CALLING ALL COMPUTER TECHS : Lets Clear things up !
- Thread starter edion2
- Start date
Widescreen...
8) My HP w1907(19") monitor, I found TRS'06 offered the native resolution of 1441x900, in the Display Settings menu.
To use TRS'04, I had to manually configure TrainzOptions for:
-width=1440
-height=900
The Display Settings drop-down menu in '04, stayed at 1024x768, but the game renders correctly know.
8) My HP w1907(19") monitor, I found TRS'06 offered the native resolution of 1441x900, in the Display Settings menu.
To use TRS'04, I had to manually configure TrainzOptions for:
-width=1440
-height=900
The Display Settings drop-down menu in '04, stayed at 1024x768, but the game renders correctly know.
I've been continuing the research and coming close to plunking my money down. It will be an upgrade just in video card OR all the way up to a new system.
So far . . .
Trainz can utilize or "see" 2GB max of RAM.
therefore : A system that with enough RAM with at least 2MB of RAM left for other software use would be best. Example : A Windows Vista OS computer with 4GB RAM should have 2GB available for Trainz after OS is installed.
Trainz as a software does not take advantage of "Multi-Core" CPU.
therefore : A system with a 3Ghz Pentium D (single core) v.s. 3Ghz Quad core should process Trainz math data at about the same speed with regards to processing power. (other CPU features varies which may affect OVERALL performance)
It was stated that "Trainz likes L2 cache . . ."
therefore : A CPU with larger L2 cache would increase Trainz performance.
Core 2 Duo up to E6500, I think, has 2MB L2 Cache
Core 2 Duo E6650 and up has 4MB cache
Core 2 Duo E8400 and up has 6MB cache
ALL AMD including Athelon 64 X2 only has 1MB cache
Question :
#1 If L2 cache is important, Why has AMD kept their cache size at 1MB ??
#2 How important is L2 cache for Trainz and what does it do for Trainz ??
#3 Which is better for Trainz : E8400 (2.4Ghz) OR AMD Athelon 64 X2 5000 (2.6 Ghz) considering a difference of 5MB in cache size ??
Now ... here are 2 descriptions of computer systems, I may purchase since Uncle Sam is being generous this year . . . but not sure which one. The Intel system is $100 more than the AMD ssytem.
Intel : $1799
CybertronPC X-Qpack 2 Q6600 Blue, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, 20X DVD±RW, GeForce 640MB 8800GTS, 600 Watt Power Supply, MS Windows Vista Business 64-bit, 1 Year Parts & Labor Warranty
AMD : $1699
CybertronPC F430 6000 Black, AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, 20X DVD±RW, GeForce 768MB 8800GTX, 600 Watt Power Supply, MS Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit, 1 Year Parts & Labor Warranty
Please note: the DIFFERENCE in the video card and the Intel CPU is quad-core 2.4Ghz while AMD is dual core 3Ghz
Which system would you pick and why?
Thanks
So far . . .
Trainz can utilize or "see" 2GB max of RAM.
therefore : A system that with enough RAM with at least 2MB of RAM left for other software use would be best. Example : A Windows Vista OS computer with 4GB RAM should have 2GB available for Trainz after OS is installed.
Trainz as a software does not take advantage of "Multi-Core" CPU.
therefore : A system with a 3Ghz Pentium D (single core) v.s. 3Ghz Quad core should process Trainz math data at about the same speed with regards to processing power. (other CPU features varies which may affect OVERALL performance)
It was stated that "Trainz likes L2 cache . . ."
therefore : A CPU with larger L2 cache would increase Trainz performance.
Core 2 Duo up to E6500, I think, has 2MB L2 Cache
Core 2 Duo E6650 and up has 4MB cache
Core 2 Duo E8400 and up has 6MB cache
ALL AMD including Athelon 64 X2 only has 1MB cache
Question :
#1 If L2 cache is important, Why has AMD kept their cache size at 1MB ??
#2 How important is L2 cache for Trainz and what does it do for Trainz ??
#3 Which is better for Trainz : E8400 (2.4Ghz) OR AMD Athelon 64 X2 5000 (2.6 Ghz) considering a difference of 5MB in cache size ??
Now ... here are 2 descriptions of computer systems, I may purchase since Uncle Sam is being generous this year . . . but not sure which one. The Intel system is $100 more than the AMD ssytem.
