I want a new system!

A

Approach_Medium

Trainz Addict
What do I need to run TS2010 maxed out? I want to be able to set all the sliders to max, and create large and complex routes, and still have my trainz run smoothly.

Do I need Quad core?
64 bit is a given.

I am assuming I need all the RAM I can get. 8GB min, maybe as much as 16GB?
Video? fast and lots of RAM.

Hard drives? RAID system?

I probably don't have the cash for something like this, but I would like to know what sort of machine will run Trainz the way I want to run it!

fw
 
16 gigs or RAM is really overkill for Trainz and most other applications. Some even think 8 gigs is overkill... Quad core for trainz is unneeded as of yet I believe because train only utilizes 2 cores anyway.... A very good graphics card is also a plus, however SLI or crossfire won't have much of an impact on performance.
 
I just bought a Asus at Bestbuy for $1195. It has a duel quad and 6 gb memory, HiDef 17" display and runs 2010 great.
 
Gandalf0444 said:
16 gigs or RAM is really overkill for Trainz and most other applications. Some even think 8 gigs is overkill... Quad core for trainz is unneeded as of yet I believe because train only utilizes 2 cores anyway.... A very good graphics card is also a plus, however SLI or crossfire won't have much of an impact on performance.
Click to expand...

I have 6GB and can run Trainz with PSP and Gmax and I still have a couple of GB of ram to spare, I think a faster processor would be more beneficial than 4 cores, DDR3 memory and a top range DDR5 graphics card would help a lot plus maybe a Raptor or two, myself, I'm not yet convinced of the long term benefits or life of SSD drives compared to cost.

Currently running a dual core AMD 64 X2 5200+ (2.7GHz), 6GB DDR2, Nvidia, GT240 1GB DDR5.
I get reasonably good usable draw distances by backing of the sliders for scenery and texture to normal and introducing a little daytime fog. Frame rates on the route I'm working on vary from the worst at 20FPS in one area where I think I have a problem with something as similarly busy areas are about 30FPS, to about 60 in clear areas, averages about 40FPS. Speed Trees / Ultra Treez have no impact on anything........... if you choose the right ones and don't get carried away with the numbers.
 
Lewiscc65 said:
I just bought a Asus at Bestbuy for $1195. It has a duel quad and 6 gb memory, HiDef 17" display and runs 2010 great.
Click to expand...
Asus at Bestbuy? I didn't know you could buy them at the "big box" stores.
My current system is an Asus mobo, but I built the system myself.
That is the route I will be taking for my next system as well.

I've already got a 24" wide-screen HD monitor, so I won't be needing that part.

So I guess a faster dual core would do me better than a slower quad.
8GB would be more than 2x what I now have.
What about hard drives? Does anyone use RAID0 or 10? That would be striping without and with redundancy.

The biggest problem I have on my current single core 3.4Ghz 3GB system is that when trains are moving through high complexity areas where I've got a lot of hi-poly scenery and/or trains (especially when in a large yard with lots of trains) the rate of screen refresh (not the frame rate) gets ridiculously slow.
From what I know, that is caused by the memory and CPU system.
I did upgrade my video to 512MB NVidia GeForce 9800 GTX+ about 1-1/2 yrs ago. That helped a lot for watching DVD video, and somewhat for Trainz, but there's still that awful stutter.

I've got a route that includes the CSX Selikrk yard, which can hold 8K cars. I tried once putting even a few hundred cars in there, and the game was unplayable. So I don't see any point in building any more large routes until I can replace this system.

My system will be 6yrs old in Jan!
That's far longer than I would have wanted to keep it, but I just don't have the cash.
I'm hoping to be able to make some (money) soon, and the first thing on my list is the new gaming system.

Of course, then Auran will come out with a much better version of TS, that will require even more processing, so my new system will be "old" in a hurry.

Just for curiosity; I wonder what would happen if I were to replace the mobo, RAM, and CPU while keeping the video, hard drives, and PSU in my current system.
Maybe I should do that, and then go with a new video system once I've got more cash.

