I fancy a new computer - thoughts?

[djt]

You certainly do have adequacy issues, judging from your posts. In any case, I can get a $400 rig to do for me what takes you $2,000 grand to do. Sorry that you're butthurt but perhaps if you spent less time thinking about the hardware and more time tweaking the system, you wouldn't need to spend so much.

Then again, some people just like to spend money for the illusion that they're getting something better. That's why they'll spend twice as much for a Lexus even though it's really a Toyota.

So you’re feeling inadequate because you don’t have the budget for “adequate” computer hardware and someone else has brought better toys to the sand box and this is your response.

That pretty much says it all.

We’re still waiting to see what your “$400 rig will do”, lol. Sorry but no amount of “tweaking” is going to make $400.00 worth of gaming hardware compete with $2000.00 worth when it comes to running games.

This is coming from someone who has already claimed to have issues with the “SP2 update” and suggested formatting in FAT32, yeah, you sound like a real wiz.

 

[RRSignal]

So you’re feeling inadequate because you don’t have the budget for “adequate” computer hardware and someone else has brought better toys to the sand box and this is your response.

That pretty much says it all.

We’re still waiting to see what your “$400 rig will do”, lol. Sorry but no amount of “tweaking” is going to make $400.00 worth of gaming hardware compete with $2000.00 worth when it comes to running games.

This is coming from someone who has already claimed to have issues with the “SP2 update” and suggested formatting in FAT32, yeah, you sound like a real wiz.

Not only to I feel more than adequate, I'm ECSTATIC, knowing I can build a system for 1/5 or less of what you paid to do the same thing just as well. Rather, I don't feel the need to compensate for my, um, manhood with an overpriced rig.

And, yea, FAT32 on the boot partition works well. If you knew anything about OS' or software, you'd know, like anything, it has advantages and disadvantages. For my purposes (and every system I've built for performance) it works wonderfully.

But, go ahead feeling big about yourself being able to run FS9 and TS2010 at the same time. When you figure out how to actually PLAY them at the same time, then let me know and we'll talk about whether your investment might have been worthwhile.

 

[SuperFudd]

Let's see.
Do I want to buy a new V8 Mustang or a top end Corvette.
Since there are speed limits and I would have just as much with the Mustang as I would with the Corvette, I will go with the Mustang and put the rest of the money in Amateur Radio equipment.

 

[johnwhelan]

Not only to I feel more than adequate, I'm ECSTATIC, knowing I can build a system for 1/5 or less of what you paid to do the same thing just as well. Rather, I don't feel the need to compensate for my, um, manhood with an overpriced rig.

And, yea, FAT32 on the boot partition works well. If you knew anything about OS' or software, you'd know, like anything, it has advantages and disadvantages. For my purposes (and every system I've built for performance) it works wonderfully.

But, go ahead feeling big about yourself being able to run FS9 and TS2010 at the same time. When you figure out how to actually PLAY them at the same time, then let me know and we'll talk about whether your investment might have been worthwhile.

Just a comment here many people who are into Trainz are retired and getting a machine that performs adequately at a reasonable cost is more important than having the fastest machine on the block.

Personally I prefer NTFS but that's not just for performance reasons, depending on the size of disk and a number of other factors FAT32 can be a reasonable choice for performance on the boot drive. It's to do with the amount of overhead that NTFS has. NTFS does have one very strong point on a quad system with spare cpu power if you use compression then you do get faster disk accesses when reading. Makes the most of expensive SSDs.

Cheerio John

 

[RRSignal]

Just a comment here many people who are into Trainz are retired and getting a machine that performs adequately at a reasonable cost is more important than having the fastest machine on the block.

Personally I prefer NTFS but that's not just for performance reasons, depending on the size of disk and a number of other factors FAT32 can be a reasonable choice for performance on the boot drive. It's to do with the amount of overhead that NTFS has. NTFS does have one very strong point on a quad system with spare cpu power if you use compression then you do get faster disk accesses when reading. Makes the most of expensive SSDs.

Cheerio John

That's exactly it. But I've found if I keep my FAT32 boot partition small (<80Gb), it runs pretty fast. Of course, the problem - and it's a significant one, esp. with Trainz - is that can't keep a lot of my programs on it. In fact, when I reinstall TS2010, I'm probably going to have to move it to the extended NTFS partition as my content is already up to 20-25 gigs and counting.

