ATI/4.5's

[Silver1SWA]

Well Jbaymore has had performance issues from the start and when compared to other computer similar to his, like mine for example, his performance falls short.  This still boggles my mind to this day, and I am sure he is just about fed up with it.  I am beginning to think his problem has to do with his 4X slot.  After changing things as he has, and upgrading to such a high end card, nothing has helped.  I'd say the last thing he hasn't tried yet is changing to a 8X AGP slot.  That just might have been the problem all along seeing as how everything else has failed in his attempt to even get his computer performing like others in his range.

[_526th_Fireman]

Poor JBaymore, I agree and think there is a Gremlin in his machine somewhere.

Concerning the ATI Catalyst 4.5s, I have been using Omega drivers for awhile now and like them. I downloaded the Omega 2.5.36b drivers that are based on the Catalyst 4.5s and like these too. With settings pretty much maxed out, detailed clouds, 100% traffice with tons of PAI and default AI flying around at DFW, I am able to maintain 20 to 25 fps. Sometimes with a little dip here and there but always smooth flying. Very nice!

I think the 4.5s are worth getting and trying out as unlike other Display Adapter Driver upgrades, these DO seem to make an improvement, IMHO of course. ;-)

[cavity]

I too have followed JBaymore and his computer problems, as he and I have very similar computers.  I also feel that my computer is not performing up to specs compared with others.  I have a Pent 4  at 2.6, 800FSB, 9600 Pro, 1 Gig of DDR 400, and an 80 gig, 7200 rpm hard drive.  I have updated everything, but the real problem is  I have no idea what kind of performance Im supposed to be getting.  To compare to others isnt really  much good, as everyone knows, there are tons of little things that seem to make a difference.  I guess maybe I should bench mark it and use that as a guide. I have mine locked at 24fps, and everything maxed except water effects(none), and autogen on normal.  I have cloud set at 70 miles, highly detailed and 70% 3d.  The biggest drag on my system seems to be Ai aircraft.  I fly out of Atlanta and from the spot view get a maximum of 10-11 fps.  Out of LAX 12-13 max.  Is this good, I dont know?  I guess it seems like alot of lower systems are out performing this by at least 10-20%.  I have thought about reloading the game and starting over, but at this point I probably have 50 hours of downloads invested and backing all of this up and reloading it isnt an option.  I just wish I knew if my computer is performing  the way it is supposed to.  I do have the AGP at 8x, but it didnt change anything when I tried 4x, so I am out of ideas.  Good luck to those still searching!  Todd

[_526th_Fireman]

Cavity...Just for fun, I set my game up, as you mentioned as far as FS9 settings. Flew out of Hartsfield in Atlanta in spot view. I am running a resolution of 1280X1024X32. I was getting 20-26 fps on runway. In air, still in spot view with Hartsfield in sight, that really drug me down to 15-18 fps. The only thing I could find that really helped up the fps was selecting a minimal setting in weather/clouds. In cockpit there is no problem at all, even using the Mini Panel.

Specs: P4 2.8 HT, 800 FSB, 1Gig PC3200 400 FSB, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128, 80 Gig HD. NEC Multisync LCD1700V.

Hope that gave you an idea to compare your machine to.

[nickle]

There is little performance increase 4x to 8x AGI in THG tests. Some improvement but not much.
ATI has been criticized in the past for not issuing drivers.  Now complaint of too many updates? ATI does recommend not upgrading unless problem or running an app they specifically fixed.  Barring a specific fix, I'll update 4.4 later this year.  

[Silver1SWA]

[quote]There is little performance increase 4x to 8x AGI in THG tests. Some improvement but not much.
ATI has been criticized in the past for not issuing drivers.

[nickle]

Read the THG test here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard ... index.html

Here is another test showing 1 percent 4x to 8x

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/vi ... d=604&pg=2

Two other tests:  One zero and the other 3 to 5 percent.

Newer cards, apps, and cards and drivers will likely benefit from 8X more than older cards.  But not the apparent 100 percent increase 4X to 8X.

Similar in CPU's.  AMD 2000 to AMD 3000 apparent performance increase is 50 percent.  THG tests show an increase of 28 percent.  Substantial but not as expected.

[Delta_]

This link shows a good comparison, agp 8x is only just ahead for the mx440, and for the ti 4200 they are approximently the same.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20 ... 28-07.html

[cavity]

Fireman, thanks for the comparison, I have been away and just checked the boards. It appears that you also have much better performance from your system than I do.  2.8 vs 2.6, and 9800 vs 9600, seems to give you about 4-6 fps average more than myself.  Doesnt seem like much but when you are talking about low end being 16 fps compared to 11, the difference is considerable.  I realized this weekend that while I have a gig of ram, I am not running it in parallel, so I may be limiting my FSB to 400 mhz.  I am going to get another stick of 512, and replace the 2 sticks of 256.  Maybe running it in parallel will help.  Anyway, thanks again for the comparison, Ill let you know if I find anything.  Todd

[Silver1SWA]

I am discovering that my computer and FS9 absolutely work best with the Omega 2.4.96c drivers that are based off the ATI cat 3.9s!