CALLING ALL COMPUTER TECHS : Lets Clear things up !

johnwhelan,

Once again you are making a LOT of sense . . . and I can't ignore what you said.

As with any "electronic" gears . . . the closer you get to the top . . . you pay loads of money for very little real world gains in performance. I do understand that. Paying $200~$300 more to get that last few more FPS is a lot of money to spend for gains that are questionable if it will REALLY BUY that few extra FPS.

I had to re-evaluate the wisdom of a NEW computer at this time.
1. OK . . . this is a hobby after all.
2. There are other "wants" that I've been waiting to take care of like a Blue Ray player, better camera etc. on a long list . . . we all have this list :hehe:
3. After much poking around, the conclusion is that I will have to build my own to get a system I'd really like and thats over $2500 in cost.
4. My work environment is moving in the direction of "Rivet", the next generation of AutoCad thats heavily 3D based that requires a VERY fast computer. This would be a good excuse for me to spend a good sum of money for my home workstation with a 1080p monitor . . . which should run Trainz very nicely AND it will be an income producing computer.

So . . . I'm back to UPGRADING my current computer. After checking at tomshardware.com . . . I've come to realize what feeble performance my card is showing. A $75 card was at least twice as better than what I have.

I was really sold on the 8800 GTX SC but by the time I upgrade the power supply, its still an investment around $500 or so. I paid $575 for my computer. Perhaps THIS is a picture of an OVERKILL :hehe:

I read the review by C-net on the nVidia 9600 GT. First of all, its impossible to ignore the price/performance ratio. At a street price of $180 to $200 you are getting, basically an over clocked 8800 GT. It is still a card based on the same processor found in the 8800 series. The new 9xxx name is more a marketing move than anything else. The specs are impressive but how that translates to real world, specially Trainz . . . your guess is as good as mine.

THE PRICE is perfect for an UPGRADE. While I considered the ATI 3870, the 8800gt (nearest kin to 9600) seems to edge out the 3870 . . . plus I like nVidia.

I found a super-clocked version of the 9600 for $219. I think this is what I'm going to get. I'll probably order it today. While I do not give too much credence to specs, the Core Clock is stepped up to 740Mhz, Memory clock to 1950Mhz, Shader clock to 1835Mhz and has 64 stream processors, 512MB RAM and Memory Bandwidth is at 62.4GB/sec. Quite respectable on paper for a $220 card. Minimum power requirement is at 400 watts.

I will also up the power supply to 600 watt ($60) and keep the existing on a shelf as back-up . . . ya never know.

In a year or so, when I build my new computer it will have an SLI motherboard so I can still use this card and possibly add another one . . . or two. So it won't be a wasted investment when the new computer is built.

To benefit others in similar upgrade mood, I'll run a before and after comparison using FRAPS on my route and the Marias Pass built-in route in a couple of weeks.

Thanks again johnwhelan . . . I owe you one.

Now... I wonder if that highly raved Panasonic Blue Ray player has come down in price . . . :udrool: :hehe:
 
Hi edion2,
Home built or turn key? Third option is a custom built system, where you specify the components, and specs. get good advice, and it is built for you by a reputable firm of your choice. My experience is that these are no dearer than a turn key system and you get a guarantee.
Just my two penny worth :) .

DaveW
 
edion2 said:
johnwhelan,

Once again you are making a LOT of sense . . . and I can't ignore what you said.

As with any "electronic" gears . . . the closer you get to the top . . . you pay loads of money for very little real world gains in performance. I do understand that. Paying $200~$300 more to get that last few more FPS is a lot of money to spend for gains that are questionable if it will REALLY BUY that few extra FPS.

I had to re-evaluate the wisdom of a NEW computer at this time.
1. OK . . . this is a hobby after all.
2. There are other "wants" that I've been waiting to take care of like a Blue Ray player, better camera etc. on a long list . . . we all have this list :hehe:
3. After much poking around, the conclusion is that I will have to build my own to get a system I'd really like and thats over $2500 in cost.
4. My work environment is moving in the direction of "Rivet", the next generation of AutoCad thats heavily 3D based that requires a VERY fast computer. This would be a good excuse for me to spend a good sum of money for my home workstation with a 1080p monitor . . . which should run Trainz very nicely AND it will be an income producing computer.