Intel : $1799
CybertronPC X-Qpack 2 Q6600 Blue, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, 20X DVD±RW, GeForce 640MB 8800GTS, 600 Watt Power Supply, MS Windows Vista Business 64-bit, 1 Year Parts & Labor Warranty
AMD : $1699
CybertronPC F430 6000 Black, AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, 20X DVD±RW, GeForce 768MB 8800GTX, 600 Watt Power Supply, MS Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit, 1 Year Parts & Labor Warranty
Please note: the DIFFERENCE in the video card and the Intel CPU is quad-core 2.4Ghz while AMD is dual core 3Ghz
Which system would you pick and why?
Thanks
If I can toss my hat in this ring, there are many variables that go into a computer's graphic performance. This is just my personal opinion and in no way attempts to start a back and forth thing here, but I believe for graphic performance the Athlon 64 bit processor works the best. And yes I do have one. 
However graphic cards and the power supply's to support them are also of great importance.
Cheers
AJ
However graphic cards and the power supply's to support them are also of great importance.Cheers
AJ
AJ_Fox,
Well, these are system available through Amazon.com and they are configured and tested systems . . . so I would assume that they will come with the correct capacity power supply.
Do you think L2 cache size is more or less a moot point as far as Trainz software is concerned ?
AMD is certainly less expensive, and if its just as capable as Intel . . . why not. I just never owned an AMD before. Its transparent to the user.
I just want something thats not going to poop out on me in a few months as my route grows. I'd be very happy if I can get 2 years before I have to upgrade again. I don't need to upgrade if only ran built-in routes, they run fine with what I have.
Well, these are system available through Amazon.com and they are configured and tested systems . . . so I would assume that they will come with the correct capacity power supply.
Do you think L2 cache size is more or less a moot point as far as Trainz software is concerned ?
AMD is certainly less expensive, and if its just as capable as Intel . . . why not. I just never owned an AMD before. Its transparent to the user.
I just want something thats not going to poop out on me in a few months as my route grows. I'd be very happy if I can get 2 years before I have to upgrade again. I don't need to upgrade if only ran built-in routes, they run fine with what I have.
Absolutely right! Go for AMD every time! (No, I don't work for them, I just theink that Intel are worse!)
AussieNightcrawler
Trainz Everywhere...
My rother has an AMD based system, 4200+ AM2 2.2GHz duel core while I have an Intel based system, core 2 duo E6600 2.4GHz. The both of us run Gigabyte motherboards, his uses nVidia chipset while I have an Intel chipset and I know how many problems my brother has with his system.
After about 2 months of use, my brother has stated that never again will he buy AMD based system.
After about 2 months of use, my brother has stated that never again will he buy AMD based system.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
There are other factors around. Take caching for example, a 1k cache can have about a 60% hit ratio depending on the program and the caching algorithm. An L2 cache of 6 mb is not six times better than one of 1 mb and the software caching algorithm does make a difference.
The basic problem is feeding the cpu and getting information into and away from the cpu. The Celeron cpu core is the same as other cpus but because it has a very small L2 cache the performance isn't good. Because of the way that cpus are made it makes sense to use the same design and cripple the lower end ones.
AMD use a different approach to Intel's Front Side bus which meant that their cpus although not quite as powerful as the Intel ones performed better because they could get the data in and out faster. The newer Intel cpus have more than caught up even for graphical applications.
The other thing to consider is the instruction set, you have to design the silicon to do different instructions in different ways. Some instructions will be faster than others, so by knowing which instructions are used more frequently you can optimise performance in the silicon. There is another twist to this and that is the compilers. Microsoft make fairly good compilers but actually translate their languages into an intermediate one before compiling. Intel make better optimised compilers that give better performance. If you are writing general office software where the cpu is running at 2% utilisation then the Microsoft approach works fine. If its a game or simulator running at 100% cpu then using an optimising compiler makes more sense and the best ones are written by Intel. Guess which cpus the Intel compilers are optimised for?
Dual core well although Trainz doesn't use both a single core of an Intel dual core is still faster than anything else, so what if it has an extra lump of silicon on the side do you care?
Cooling is important, most systems are built to a price and normally if you aren't running Trainz the cpu runs about 2-5% so a cheaper solution works fine unless you run something like Trainz in which case you get overheating which shortens the life of the cpu etc. Strangely enough Dell made their reputation for reliability based on their thermal engineering or making sure the cards were placed in the coolest spots. Smaller companies find the work involved in working this out to be too expensive to calculate and will either over cool which is fine but more expensive than needed, or under cool which for them is fine as well as the system will probably just stagger past its warranty period and then you'll be back for a new system.
