4 3.0 GHz

2.0 GB RAM (which is system max - ha)

256MB ABIT ATI Radeon 9600XT-VIO (AGP)

 

I'm not 100% sure on the power supply specs & I'm at work now so can't check, but I'm almost postive it is in the < 300W range.

 

My current system setup will run IL-2 beautifully on the highest graphics setting, but obviously OFF takes things a significant step forward from IL-2.

 

One of the frustrating things is finding reliable benchmarking data - I'm having a lot of difficulties finding reliable apples-to-apples compare (i.e. I'm never sure if the benchmarking data I find out there is comparing PCIe/AGP or what).

 

Really I guess what it boils down to is that I would consider a card if someone could identify one that would be able to beat out the 9600 but at the same time not outpace my other system "limiters" to the point of diminishing returns!

 

I really have to say thanks again for all the help - I am really wowed by the # of people jumping in w/helpful advice!

 

EDIT:

 

I guess I'm real close to taking a chance on that 7600 Nvidia card. Although the card presented by Parky is tempting on paper, I'm guessing there is a high likelihood it would outstrip my power supply capabilities, and probably be "too much card" for my setup (considering it's a 1 GB video card and my entire MACHINE itself maxes out at 2 GB).

 

I suppose maybe it would come down to this - looking at the card presented by uncleal (the Nvidia 7600GS), are some of you experts out there pretty confident this would outperform my current card (ABIT Radeon 9600XT)? You should be able to Google it and get the detailed specs to see for yourselves, but I know it's a 256MB card w/a 500MHz core clock (which is what originally scared me away from the 7600 card, b/c I noticed it's core clock is slower - 420MHz - but I know there is a lot more that goes into the equasion than just the clock speed).

Edited May 7, 2010 by 528646

[Von Paulus 8]

The difference between 9600XT and the 4650 is around 25w. While the 7600GS is more or less the same as 8600XT, probably more 5/10w.

Can't you be more specific about the psw? About the total w and amp value in the +12V? It's written in the PSU's label. Maybe you can take a photo.

About the processor, at least in terms of clock speed it's ok. I think you'll notice a difference even if you take the weakest card. But if you've enough power I'd think twice about the ATI.

[528646 0]

The difference between 9600XT and the 4650 is around 25w. While the 7600GS is more or less the same as 8600XT, probably more 5/10w.

Can't you be more specific about the psw? About the total w and amp value in the +12V? It's written in the PSU's label. Maybe you can take a photo.

About the processor, at least in terms of clock speed it's ok. I think you'll notice a difference even if you take the weakest card. But if you've enough power I'd think twice about the ATI.

 

OK, got the power supply specs:

 

295.4 max watts

+12 V -- 17 amps

+5 V -- 28 amps

[Von Paulus 8]

With that power I beginning to doubt that will even run the 7600GS. But I suppose that the ATI is out of the question. 17A is not bad but it might be too short.

No chance to change the PSU?

[528646 0]

With that power I beginning to doubt that will even run the 7600GS. But I suppose that the ATI is out of the question. 17A is not bad but it might be too short.

No chance to change the PSU?

 

Ha, funny you should ask - someone at Sony has a sick sense of humor and decided to make the Vaio desktops with oddly shaped power supplies. I can't just go out price shop for any old power supply. Rather, I'm stuck looking for one of these uniquely sized units - not surprisingly, they're marked up quite a bit price-wise. For instance:

 

http://www.atxpowersupplies.com/400-watt-Sony-MJPC-300A2-power-supply-LPM2-20-P4-M.php

 

$86 (USD) for that puppy...as opposed to your run-of-the mill ATX case 400W power supply, which can be found all over for < $30 in many cases. Just as a matter of principle, it seems kind of silly to buy a nearly $90 power supply for such an old machine clearly nearing the end of its service life.

 

And to your point about doubting whether it would run the 7600GS, you are right on the money. Whilst doing some Googling on the subject, I came across someone with a Sony Vaio w/my exact same power supply (295 W) who confirmed it would not provide enough juice to the 7600GS for him.

 

Dunno, it kinda seems like I might be stuck. Maybe I'll keep Googling around a bit for a decent video card that doesn't have high-end wattage requirements...

[Von Paulus 8]

If the rest is standard you could also think of buying a new PC case with a PSU.

 

I'm sure next time you buy a new computer you'll think to assemble one yourself to avoid this kind of things.

[528646 0]

If the rest is standard you could also think of buying a new PC case with a PSU.

 

I'm sure next time you buy a new computer you'll think to assemble one yourself to avoid this kind of things.

 

Yeah, I'm definitely going the "do it yourself" route w/the next PC. To be truthful, the Vaio has really been a great machine for me all these years - it's really met my needs all along in all areas, but with OFF I think I've finally asked just too much of it!