As far as SSDs go, I'm going to hold out awhile till they get cheaper.

 

[RRSignal]

You might be interested in this comparison, explaining the advantages/disadvantages of FAT32 versus NTFS. However, one MAJOR omission is that of Alternate Data Streams as a security threat under NTFS. While most modern AV can scan for ADS', and they are not as serious a problem as they once were, they still can be used to hide data e.g. certain "images and movies" or data generated by a keylogger.

 

[djt]

Not only to I feel more than adequate, I'm ECSTATIC, knowing I can build a system for 1/5 or less of what you paid to do the same thing just as well. Rather, I don't feel the need to compensate for my, um, manhood with an overpriced rig.

LOl, now that’s good one and one department that I most definitely don’t have a problem with, but since you have to compare that too it looks like your inadequate there also.

How about the car you drive, feeling inadequate with that also?

We’re still waiting for these screen shots that show you “can build a system for 1/5 or less of what you paid to do the same thing just as well”, prove it!

And, yea, FAT32 on the boot partition works well. If you knew anything about OS' or software, you'd know, like anything, it has advantages and disadvantages.

If you knew anything about setting up hardware for performance applications you wouldn’t have even mentioned FAT32, you really are lost.

 

[RRSignal]

LOl, now that’s good one and one department that I most definitely don’t have a problem with, but since you have to compare that too it looks like your inadequate there also.

Aww, Mr. inadequate is still butthurt! Poor little, little man!

Again, you're the one whining here. You have to prove your lack of manhood with an overpriced rig. However, I do support your right to squander your money as you see fit. I also support my right to laugh at you.

Ok, here's FS9. Which averages about 37 fps during rapid maneuvering, all settings maxed, running at 1280x1024x32. Over the city of Philadelphia, in a roughly standard-rate turn and slight dive at 250 KIAS, full-screen mode. Cockpit mode ups the average frame rate to about 60.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48103985@N02/4480558468/sizes/o/

The performance display (Ctrl-T) doesn't work under TS2010. If I get it to work, I'll let you know.

Here's MSTS, approaching Wilmington, DE at about 40 MPH, 1280x1024, all display settings to the max. Display rate is a pretty constant 57 FPS, though:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48103985@N02/4480586816/sizes/o/

 

[boc61]

How are you going to back things up? You have two conflicting requirements one is high performance for the operating system and demanding SIMs the other is cheap disk space.

Are you going Dell or build it yourself or even buy the components and get someone such as NCIX.com to put it together for you and install the operating system?

If you go do it yourself, or spec NCIX to do it then you can do something like SSD, or Raptor, plus a large 2 terabyte drive but only if you are going 64 bit Win 7. XP and 2 terabyte drives don't mix well.

The large drives don't perform to badly as they store a fair chunk of data per track, translation you don't need to move the heads as much from track to track so data reads and writes are faster.

Having a fairly small system partition makes sense in that if you suspect the machine is infected with malware it's a lot easier to reformat a small boot disk than reformat a large disk with all your data on it.

Unfortunately putting two partitions on a hard drive means you have two separate zones C: and D: and the head has to move from one zone to the other so you get a performance hit. Cp system, D: application, then back to C:. Track to track is usually given as an average value, but track to adjacent track can be .5 millisecs whilst inner to outer can be 20 milliseconds on a drive that quotes 8 milliseconds average access time.

What you need to do is balance cost against performance. If you have 6 gigs of memory then you'll cache in memory more and do less disk access than if you run with 256 mb of main memory.

It's getting the balance right that's difficult. In general disk access is measured in milliseconds, memory in nanoseconds, there are 10,000 nanos in a milli so hard disk speed can have a greater impact than cpu speed but it depends a bit on the application. Does it use a lot of disk or mainly cpu. For a database server disk speed is much more important than anything else, for a SIM it could be the bottleneck is the video card. PERFMON can help but we don't really have enough data its just educated guesses at the moment.

The new machine should get here in about ten days time if you can wait until then I can run some comparative benchmarks on the different drives.