Power supplies, same thing as cooling really. How many people have a power supply 50% larger than they need?
Memory any 32 bit system can only see 3 gigs of memory, so yes 4 gigs is great but you've just added more heat into the system for no real benefit. A better solution is XP and 3 gigs. If you're going Vista go 64 bit and 8 gigs.
Idiots like me prefer to roll our own machines, selecting the motherboard, memory etc and quite often upgrading an existing system. You can get practically the same performance by buying an Dell XPS.
Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6850 (4MB L2 Cache,3.0GHz,1333 FSB)editOPERATING SYSTEMGenuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CDeditMEMORY3GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMseditHARD DRIVE500GB - Seagate 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB CacheeditOPTICAL DRIVESingle Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capabilityeditMONITORNo MonitoreditVIDEO CARDnVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MBeditSOUND CARDSound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeMusic (D) Sound CardeditKEYBOARDDell USB KeyboardeditMOUSEDell Optical USB MouseeditFLOPPY & MEDIA READERNo Floppy Drive or Media Reader IncludededitMODEMNo Modem Requestededit
Don't buy the optional extras the base system is actually quite good for Trainz but choose the components with care. Personally I'd add a second hard drive of 500 gigs but $200 to Dell or $120 from newegg take your choice,the Doll price is installed and warrantied though.
Cheerio John
I'm on a Gigabyte nVIDIA right now, I've had it for ages with no problems!
But, each to their own!
AussieNightcrawler
Trainz Everywhere...
Yeah, each to their own...
I know of a few people also that run AMD based systems without problems, its also strange that we are having problems with the Gigabyte motherboard as they are usually very good quality.
But that said, his motherboard is the Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4, uses the nVidia 570i chipset and I have heard of problems with these, especially the problems he has been having.
I know of a few people also that run AMD based systems without problems, its also strange that we are having problems with the Gigabyte motherboard as they are usually very good quality.
But that said, his motherboard is the Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4, uses the nVidia 570i chipset and I have heard of problems with these, especially the problems he has been having.
trainmetal
New member
I would say go for the AMD system purely for the graphics card. The 8800 GTX is faster than the 8800 gts, and has more graphics memory which would give a high FPS, and easier support for large resolutions. See http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=706&model2=707&chart=318 for more details.
Thanks guys for your inputs.
Intel or AMD :
It seems how a particular system performs for daily use whether Intel or AMD is kinda "crap-shoot". You never know until you get it and put it in use. People have success as well as problem with both CPU based system. There is no definitive answer as to which is better. Some systems are better "put together" than others.
therefore : Whether AMD or Intel, if purchasing a "turn-key system", as opposed to "customizing it yourself", it makes sense to buy a name brand like Dell, HP, Gateway etc. because they will spend the time pick "more compatible" components to build and offer a system.
While these "turn-key" systems are excellent for general use, they usually come loaded with "useless software" for a Trainz platform. Specially for someone like me who owns multiple computers.
AMD fans, don't crucify me . . . I tend to agree with jphnwahlen, there is generally better "industry support" for Intel because Intel makes it easier to support their CPU. A while back, I read that "majority" of software is written with "Intel in mind" and "tweaked" work with "AMD" . . . obviously an unsubstantiated statement . . . but with a ring of truth.
Video Card :
After some hours of surfing . . . I'm sold on nVidia 8800 series. I've settled on the GTX over clocked version with 768MB memory ($400 to $500). Putting this card in my current computer seems like putting a "V-12 Ferrari engine" in my Toyota of a computer. . . cars or computer . . . it just doesn't make sense :hehe:
Upgrade or New computer :
Since a friend of mine is willing to buy my current computer for $400 (pays for my video card and saves him $200), I'll be getting a new computer.
I know which video card I want . . . the problem is finding a "turn-key" system" without a video card, just the on-board video, that I can install the 8800GTX into. My ext step is to visit Dell's site and see if I can configure a system with a good motherboard, enough power supply, extra cooling options options on a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo based computer . . . within a total budget of $1800 including the GTX OC from Comp USA for $400.
If I'm not successful, I'll have to build my own . . . something I've never tried before. That would be another thread
I'll chime in with progress.