So . . . I'm back to UPGRADING my current computer. After checking at tomshardware.com . . . I've come to realize what feeble performance my card is showing. A $75 card was at least twice as better than what I have.

I was really sold on the 8800 GTX SC but by the time I upgrade the power supply, its still an investment around $500 or so. I paid $575 for my computer. Perhaps THIS is a picture of an OVERKILL :hehe:

I read the review by C-net on the nVidia 9600 GT. First of all, its impossible to ignore the price/performance ratio. At a street price of $180 to $200 you are getting, basically an over clocked 8800 GT. It is still a card based on the same processor found in the 8800 series. The new 9xxx name is more a marketing move than anything else. The specs are impressive but how that translates to real world, specially Trainz . . . your guess is as good as mine.

THE PRICE is perfect for an UPGRADE. While I considered the ATI 3870, the 8800gt (nearest kin to 9600) seems to edge out the 3870 . . . plus I like nVidia.

I found a super-clocked version of the 9600 for $219. I think this is what I'm going to get. I'll probably order it today. While I do not give too much credence to specs, the Core Clock is stepped up to 740Mhz, Memory clock to 1950Mhz, Shader clock to 1835Mhz and has 64 stream processors, 512MB RAM and Memory Bandwidth is at 62.4GB/sec. Quite respectable on paper for a $220 card. Minimum power requirement is at 400 watts.

I will also up the power supply to 600 watt ($60) and keep the existing on a shelf as back-up . . . ya never know.

In a year or so, when I build my new computer it will have an SLI motherboard so I can still use this card and possibly add another one . . . or two. So it won't be a wasted investment when the new computer is built.

To benefit others in similar upgrade mood, I'll run a before and after comparison using FRAPS on my route and the Marias Pass built-in route in a couple of weeks.

Thanks again johnwhelan . . . I owe you one.

Now... I wonder if that highly raved Panasonic Blue Ray player has come down in price . . . :udrool: :hehe:
Click to expand...


i've just upgraded to a pair of 9600's my " Fraps in Trains " & 3dmark scores before & after here

Dave

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=23637
 
big_b said:
i've just upgraded to a pair of 9600's my " Fraps in Trains " & 3dmark scores before & after here

Dave

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=23637
Click to expand...

Could you be very nice and run either the TC or TRS2006 benchmark.

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=17294&highlight=benchmark

That way we get a result that can be compared to other systems.

I'll ask the same to edion2 as well. The before one is just as important as the after as it allows people with a similar configuration to see what the effect of a particular upgrade will be.

Thanks John
 
johnwhelan,

Sure, I can do that . . . I hope I don't muck it all up . . . it sounds simple enough.

In another thread Dermmy reported in response to my statement that "I'm expecting a decent improvement in FPS"

"Don't count on it! I recently went from a 7600GT 256mb to a 8800GTS OC 640mb for no fps gain. Nil - zip - nuffink.

reason - my Intel 6300 dual core was already throwing everything the graphics engine could produce at the old card, the faster card was redundant on a ten year-old graphics engine....."

Could this be an isolated incident ? I'm thinking somehow a setting or a switch got changed. Although the E6300 is a middle-of-the-road processor, its a bit hard for me to swallow that its that slow.

Is there a test that can be done so anyone can get an idea about their computer whether its the CPU is waiting for the GPU or visa versa ??

I'm a little worried . . . . . :confused:
 
johnwhelan said:
Could you be very nice and run either the TC or TRS2006 benchmark.

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=17294&highlight=benchmark

That way we get a result that can be compared to other systems.

I'll ask the same to edion2 as well. The before one is just as important as the after as it allows people with a similar configuration to see what the effect of a particular upgrade will be.

Thanks John
Click to expand...