Cheerio John

Thanks for all the replies. I've been looking at a place called Georgia Computer Workshop to build this machine. I've never owned a computer anywhere near a gaming rig, I'm using a 6 year old Dell Dimension that I bought off the shelf on eBay. I'm not a techie by any stretch and am trying to research as I go, but it can be daunting. Here is what I came up with on their configurator in my budget and using the choices they gave on the configurator. Prices are USD.

# $114 ANTEC NINE HUNDRED GAMING STEEL MID-TOWER ATX BLACK NO PS Bays:9/0/0/USB/1394 4 FANs 52553 * /QTY:1
# $83 ANTEC EA-500 *** 500W ATX 2.0 Metal EarthWatts PS 55518 * /QTY:1
# $216 ASUS P6T-SE SKT1366 ATX DDR3 2000 (6/24) PCI-E X16x3 PCIx2 Intel X58 A&GBL&1394 81881 * /QTY:1
# $328 Core_I7 930 2.80GHz INTEL SKT1366 8MB Cache Retail W/Heatsink Fan 89451 * /QTY:1
# $195 CRUCIAL CT25664AA800x3 6GB (3X2GB) DDR2 800 Non-ECC 240-pin DIMM PC2 6400 CL5 70149x3 * /QTY:1
# $44 SEAGATE ST3250318AS 250GB *** 3.5-in Internal SATA2 7200rpm 8MB BULK 83237 * /QTY:1
# $96 SEAGATE ST31000528AS 1TB **** 3.5-in Internal SATA2 7200rpm 32MB BULK 81549 * /QTY:2
# $38 PIONEER DVR-218LBK Internal SATA DVD+/-RW BLACK 22X DVD Burner BUFFER BULK 82638 * /QTY:1
# $159 EVGA 01G-P3-1145-TR NVDIA GTS 250 . 1GB PCI-Express DDR3 DVI HDMI Retail 88873 * /QTY:1
# $37 Creative Labs Sound Blaster SB0570 Audigy SE Internal PCI 7.1 Channel Bulk Pack 43674 * /QTY:1
# $26 D-LINK DGE-530T NETCARD 10/100/1000 Gigabit PCI RETAIL 25070 * /QTY:1
# $117 MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 HOME PREM Operating Systems 64-BIT DVD OEM Pack 84551 * /QTY:1
# $0 Free Assembly and Testing
# TOTAL: $1549

I also am looking at the Dell XPS 9000, but the configuration I have for it isn't much cheaper than this.

 

[djt]

Aww, Mr. inadequate is still butthurt! Poor little, little man!

Aww, Mr. dick-less is hurt over the fact that he is inadequate and clueless, poor little puke.


Hey if you’re ever in New York maybe I could teach you how to meet women, lol, that’s something else I’m very good at.


Yikes, those screens with the $400.00 PC are worse than I thought they’d be. The “blurred” scenery in FS9 is just one tell-tale sign of not setting up the hard drives properly, how’s that FAT32 going for you, lol?


So what happened to the $400.00 PC’s performance that matches the $2000.00 PC’s performance?

Anyway here’s some screens taken with the i7 and the GTX 285 before I installed the ATI 5870. The performance with the 5870 is just slightly better, I can take some new screens of FS9 to show the performance with the ATI card if anyone is interested.


The screens were originally taken at 1920x1080; 8xQ AA and 16xAF with everything maxed out in FS2004’s settings.


I’ll put up some screens of TS2010 and RailWorks next.



http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8973/fs91.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/7550/fs92g.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3089/fs94.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3008/fs96.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2786/fs97.jpg

 

[RRSignal]

Thanks for all the replies. I've been looking at a place called Georgia Computer Workshop to build this machine. I've never owned a computer anywhere near a gaming rig, I'm using a 6 year old Dell Dimension that I bought off the shelf on eBay. I'm not a techie by any stretch and am trying to research as I go, but it can be daunting. Here is what I came up with on their configurator in my budget and using the choices they gave on the configurator. Prices are USD.