OTOH, buying a new mobo and components to match the old video card might not make any sense. Something a lot better than PCIe is probably right around the corner.

And if I wait, I'll get a whole lot more for my buck than if I go peace-meal now.

FW
 
The replace Mobo, CPU and memory and add Graphics card and better drives later is the route I've been taking ever since I upgraded the only ready built PC I ever bought, an IBM XT.
 
Top of the line would be 6 gigs of memory in triple bank.

SSD disk for Trainz and content, cpu today dual core, Trainz doesn't take advantage of more at the moment except cmp will run on multiple cores, it shows up on 8 with hyper whatever.

I think some one has got two nVidia cards to work so dual top of the line nVidia.

120 Hz monitor that way if you drop to 24 frames per second heaven forbid it will still seem to be moving, a conventional 60 Hz monitor needs 30 frames per second, it needs to be a multiple.

Noise, power supply and cooling will be things for you to work out.

www.tomshardware.com when you get a little more realistic about what you can afford. To get the the last 10% of performance will more than double the price.

Cheerio John
 
I recently upgraded my 7yr old computer and I now have a reasonable mid range computer that handles 2010 very well for me. I would imagine though that in very highly detailed/complex areas I may still struggle but not that much. I am not sure you can find a computer to handle everything unless you have a lot of money.

In my researching on the forum though I found some very helpful advice and in particular for you, from johnwhelan. Sadly for certain reason John may not post to threads such as this any more :( however a search on his user name may find some interesting information.

In some post he said that based on comments from Chris (Windwalker), 2010 may/will take advantage of 4 cores if they are found on the system plus that 2010 can take advantage of 4GB of memory. So his suggestion was a Quad processor and 6GB of RAM, with 2010 using 4GB of RAM this then leaves 2GB for Windows which is more then enough.

I opted for a Core i5 750 but for maximum advantage and with the money a Core i7 would be another better choice. I am happy with mine though. A good graphic cards and motherboard would be essential.

I really have no idea about computer components and how they work together so my new computer was based on help from the Forum, reading articles at Tomshardware (see above post) and reading reviews in magazines. My computer was built for me in Sydney to my specifications.

Another thing to think about would be your case and power supply. I opted for 1000W power but that may have been a bit much and the case I choose was based on the cooling system and space inside for any expansion. My case has 3 x 120mm intake fans, 1 x 120mm and 1 x 200mm exhaust fans.

Hope this helps in some way, its the only way I know of saying "thanks to those who helped me here" :)

Craig
:):):)

I notice John has replied while I was previewing my reply :) and he has corrected/explained some of my advice above but I will not change what I have written.
 
fwassner said:
The biggest problem I have on my current single core 3.4Ghz 3GB system is that when trains are moving through high complexity areas where I've got a lot of hi-poly scenery and/or trains (especially when in a large yard with lots of trains) the rate of screen refresh (not the frame rate) gets ridiculously slow.
From what I know, that is caused by the memory and CPU system.
I did upgrade my video to 512MB NVidia GeForce 9800 GTX+ about 1-1/2 yrs ago. That helped a lot for watching DVD video, and somewhat for Trainz, but there's still that awful stutter.
Click to expand...

Its all in the graphics card - the one you bought has 512MB - am I right? You would need 1GB at least. High poly-count slowing your FPS is all down to your graphics card processing those polys.
Does that graphics card require 2 separate power supplies from the PSU? What power is your PSU - graphics cards consume lots of power, if they cant get it, it slows down dramatically, draining power to the rest of the system.
600W recommended, minimum 500W.

SSD has no impact on framerate - just loading times. Everything is loaded into your RAM before being processed by the game.
I doubt you need more than 4GB RAM.

You can see how much RAM is being used if you windowed Trainz, then had a Memory monitor on the side showing you how much is being used.
You can also see how hard your processor is working.