Heres the results

\Auran\TRS2006
bin\Trainz.exe -driver=41078:1001300 -intro=disable -1024 -Render=DirectX

Single gpu
Averaged 48.783898fps over 298.787109sec sliders to max
Averaged 74.925792fps over 313.777130sec sliders default

Duel gpu
Averaged 46.313611fps over 302.546051sec sliders to max
Averaged 72.332365fps over 312.764557sec sliders default

Theres not much difference between single & duel gpu's
But the biggest noticeable difference was the way the game ran with sliders to default it seemed to be very jumpy with scenery popping up especially track about 200mtrs in front of the consist.
However with the sliders maxed out the scenery was more stable as it was appearing up to 3-4 times that distance ahead & less noticable when being added.Even with the lower frame rates the overall appearance & performance appeared more acceptable & flowing as it progressed.


Dave
 
edion2 said:
johnwhelan,

Sure, I can do that . . . I hope I don't muck it all up . . . it sounds simple enough.

In another thread Dermmy reported in response to my statement that "I'm expecting a decent improvement in FPS"

"Don't count on it! I recently went from a 7600GT 256mb to a 8800GTS OC 640mb for no fps gain. Nil - zip - nuffink.

reason - my Intel 6300 dual core was already throwing everything the graphics engine could produce at the old card, the faster card was redundant on a ten year-old graphics engine....."

Could this be an isolated incident ? I'm thinking somehow a setting or a switch got changed. Although the E6300 is a middle-of-the-road processor, its a bit hard for me to swallow that its that slow.

Is there a test that can be done so anyone can get an idea about their computer whether its the CPU is waiting for the GPU or visa versa ??

I'm a little worried . . . . . :confused:
Click to expand...

That's the idea behind the benchmark thread. The more variation we get the better the predictability of the results. Run the benchmark and compare your scores to mine, if any cpu is underpowered its probably mine, P4 2.4 are not the top of the line anymore.

Also aa and af settings can have a major impact.

Cheerio John
 
OK . . . I ran the Benchmark ! I surprised myself by doing it right the first try . . . not bad for a "computer dummy" like myself.

1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo E6300, 3GB RAM, XP-Home SP2, GeForce 7300LE 512MB
Result : Averaged 28.270691fps over 297.941071sec
So . . . What does this mean ? other than "My video card is crap !"

johnwhelan's result :
"My machine's results:
TrainzLogEnd> Averaged 38.230028fps over 298.011810sec
P4 2.4, 2gigs ecc dual channel, 256MB ATI X850 XT PE video card running at 4 aa 8 af 1440 by 900 at 60 hz."

johnwhelan, please expand on "aa" and "af" setting. I would assume this is something done within the "video card set up program" that comes bundled with the card ?

------------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong . . .
Looking at Big_b's result . . . it seems to indicate that Trainz is not capable or not very good at taking advantage of dual-card configuration. Perhaps, like in the CPU situation, Trainz only "sees" one GPU. I read somewhere in one of the threads, a user with a quad-core reported "CPU load never exceeded 25%".

Sure wish we had more results from multiple card users. There is a decent price difference between SLI or Crossfire motherboard v.s. regular motherboards. Why go to a dual board set up if Trainz can't take advantage of it . . . unless you run other "latest-n-greatest" 3D games.

I'm placing an order for an NV 9600 and a new power supply this afternoon . . . . . . GULP ! I'm ordering from Tiger Direct with "satisfaction guaranteed - 90 day return". . . seems Comp USA is going out f business.
 
edion2 said:
OK . . . I ran the Benchmark ! I surprised myself by doing it right the first try . . . not bad for a "computer dummy" like myself.

1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo E6300, 3GB RAM, XP-Home SP2, GeForce 7300LE 512MB
Result : Averaged 28.270691fps over 297.941071sec
So . . . What does this mean ? other than "My video card is crap !"

johnwhelan's result :
"My machine's results:
TrainzLogEnd> Averaged 38.230028fps over 298.011810sec
P4 2.4, 2gigs ecc dual channel, 256MB ATI X850 XT PE video card running at 4 aa 8 af 1440 by 900 at 60 hz."

johnwhelan, please expand on "aa" and "af" setting. I would assume this is something done within the "video card set up program" that comes bundled with the card ?