Wow, nice rig. If you've followed this thread, you'll notice that the rig matters less than the OS and how well you tweak it. TS2010 runs pretty well on a minimum-to-below-spec machine. If your goal is just to run Trainz and do other things like DVD video editing, you can do well and spend lots less. If you're gonna do HD editing and play FSX, or want to future-proof your system so you can play Trainz 2014, perhaps, then you might (or might not) do better to get a higher-end rig.

Let's keep it simple: Start with your OS. XP is lean and mean, especially when properly tweaked. W7 is a vast improvement over Vista, but that's relative - it's still a resource-intensive OS. If you have software that NEEDS W7 then, logically, you should go for it (or, at least, set up a dual-boot machine with XP.) Absent that, hold off and stick with what works.

I see an awful lot of people running high-end machines in part because the OS itself is such a resource hog.

TS2010 can benefit somewhat from 64-bit extensions, so if you don't mind buying a new OS, XP 64 may help. However, the XP that probably came with your old Dimension is tied to Dell BIOS, so you can't reuse it. Therefore, absent additional info, you're probably going to be at a crossroads - stick with what works well, or gamble on the new guy. I should point out that W7 Home does not have an XP compatibility mode, which might be an issue.

You indicated you want to run a flight sim, but which one? FS2004 runs awesome under a very low-spec machine. FSX, on the other hand, needs a hot processor. As an aviation freak and a currently-inactive commercial pilot, I'm not impressed enough with FSX to consider spending the extra money for the hardware you'd need to run FSX acceptably. Remember that's a personal opinion; if you really like it, go for it.

Couple questions though:

Why a separate NIC card? That mobo has a NIC built in.

A lot of people say a separate sound card is nice, but, personally, on-board audio is good enough, especially for something like Trainz.

I do consider a 500w PSU to be WAY underpowered. GPUs can load a PSU considerably, let alone the CPU, drives, etc. I have seen too many systems fail because of a weak PSU. I think a 250 requires about a minimum 18A or 20A +12VDC rail (I know the 220 needs at least 18A) so go above the minimum specs as far as your PSU is concerned.

I dislike ASUS intensely, as I've gotten screwed on some of their products. YMMV. I do recommend, if you have not done so already, checking out their
QVL or compatibility charts for CPU and memory compatibility.

Finally, a word of advice: Don't buy OEM products, especially hard drives. Get retail boxed. Just trust me on this.

 

[RRSignal]

Duplicate post deleted

 

[RRSignal]

Aww, Mr. dick-less is hurt over the fact that he is inadequate and clueless, poor little puke.

Aww, Mr. Inadequate, you blew all that money for that.

FSX looks nice.

Not $1,600+ worth nice.

FS9 looks great on my machine. IMO a bit better than the screenies.

Hey if you’re ever in New York maybe I could teach you how to meet women, lol, that’s something else I’m very good at.

Teaching people how to meet women by arguing how Captain Picard is so superior to Captain Kirk? Good luck with that.

Yikes, those screens with the $400.00 PC are worse than I thought they’d be. The “blurred” scenery in FS9 is just one tell-tale sign of not setting up the hard drives properly, how’s that FAT32 going for you, lol?

Um, you clearly don't know what you are talking about, that's FS9's dithering of scenery (summer haze, in this case.) Don't b!tch to me, b!tch to Microsoft.

Also, you've never flown a plane, obviously.

So what happened to the $400.00 PC’s performance that matches the $2000.00 PC’s performance?

Crap, I'm ecstatic! A $2000 PC is pretty, no dispute; A $400 one does the job for far, far less.

P.S. While I am strongly tempted to accuse you of doctoring the frame rates (based on experience), it really doesn't matter. Please tell me: Exactly how does the eye perceive a supposed 160 fps (laugh) frame rate versus a 30 or 60 fps one? Please cite studies and video proof.

Anyway here’s some screens taken with the i7 and the GTX 285 before I installed the ATI 5870. The performance with the 5870 is just slightly better, I can take some new screens of FS9 to show the performance with the ATI card if anyone is interested.

ibid.

The screens were originally taken at 1920x1080; 8xQ AA and 16xAF with everything maxed out in FS2004’s settings.

Um, you DO realize that FSX ***is not*** FS2004/FS9, right?

Oh, also just noticed - your images are only 1280x720.

 

[djt]

you'll notice that the rig matters less than the OS and how well you tweak it.