What DDR is on your Motherboard? DDR or DDR2?
If its socket 775 for the CPU chip - just upgrade to a Core 2 Duo 2.66 (for now - you mentioned you're low on cash).


Im running an ATI 5830 with a Core 2 Duo 2.66 (E6750), 2GB RAM, 6 year old slow harddrive (soon to upgrade) and I have all sliders to the max on everything and getting super high frame rate - no juddering at all, totally smooth and SUPERB graphics :)
 
Last edited:
AndyKay said:
Its all in the graphics card - the one you bought has 512MB - am I right? You would need 1GB at least. High poly-count slowing your FPS is all down to your graphics card processing those polys.
Does that graphics card require 2 separate power supplies from the PSU? What power is your PSU - graphics cards consume lots of power, if they cant get it, it slows down dramatically, draining power to the rest of the system.
600W recommended, minimum 500W.

SSD has no impact on framerate - just loading times. Everything is loaded into your RAM before being processed by the game.
I doubt you need more than 4GB RAM.

You can see how much RAM is being used if you windowed Trainz, then had a Memory monitor on the side showing you how much is being used.
You can also see how hard your processor is working.

What DDR is on your Motherboard? DDR or DDR2?
If its socket 775 for the CPU chip - just upgrade to a Core 2 Duo 2.66 (for now - you mentioned you're low on cash).


Im running an ATI 5830 with a Core 2 Duo 2.66 (E6750), 2GB RAM, 6 year old slow harddrive (soon to upgrade) and I have all sliders to the max on everything and getting super high frame rate - no juddering at all, totally smooth and SUPERB graphics :)
Click to expand...

The RAM on my board is DDR2, 533Mhz. The board (Asus P5AD2-E Premium) will not accept any of the dual core processors. The best I could do for a processor upgrade is go to 64 bit, but I don't see the point in doing that and nothing else (except for maybe a memory upgrade to 4Gigs from 3Gigs).

The video has 512MB. It does have the direct power connection to the PSU. I ran some tests, and found that it is not so much the FPS that is slowing, but the rate at which data is transferred between the CPU/Memory to the Video system.
I tried overclocking, but was never successful.

My PSU is the Antec True power 550W, and it appears to be doing fine.

I think I would consider an AMD processor, because of the lower power requirement. But I would not consider an ATI video system. I have read about too many problems with them and TS. Then, since ATI is owned by AMD, the combo of an AMD processor with ATI video might work better than AMD and NVidia. I like NVidia for its OpenGL. I always run TS in the OGL mode.

One thing I am doing in TS2010 is using layers to turn on and off different scenery objects. That way, I can play with things until I find what works best.

I always find that when I have two or three trains running together (or just sitting in the yard), the game becomes very choppy, but again, it's not the frame rate. Although I do sometimes see the FPS drop to around 10, it is mostly around 30.

I honestly believe that my bottleneck is the processor/memory.

I'll have to see what kind of money I can find, then see what that money will buy.

Thanks for your input

FW
 
go for quad core cpu +4 gb ram that is max memory train can utilize so 2gb will also great other important thing is graphics card you should go for atleast evga gtx 250 (avoid ino3d) 512 mb r i gb r ati 4870 or above for smooth running of trainz thats all but if u have enough budget then you can go for latest platform i mean for core i5 also a quad core cpu your power supply is ok
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-upgradable-processor-phenom-ii-x6,2731.html

Look at the thermal envelope. The new Intel cpus in 32 process draw less power. I'd be very tempted by the i3 cpu. You can always drop in a different cpu in the LGA 1156 slot later on should funds permit it.

I have a 500 watt Antec power supply with i7 whatever and an ATI 5850 with 6 gigs of memory, it seems to work reasonably well.

I'd probably look at newegg.com for cpu and motherboard combos, keep the existing video card for now, its PC express PCi express 2 is slightly better but the card can be swopped later. Look for combos that have the most reviews unless you have specific requirements. Watch the power requirements on the video card if you decide to upgrade it, this is where the costs can start to spiral.