Intel or AMD :
It seems how a particular system performs for daily use whether Intel or AMD is kinda "crap-shoot". You never know until you get it and put it in use. People have success as well as problem with both CPU based system. There is no definitive answer as to which is better. Some systems are better "put together" than others.
therefore : Whether AMD or Intel, if purchasing a "turn-key system", as opposed to "customizing it yourself", it makes sense to buy a name brand like Dell, HP, Gateway etc. because they will spend the time pick "more compatible" components to build and offer a system.
While these "turn-key" systems are excellent for general use, they usually come loaded with "useless software" for a Trainz platform. Specially for someone like me who owns multiple computers.
AMD fans, don't crucify me . . . I tend to agree with jphnwahlen, there is generally better "industry support" for Intel because Intel makes it easier to support their CPU. A while back, I read that "majority" of software is written with "Intel in mind" and "tweaked" work with "AMD" . . . obviously an unsubstantiated statement . . . but with a ring of truth.
Video Card :
After some hours of surfing . . . I'm sold on nVidia 8800 series. I've settled on the GTX over clocked version with 768MB memory ($400 to $500). Putting this card in my current computer seems like putting a "V-12 Ferrari engine" in my Toyota of a computer. . . cars or computer . . . it just doesn't make sense :hehe:
Upgrade or New computer :
Since a friend of mine is willing to buy my current computer for $400 (pays for my video card and saves him $200), I'll be getting a new computer.
I know which video card I want . . . the problem is finding a "turn-key" system" without a video card, just the on-board video, that I can install the 8800GTX into. My ext step is to visit Dell's site and see if I can configure a system with a good motherboard, enough power supply, extra cooling options options on a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo based computer . . . within a total budget of $1800 including the GTX OC from Comp USA for $400.
If I'm not successful, I'll have to build my own . . . something I've never tried before. That would be another thread
I'll chime in with progress.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Thanks guys for your inputs.
Intel or AMD :
It seems how a particular system performs for daily use whether Intel or AMD is kinda "crap-shoot". You never know until you get it and put it in use. People have success as well as problem with both CPU based system. There is no definitive answer as to which is better. Some systems are better "put together" than others.
therefore : Whether AMD or Intel, if purchasing a "turn-key system", as opposed to "customizing it yourself", it makes sense to buy a name brand like Dell, HP, Gateway etc. because they will spend the time pick "more compatible" components to build and offer a system.
While these "turn-key" systems are excellent for general use, they usually come loaded with "useless software" for a Trainz platform. Specially for someone like me who owns multiple computers.
AMD fans, don't crucify me . . . I tend to agree with jphnwahlen, there is generally better "industry support" for Intel because Intel makes it easier to support their CPU. A while back, I read that "majority" of software is written with "Intel in mind" and "tweaked" work with "AMD" . . . obviously an unsubstantiated statement . . . but with a ring of truth.
Video Card :
After some hours of surfing . . . I'm sold on nVidia 8800 series. I've settled on the GTX over clocked version with 768MB memory ($400 to $500). Putting this card in my current computer seems like putting a "V-12 Ferrari engine" in my Toyota of a computer. . . cars or computer . . . it just doesn't make sense :hehe:
Upgrade or New computer :
Since a friend of mine is willing to buy my current computer for $400 (pays for my video card and saves him $200), I'll be getting a new computer.
I know which video card I want . . . the problem is finding a "turn-key" system" without a video card, just the on-board video, that I can install the 8800GTX into. My ext step is to visit Dell's site and see if I can configure a system with a good motherboard, enough power supply, extra cooling options options on a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo based computer . . . within a total budget of $1800 including the GTX OC from Comp USA for $400.
If I'm not successful, I'll have to build my own . . . something I've never tried before. That would be another thread
I'll chime in with progress.
Ok the video card you've selected is wonderful but is it overkill? An ATI 3870 built in 45 nm whatever maybe sufficient and until yesterday the two cards in one version of this card was the fastest on the planet. It also has lower power consumption etc.
Cheerio John
johnwhelan,
Oh no . . . 2 cards in one . . . FASTEST ON THE PLANET . . .
Hmmmmm . . . I'm gonna have to look into this.
Regarding "Overkill" . . . are you inferring that I'll be running at 1360x768 max., and thats medium resolution, so a video card that is 1 notch less, like the 8800GT or GTS might give me the same performance for Trainz ?
Perhaps you're right. But my route is really full of FPS robbing objects everywhere. All that object rendering information of the "current view" resides in the video memory, and frames get "pulled out of memory" as new ones are rendered to video memory. So each frame, in my case, has substantially more data than average. So . . . my thinking is that this is where I should spend as much as I can reasonably afford.