So what’s your excuse for the examples of dismal performance, not enough OS tweaking?

 

[RRSignal]

So what’s your excuse for the examples of dismal performance, not enough OS tweaking?

OS works great. What's your excuse for spending 5x what I paid for, really, nothing?

 

[RRSignal]

Also, why did you run every one of your pics through Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0? Unless you needed to doctor your pix...

 

[djt]

FSX looks nice.

Not $1,600+ worth nice.

FS9 looks great.

Sorry I didn’t put up the FSX screens yet, that’s FS9.

Um, you clearly don't know what you are talking about, that's FS9's dithering of scenery. Don't b!tch to me, b!tch to Microsoft.

Also, you've never flown a plane, obviously.

Sorry again I don’t get “dithering of scenery” in FS9 as my screen shots clearly show.

Yes I’ve flown Cessna 172’s and 152’s, I grew up with an aviation fanatic father, and then it was on to getting paid to be at the throttle of 14,000 ton trains as well as rail traffic controller.

P.S. While I am strongly tempted to accuse you of doctoring the frame rates (based on experience), please tell me: Exactly how does the eye perceive a supposed 160 fps (laugh) frame rate versus a 30 or 60 fps one? Please cite studies and video proof.

Really think again, I’d love to get you into one of the flight sim forums. How about you ask other i7 users about what kind of performance their getting with FS9 and see if their “doctoring the frame rates”.

Surely you can’t be this naive about what current high end hardware is capable of?

Um, you DO realize that FS9 ***is*** FS2004, right? Not FSX either.

Oh, also just noticed - your images are only 1280x720.

Do you?

As I said the screens were originally taken at 1920x1080 (on a 1080p 32” HDTV).
They were resized to 1280x720 before I put them up on Image Shack.

If you know of a way to put the screens up at the full 1920x1080 here in this forum let me know I’d be more than happy to.

 

[djt]

Also, why did you run every one of your pics through Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0? Unless you needed to doctor your pix...

Wow you really are clueless, duh, it’s called resizing.
Please I dare you to share your stupidly over at Simforums.com, do you live under a rock?

 

[RRSignal]

Sorry I didn’t put up the FSX screens yet, that’s FS9.

Prove it.

Sorry again I don’t get “dithering of scenery” in FS9 as my screen shots clearly show.

Dithering is a technique to blend objects with hard edges together. Related to it is "haze" which, while I don't know to be a technical term for graphic designers, it very evident in summer weather at altitude.

Yes I’ve flown Cessna 172’s and 152’s, I grew up with an aviation fanatic father, and then it was on to getting paid to be at the throttle of 14,000 ton trains as well as rail traffic controller.

Wow, I flew turboprops. Then corpjets, albeit very briefly.

Really think again, I’d love to get you into one of the flight sim forums. How about you ask other i7 users about what kind of performance their getting with FS9 and see if their “doctoring the frame rates”.

Um, not into fora where geeks get together and demonstrate how little they know about real-world ops and how frame rates matter more than knowing what they are doing (IOW, been there, done that, way too much), but if you know a verifiable real-world corpjet or major carrier pilot then I would love to talk person-to-person.

Surely you can’t be this naive about what current high end hardware is capable of?

I am well aware of what it can do. I am also well aware of the price.

I am well aware of what a Ferrari can do. I am well aware of what an STI can do. I am also well aware that there's a *HUGE HUGE HUGE* difference in price for a relatively small benefit versus cost.

Especially considering that by driving the STI better, I can at least partially if not totally offset the Ferrari's better capabilities.

As I said the screens were originally taken at 1920x1080 (on a 1080p 32” HDTV).

They were resized to 1280x720 before I put them up on Image Shack.

If you know of a way to put the screens up at the full 1920x1080 here in this forum let me know I’d be more than happy to.

I don't have a problem putting my images up in flickr at original resolution.

 

[RRSignal]

Wow you really are clueless, duh, it’s called resizing.

Riiiight. Ok, sure.

I didn't have to resize for flickr. I like flickr because supposed limit is about 30 MP.

For the umpteenth time, yet again and again and again, you've demonstrated that you clearly don't know WTF you are doing.