 

That's a really good thought to buy a new case...my only misgiving there is that these Vaio's (and Sony in general) seem to have quite a rep for non-standard specs, so lord knows what else I would run into in terms of sizing issues.

 

Here is my last ditch attempt - I found this card...

 

100258L Radeon HD 3650

 

It makes no specific demands for a particular power supply minimum (although that might not necessarily be saying much, but I figure it's better than the cards that specifically call for a 400W power supply!) and reading through the customer reviews there is a lot of anectdotal evidence of people running this card with < 300 W power supplies.

 

I can get it for $65USD w/free shipping right now on Amazon...I'm thinking of taking a chance on this one.

[Von Paulus 8]

I really don't know what's the power consumption of that card. But it's a good alternative to your 9600XT and would be a good improve.

But you're on the edge with that PSU.

[Parky 8]

 

Let's be more realistic and say $45 because you need a single rail Power Supply for AGP, and most aren't anymore.

 

 

 

Not sure where you came up with that idea. The number of 12v rails on the PSU has absolutely NO bearing on wether you can run AGP or PCI-e. Trust me.

 

The only thing he has to be cautious of is if he goes with the card I recommended, I think he's gonna' need a 6pin from the PSU to plug into it. I know the same card from Sapphire includes a molex to 6pin adapter. Not sure about the XFX, but that adapter would probably run you all of about 4 bucks if you know where to look.

[Von Paulus 8]

But Parky, his major problem is lack of power, not the adapter. With a 300v's PSU and a single 12V 17Amp for everything, I think it's too short for a new card.

Don't you agree?

The problem is that they conceived that rig only to work with those components; they didn't have any future upgrades in mind. That's the problem when people buy brand computers. Upgrading is always more difficult.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Von Paulus

[Parky 8]

I would have to agree with you completely that he'd be walking the tightrope for sure with the current (no pun intended) PSU. I was under the impression he's considering upgrading that component though, and if he did, he'd be off to the races. I do know that people with a similar hardware array (including the new card) find that total system draw under load is typically somewhere just slightly south of 200 watts. That would leave some overhead, but only if the integrity of the existing power supply was top-notch.....which I somehow doubt after looking at it's specs.

 

The way I see it, if he can get away with keeping his costs down to under $200 for the kind of performance gains we're talking about here, it'd be a worthwhile expenditure until he can afford an entirely new build.

 

And yes.....I'd also agree that at that point he'd probably be bottlenecking at his core system components. I do believe the additional RAM (1 Gig) on that card would be beneficial for him though, and for the additional 20 bucks or so, if it were me, that's the route I would take.

 

Hopefully we haven't confused him to the point where he gives up gaming completely....lol.

 

Cheers Mate,

 

Parky

[Parky 8]

Actually, after re-reading his recent post, perhaps he's not all that keen on upgrading the PSU. Here's some food for thought though.

 

1) Grab yourself an old burned out standard ATX power supply.

 

2) Open up your tower and eyeball the available space around the existing PSU.

 

3) If it looks like you've got enough room for the standard ATX, pull the existing PSU out and see if you can squeeze the dead supply in without too much trouble.

 

4) If there's available space, it may be a simple matter of being creative and drilling a couple of new holes in the rear of your case in order to successfully mount a new PSU.

 

Failing that, I really like Von Paulus's suggestion that you pick up a new case that comes with a PSU. There are several options available for well under 100 bucks.

 

 

Finally.....if you decide to hold off for the new system, start being really, really nice to your wife for the next several weeks.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Parky

[Von Paulus 8]

I've seen only once, and it was some years ago, a desktop Sony Vaio. As far as I remember with that model, it was possible to squeeze a standard PSU inside the case. The suggestion given by Parky is a good one.

[528646 0]

I took an extremely conservative bet on a 7300GT card - chosen because it beats the performance of the 9600XT, but mostly because the mfg only calls for a 300W power supply (and it was only $50). Well, I'm happy to report that this card has allowed my antique system to clear the bar - just barely!

 

I'm playing on just all 1's right now for sliders - and yes, yes, I know, I'm not getting anywhere NEAR the "real" OFF experience, but get a load of my system specs in my earlier posts...I'm happy just to be playing the game at all on my machine. I'm very consistently at the 30 fps mark (I've got my config file set to max out at 30 fps) and I'm not seeing any of the choppiness I was getting with the old ATI card. Even on landings - with a slowly rotating prop blade animating on screen, hangers whizzing by, etc - I'm only dropping to the low-20 range, which I can live with.

 

I think I'm going to just play the game with the sliders on 1 for a while just because I'm tired of fussing with it and I just want enjoy the overall sim experience (which is wonderful, by the way!). At some point down the road I'll tweak with the sliders to see just how much performance I can squeak out.

 

And of course at some point my squadron CO will approve my requisition form for me to build a new PC and all will be well...