------------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong . . .
Looking at Big_b's result . . . it seems to indicate that Trainz is not capable or not very good at taking advantage of dual-card configuration. Perhaps, like in the CPU situation, Trainz only "sees" one GPU. I read somewhere in one of the threads, a user with a quad-core reported "CPU load never exceeded 25%".

Sure wish we had more results from multiple card users. There is a decent price difference between SLI or Crossfire motherboard v.s. regular motherboards. Why go to a dual board set up if Trainz can't take advantage of it . . . unless you run other "latest-n-greatest" 3D games.

I'm placing an order for an NV 9600 and a new power supply this afternoon . . . . . . GULP ! I'm ordering from Tiger Direct with "satisfaction guaranteed - 90 day return". . . seems Comp USA is going out f business.
Click to expand...

Well if my cpu is a lot slower than yours and I get 10 fps faster than yours on the benchmark but my graphics card is faster you can assume putting in a faster graphics card will get you at least 10 fps more or 30% faster and since the new graphics card is much faster than mine it should be a lot more.

Or in simpler terms "Your video card is crap !"

aa and af settings are normally set with the utility that comes with your graphics card. Basically the bigger the numbers the less jaggies you get it sort of says how much power do you want to allocate to the game and how much to getting rid of the jaggies.

Which benchmark did you run the TC one? I'll add your results to the benchmark thread so others can compare.

Thanks John
 
Last edited:
johnwhelan,

The one I ran was th Toronto Railands one with the RDC coming out of the Union Station then through the yard to the next station.

OK . . . the doctor says . . . "my computer is constipated . . . full of crap !":hehe:

I'm ordering the 9600 right now.:udrool:

Thanks
 
I GOT MY NEW 9600 CARD !!

ITS HERE !! AND I INSTALLED IT !!

ETA was supposed to be tomorrow . . . but UPS came at 6pm !!

OK here is the new result :

Toronto Rail lands - RDC ride

NEW : nVidia 9600GT (SSC - super clocked edition) 512MB
in a Core 2 Duo E6300 - 3GB RAM system - TRS2006 build 3337

TRS2006 Benchmark test with all settings at "default":
Averaged 69.018187 fps over 306.165680 sec. !!
Old card : nVidia 7300LE 512MB : Averaged 28.270691fps over 297.941071sec

WHAT A DIFFERENCE !!

OTHER RESULTS USING "FRAPS".
settings: display at 1360X768 (I think I'll drop to 1280X720)
detail : max
both draw distance : max
train poly count ; max

Maria's Pass route - the Amtrak ride session.
"Out in the country" : new card - 57 to 60 fps / old card 25 to 30 fps
"cut Bank station" : new card 26 to 30 fps / old card 15 to 20 fps
"passing on coming train" new card 28 to 32 fps / old card 15 to 18 fps

City and Country route - Commodity tutorial session.
No matter where I went, 45fps was the lowest read out. Old card - 30 fps

The most important . . . My route, SC Western.
My route is extremely complex . . . realism takes priority over FPS. It taxes BOTH the CPU and the Video Card.

The new card yielded MXED RESULTS :
My worst area : No difference 7 to 9 FPS.

oh well . . .

Main yard : my second worst area
Without other trains : new card 16 to 20 fps / old card 10 to 12 fps
about 60% better . . . I like it
With another 30+ car train: new card 12 to 14 fps
Its liveable . . .

Out in the country :
As predicted, the result varied depending on location but hovered around 18 to 22 fps but on occasion it will start to go into mid and upper 20s.
With the old card I rarely saw 19 fps and NEVER went into the 20's but averaged 15 to 18 fps. Thats about a 25% improvement.


I really over do the scenery. Most of you are more economical with scenery objects and textures. Please remember that my route is more an exception than what an average route's complexity is. So you are somewhere between what my route looks like and what Maria's Pass route looks like.

MY CONCLUSION :
Do I like the card ? YES
Was it worth $220? I'M PRETTY SURE IT IS.