This is my latest section I added and the FPS is hovering around 8 FPS when a train runs through here during a driver session.
And in areas like this I'm getting 13 to 15 FPS.
If can ed up with aver all improvements of around 14 FPS and above in my worst areas, I'd be happy.
But I'll look into the ATI.
Thanks, you've been very helpful.
Oh no . . . 2 cards in one . . . FASTEST ON THE PLANET . . .
Hmmmmm . . . I'm gonna have to look into this.
Regarding "Overkill" . . . are you inferring that I'll be running at 1360x768 max., and thats medium resolution, so a video card that is 1 notch less, like the 8800GT or GTS might give me the same performance for Trainz ?
Perhaps you're right. But my route is really full of FPS robbing objects everywhere. All that object rendering information of the "current view" resides in the video memory, and frames get "pulled out of memory" as new ones are rendered to video memory. So each frame, in my case, has substantially more data than average. So . . . my thinking is that this is where I should spend as much as I can reasonably afford.
This is my latest section I added and the FPS is hovering around 8 FPS when a train runs through here during a driver session.
And in areas like this I'm getting 13 to 15 FPS.
If can ed up with aver all improvements of around 14 FPS and above in my worst areas, I'd be happy.
But I'll look into the ATI.
Thanks, you've been very helpful.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Yesterday nVidia put two cards together so they have the title today although the reviews were not so good yes it is the fastest but its limited by the memory on it. I think what I'm trying to say is you can get 96% of the result for 50% of the money.
The ATI 3870 with XP should give you very close to the performance of the top of the line nVidia with Vista. Top of the line nVidia with XP will give you about the max performance at the moment.
Trouble with Dell is if they have a configuration that matches what you want they are very good, if they don't it can be a problem hence some of us prefer to roll our own but then you're into the world of making sure this thing runs cool enough and the power supply is OK. Tomshardware.com and start digging.
If you have lots of scenery in Trainz then the more memory you have on the video card the less swapping you'll get which is good. Trouble is both companies top of the line cards only have 512 mb of memory on them.
To be honest what you have at the moment isn't bad other than the video card, dropping in a $200 ATI 3870 or an nVidia 9600 should give you a substantial improvement without breaking the bank.
If you look at the VGA charts on tomshardware on the light sim benchmark 1600 by 1200 with game aa and af the 7300 scores 4.9 the ATI 19.2. Yes there are nVidia cards that score 25% higher but the price is also much higher. It might be worthwhile checking with Microsoft if you can downgrade to XP if you are running Vista that should give you further gains and free up some memory. Besides the XP drivers are better developed than the Vista ones are.
For comparison my system scores about 11 on the same benchmark and I know my 2.4 P4 cpu is the bottleneck your cpu and memory are both much faster than mine.
Cheerio John
The ATI 3870 with XP should give you very close to the performance of the top of the line nVidia with Vista. Top of the line nVidia with XP will give you about the max performance at the moment.
Trouble with Dell is if they have a configuration that matches what you want they are very good, if they don't it can be a problem hence some of us prefer to roll our own but then you're into the world of making sure this thing runs cool enough and the power supply is OK. Tomshardware.com and start digging.
If you have lots of scenery in Trainz then the more memory you have on the video card the less swapping you'll get which is good. Trouble is both companies top of the line cards only have 512 mb of memory on them.
To be honest what you have at the moment isn't bad other than the video card, dropping in a $200 ATI 3870 or an nVidia 9600 should give you a substantial improvement without breaking the bank.
If you look at the VGA charts on tomshardware on the light sim benchmark 1600 by 1200 with game aa and af the 7300 scores 4.9 the ATI 19.2. Yes there are nVidia cards that score 25% higher but the price is also much higher. It might be worthwhile checking with Microsoft if you can downgrade to XP if you are running Vista that should give you further gains and free up some memory. Besides the XP drivers are better developed than the Vista ones are.
For comparison my system scores about 11 on the same benchmark and I know my 2.4 P4 cpu is the bottleneck your cpu and memory are both much faster than mine.
Cheerio John
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Perhaps not but if $200 will run 97.5% of layouts at 24 fps and $2,000 runs 98.2% at 24 fps I'm at the point that I'd go with the first solution. Don't forget the $200 solution we are talking about is better performance than the top of the line video cards of 18 months ago and people were running Trainz quite happily 18 months ago.
Cheerio John