I'm thinking about returning my Dell XPS 3.2Ghz machine

**rmurdoch** · 08-20-2003, 03:23 PM

I have to say, as of right now I think I will be returning my Dell XPS 3.2Ghz machine (1Gb ram, Radeon 9800 Pro)I got last week. I'm not exactly sure what I was expecting, but I didn't get all THAT much improvement over my year-plus old Dell Dimension 4400 2Ghz (512Mb ram, GeForce3 TI500) box. I ran FS2004 on the old box a few weeks before getting the new one, and seem to get about the same performance. I did notice the Radeon glitches on the new 'puter, and tried the fixes, but FPS plummeted to low single digits. Maybe the next level of Intel/AMD processing will be the system to run FS2004 at huge numbers. I include here some screenshots of my system settings, and a flight using real weather as of today. The screenies with clear weather are too large to upload here, but never was my FPS up to 20 (locked @ 20). The AI traffic is default M$ GA traffic, and all of the current PAI download packages. If I get mid-single digits into KORD now, what when UT comes out for FS2004? Maybe I'm asking too much, but I really expected a jump from my older sustem to the new. How long before the Pentium5 4Ghz's are out?

Rob

**wathomas777** · 08-20-2003, 03:27 PM

I've heard that running AA through the program is a killer on frames. Many people have turned off AA and run an a much higher resolution and are experiencing much better performance.

I think your AA is killing you.

**bostona1** · 08-20-2003, 03:38 PM

Hi Rob,
I have pretty much the same machine as you from Dell, except only 512 ram and a Geforce TI4600 that I put in myself. All I can tell you is that in FS2002, I could pretty much max out most sliders, and sometimes AI traffic, and maintain about 24fps most all the time, however when in FS2004, I have to turn the sliders back quite abit, and knock down the AI to about 50% to get a smooth running sim. In FS2002, I never seemed to get any stuttering---jumping, but I encounter it every so often in FS2004. I love FS2004 for the weather, atc, etc., but have to say that FS2002 runs the best on my computer. I use them both, more so FS2002.

Paul

doncarlos · 08-20-2003, 03:43 PM

Good information I too have been told to wait for the P5 as the improvement is not worth the price just yet.

Boeing_747 · 08-20-2003, 03:44 PM

Have u tried the latest drivers for ur graphics card ? The DELL XPS is one hell of a system.. ( a monster !),I'd dream to get one of those....... U could have straight 20 FPS locked and running in that system configuration. Maybe something is missing ....u might wanna check everything before returning it..But, IMO at that system configuration ur comp shouldn't have any slutters ....

**xcd12344** · 08-20-2003, 03:45 PM

I run FS2004 with just about the same settings as you. I have a Dell with dual 2.4GHz Xeons and a 5900 Ultra 256MB with the new drivers (45.23). I have my FPS locked at 20 but get single digit FPS anytime there are clouds or I'm on the ground with AI traffic or if I'm close to the ground on final or takeoff with the autogen maxed. I started out with AA on 4x at 1600X1200. Now I have AA turned off and am running at 1920X1440. Interestingly, I get no increase in FPS if I run at 1600X1200 with no AA.

I think the thing is pretty simple. If you want the screenshots like we all saw before the program was available, you have to have a TON of power. I'm going to buy 2 3.06GHz CPUs when their price goes down in a couple of months but even then, as you say, with UT running full blast, I wouldn't expect any incredible increase in performance.

What I usually do is reduce visibility to 5 or 10 miles on takeoff and landing. This usually gives me at least 15 FPS if not 20.

**FITZY** · 08-20-2003, 03:50 PM

So what DOES it take to maintain 20fps with all sliders maxed and all options on during approach and landing at a major airport? Is it even possible? I have read here that motion pictures run at 24 fps for smooth motion, so 20 does not seem like an unreasonable standard.

**Subotai** · 08-20-2003, 03:54 PM

Wow, that sux for a 3.2Gig machine. I thought I had problems with my 2.4Gig. With your settings I'd have about similar performance.
Did you check the AGP aperture in the Bios, could possibly make a difference (set it to 128MB or higher).

Maybe you should do a clean XP reinstall and get rid of all the useless Dell helper programs.
But nothing will probably double your framerate which is the least I would expect from this system.

Btw. it is a lot cheaper to just update motherboard and RAM from some pricewatch.com listed store and do the upgrade within a more reasonable budget.

**Subotai** · 08-20-2003, 03:58 PM

I think most of the posts claiming 24+fps with everything maxed are BS. You can easily get that framerate on some continent with mostly generic scenery but if you go to Los Angeles or New York with maxed out settings, your framerate will drop below 10 in many places.

**waltch** · 08-20-2003, 04:00 PM

This is a disappointing thread for me because I was also thinking of changing to a Dell system (same specifications).

However, now I guess I have to reconsider because on my present, 2-year old system (AMD 1800xp, 512MB, GF3 64 MB) I get almost better fsp as he does.... of course my sliders are are way more to the left.

Anyhow, I can understand Rob's disappointment.

Walter