The very likely reason that I am seeing very little to no improvement in my really bad FPS robbing area is that the CPU is at its limit. Intel's E6300 is a middle-of-the-road CPU. There are some unfinished sections in my mainline where there are no trees planted or any accent textures are applied . . . when running through these areas the FPS goes up to 30 to 35 fps . . . Smoooooth, but boreing. The CPU is capable of processing data at a speed to produce the improved FPS.

Locomotives, then rolling stocks are the most high-poly objects we use. When I pass an on-coming train, the FPS drops to 11 or 12. My CPU is nearly at its limit.

So the new card is revealing my new bottleneck . . . the CPU. The FPS result from the built-in routes are excellent. Which means if you have a Core 2 Duo of 1.8Ghz or higher with at least 2GB Ram, the nVidia 9600GT should prove to be a good investment.

But, if your route is as complicated as mine, you'll need something in the 3Ghz Core 2 Duo or better. My next upgrade would be a Q6600 CPU or higher and a new motherboard.

Installation
The video card installation was a snap. I had plenty of room in my mid-tower case but . . . this is a big card. You might want to check if it will fit your computer case before you buy it.

You will most likely need a new power supply . . . like I did.Replacing the power supply was a bit of a challenge. I got the 600W Ultra X Pro. The problem was the 4-pin 12 volt cable going to the motherboard . . . IT DIDN'T HAVE ONE !! Even though it shows this connector on the box AND in the install instruction . . . it was missing. Yes, I looked a dozen times. It only came with the 8-pin 12 volt cable for the server type board. So I had to splice in the old connector to 4 of the wires. All 12 volt wires are yellow and black. So I connected the yellow to yellow and black to black. I plugged it in and crossed my finger when I turned it on . . . it worked.

Well . . . I sure hope this helps someone decide on a card. You can make a better informed guess as to how much improvement you might expect from a new 9600GT by comparing my system to yours. Then run the FRAPS on the two 2006 built-in route and compare your old card's FPS to my old card . . . then guess.

I think I'm good till Christmas . . .
 
Thanks for all the info, glad the new card is giving you such a great improvement.

Does anyone know if there's AGP version of the 9600GT?

John
 
Best nVidia I could find in ACP is the 7900 GT 512 Mb card (Overclockers in the UK).

I'm running a 6600 GT (AGP) and that seesm to handle all the cpu can throw at it (i.e.nTune didn't find any improvement by overclocking the GPU compared with the CPU).

I'd guess that as AGP is "old technology" that's the fastest we'll find...

HTH
Colin
 
...'bought a 8800GT...

8)...Great!

Now that wasn't hard...was it.

I paid US$260.00, and slide the settings, if I wish.

I watch TV.
 
ColPrice2002 said:
Best nVidia I could find in ACP is the 7900 GT 512 Mb card (Overclockers in the UK).

I'm running a 6600 GT (AGP) and that seesm to handle all the cpu can throw at it (i.e.nTune didn't find any improvement by overclocking the GPU compared with the CPU).

I'd guess that as AGP is "old technology" that's the fastest we'll find...

HTH
Colin
Click to expand...

I believe that ATI has the faster and the most cards still made for AGP. eg x1950pro or HD3850pro, approx 100 and 150 pounds ( inc VAT ) respectively. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=56&sortby=nameAsc&subid=403&mfrid=

John
 
I've just got at 9600GT (arrived this weekend). The increase in FPS over my ancient ATI 9600 is fantastic BUT I can't get the anti-aliasing to work. I have set it up in the NVIDIA control panel but no matter what value I use it makes no difference. This makes the image quality worse than the old ATI card which is rather annoying given the >£100 spent on the card. Anyone else have this problem with NVIDIA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Stuttering graphics.
Replies
10
Views
702
JCitron
J
M
Anyone running Intel Arc GPU's? (Horrid FPS, New Pc)
Replies
4
Views
139
MAGLEVSX
M
S
New Computer
Replies
10
Views
188
johnwhelan
J
C
best choice?
Replies
10
Views
321
oldman777
O
S
What stock PC is best for Trainz 2019?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Paul_Bert
P
Back
Top