4 gigs / 6 gigs / 8 gigs, Trainz can use 4 but the operating system Win 7 64 bit can eat a gig or more, so 6 is nice but triple channel doesn't get you that much performance wise over dual channel.

I quite like the raptor drives especially the 5 year warranty, I hate life when a hard drive dies.

"For folks considering a full upgrade, the Socket AM3 and LGA 1156 platforms are probably better long-term choices" comes from Tomshardware.

The 5850 comes up as 7.7 out of 7.9 on Windows whatever, the cpu is 7.4. The Intel SSD hard drive comes up as 5.9 by the way.

Cheerio John
 
I did a little experimenting today.
With Fraps running, I get 22 FPS at a specific location with a specific train. It starts out higher; maybe 30 FPS, but the game takes a while to load the entire route, so when I first load, some of the distant scenery, track, and everything is missing, so the display doesn't have to work as hard.

The FPS pretty much sticks at around 22 as the train starts to move. The route is not heavily populated. A few buildings, trees, but I am using hi-poly track (the JK track, and some other hi-poly tracks), but I have done some experimentation with track as well, and found it doesn't really affect my frame rate by more than one or two fps.

For curiosity, I shut off hyper-threading and my FPS dropped to 18. I guess hyper-threading is a poor man's dual core :hehe:

I'm going to see if I have any junk lying around that I can sell on Ebay. Maybe I can sell enough to buy the components I want for a new system :hehe:

FW
 
The other thing to consider is the size of your monitor.

1440 by 900 is 1,296,000 pixels, 1920x1080 is 2,073,600 pixels, 1920x1200 is 2,304,000 pixels.

Basically the power of the machine needed for a given frame rate is proportional to the number of pixels being displayed.

Cheerio John
 
Opt for a higher core speed rather than more cores in your processor. Most applications only use one core, so having a higher core speed will make them run faster.
 
johnwhelan said:
The other thing to consider is the size of your monitor.

1440 by 900 is 1,296,000 pixels, 1920x1080 is 2,073,600 pixels, 1920x1200 is 2,304,000 pixels.

Basically the power of the machine needed for a given frame rate is proportional to the number of pixels being displayed.

Cheerio John
Click to expand...
My monitor is 1920 X 1080. Maybe I should try scaling it back for TS? But I do enjoy the widescreen.

Another thing I could try is building a route that is mostly desert, with only a few cactus and tumbleweed spotted here and there. Try to keep the number of track down to 1 or 2, and use only faster track and scenery objects. Problem is, I have a thirst for realistic routes, like most other players here. I won't be truly happy until I can play the game, and not be certain of whether I have just lived, or played the session.

FW
 
Iced8383 said:
Opt for a higher core speed rather than more cores in your processor. Most applications only use one core, so having a higher core speed will make them run faster.
Click to expand...

^ what he said :cool:

i.e. you may want to spend $200. For that you'd get a quad core (2.3Ghz) but for the same price you could get a Dual core (3.0Ghz) - and the latter would be faster with TS

You'd only want Quad core is if you run multiple applications like large Photo/Video editing etc
 
AndyKay said:
^ what he said :cool:

i.e. you may want to spend $200. For that you'd get a quad core (2.3Ghz) but for the same price you could get a Dual core (3.0Ghz) - and the latter would be faster with TS

You'd only want Quad core is if you run multiple applications like large Photo/Video editing etc
Click to expand...

For $200 on Newegg ($140 to be precise) you can get a quad-core clocked at 3.2 GHz. Newegg is your friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Will it be playable with a decent experience
Replies
2
Views
468
sleek
S
D
Advice needed to chose Australian sourced desktop for Trainz
Replies
9
Views
1K
dangavel
D
R
New PC build for Trainz Etc. FINALLY finished
Replies
4
Views
888
ricomon35
R
H
GPU crashing when working on route
Replies
14
Views
757
hiawathamr
H
G
Opening route makes PC unusably slow but was absolutely fine last week
Replies
3
Views
138
JCitron
J
Back
Top