rec.autos.simulators

by **Juic** » Sat, 12 May 2001 11:01:21

I'm thinking about upgrading my computer, and wondering how much framerate
you guys think I'd get in Nascar4 if I get this new rig: starting with an
Athlon Thunderbird 1.2Ghz o'clocked to 1.5, VisionTek Geforce3, 256mb cas2
ram, Iwill KK-266 motherboard, etc...

ps, I had a gateway 300mhz with TNT1 card

by **ymenar** » Sat, 12 May 2001 11:15:04

> I'm thinking about upgrading my computer, and wondering how much framerate
> you guys think I'd get in Nascar4 if I get this new rig: starting with an
> Athlon Thunderbird 1.2Ghz o'clocked to 1.5, VisionTek Geforce3, 256mb cas2
> ram, Iwill KK-266 motherboard, etc...

Errrrr, 50+ fps all the time with everything on.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.ymenard.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Pascal Duker** » Sun, 13 May 2001 00:03:51

I would not take a geforce 3 but a geforce 2. You will not see a difference
in frame rate as cpu power is more important. But you will save a lot of
money.

Pascal.

by **Tim Mise** » Sun, 13 May 2001 03:32:24

Good point. Especially if you mainly play racing games. Unless you play
first person shooters like Quake3 or Tribes 2, stick with the GF2.

-Tim

> > I'm thinking about upgrading my computer, and wondering how much
framerate
> > you guys think I'd get in Nascar4 if I get this new rig: starting with
an
> > Athlon Thunderbird 1.2Ghz o'clocked to 1.5, VisionTek Geforce3, 256mb
cas2
> > ram, Iwill KK-266 motherboard, etc...

> > ps, I had a gateway 300mhz with TNT1 card

> I would not take a geforce 3 but a geforce 2. You will not see a
difference
> in frame rate as cpu power is more important. But you will save a lot of
> money.

> Pascal.

by **Russell D. Laughlin Jr** » Sun, 13 May 2001 12:21:28

ummmm, all of them? Seriously, I run an Athlon 1.1 with a Radeon 64 Meg
DDR VIVO and get around 40 fps on the superspeedways, everything max'ed.
Nice system by the way

Russ

by **Charlie** » Sun, 13 May 2001 16:11:25

For all the slack I've caught for buying a P4 I have to return the favor and
tell you that the AMD 1.2 and 1.33's run hotter than anything ever created.
Might as well hook an element up to it and bake a cake in your case.
Seriously though buy atleast 3 case fans for it my friend has 5 fans in his
case and still isnt happy w/ the temp. He's tried a few different cpu
heatsink/fans still the same though. Then he bought a better power supply
thinking that maybe it wasnt getting enough current. Nope.... Then he tried
another chip.. same deal then he bought a 1.33 chip, same deal lol. Now
he's got a full tower with Hard drives in the 51/4 bays far away from the
motherboard....Did someone say Kryotech? lol. I built my P4 and have been

cooler than the AMD.. w/o extra fans and bigger cases etc. I guess you
really do get what you pay for.

Charlie

> ummmm, all of them? Seriously, I run an Athlon 1.1 with a Radeon 64 Meg
> DDR VIVO and get around 40 fps on the superspeedways, everything max'ed.
> Nice system by the way

> Russ

> > I'm thinking about upgrading my computer, and wondering how much
framerate
> > you guys think I'd get in Nascar4 if I get this new rig: starting with
an
> > Athlon Thunderbird 1.2Ghz o'clocked to 1.5, VisionTek Geforce3, 256mb
cas2
> > ram, Iwill KK-266 motherboard, etc...

> > ps, I had a gateway 300mhz with TNT1 card

by **Thom j** » Sun, 13 May 2001 23:23:57

A 40,000btu window a/c in a full tower might work? <g>

| thinking that maybe it wasnt getting enough current. Nope.... Then he
tried

by **Jagg** » Mon, 14 May 2001 00:32:55

20c lower? What is your cpu temp under load?
--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Charlie** » Mon, 14 May 2001 16:18:49

highest ive seen during N4 or otherwise is 109*f. Right after bootup it
shows 114.. but it falls whether or not I start a program.

Charlie B

> > I get 72fps and using a chip that is 20*C
> >cooler than the AMD.. w/o extra fans and bigger cases etc. I guess you
> >really do get what you pay for.

> 20c lower? What is your cpu temp under load?
> --
> eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
> http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Jagg** » Mon, 14 May 2001 20:31:20

109f is not 20c lower than the average T-Bird temp would run at. My

are rated to 95c core, Pentium 3 I believe is rated to 70c.

--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Charlie** » Tue, 15 May 2001 10:11:12

Sorry to burst our bubble but my P4 runs alot cooler than my PIII800 and
700. 18.5*C cooler to be exact. thats 33*F. All systems are using standard
heatsink/fan, same vid card and operating system. If you want screen shots
of the comparisons between systems i'll be glad to put em up on the web.

Enjoy your Easy Bake oven.... "Ding"

Charlie

> >highest ive seen during N4 or otherwise is 109*f. Right after bootup it
> >shows 114.. but it falls whether or not I start a program.

> >Charlie B

> 109f is not 20c lower than the average T-Bird temp would run at. My

> are rated to 95c core, Pentium 3 I believe is rated to 70c.

> --
> eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
> http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Charlie** » Tue, 15 May 2001 17:26:56

BTW if you think that a a processor can come even close to running for
any period of time your wrong. The AMD's have to have the higher rated core
temp because their avg. temp is that much higher.

Charlie

> >highest ive seen during N4 or otherwise is 109*f. Right after bootup it
> >shows 114.. but it falls whether or not I start a program.

> >Charlie B

> 109f is not 20c lower than the average T-Bird temp would run at. My

> are rated to 95c core, Pentium 3 I believe is rated to 70c.

> --
> eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
> http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Jagg** » Tue, 15 May 2001 21:07:41

Could you post that first part again? As it is now it doesn't make
much sense. Are you saying that running at 95c for any length of time?
All I'm saying is the T-Bird is designed to be able to run hotter so
just because it runs 10c hotter than a P3 doesn't mean there is a
problem or a problem will be encountered. 95c is it's maximum limit so
of course you can't run it at that temp for a long length of time.
None run at that temp either.
--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Tim Mise** » Wed, 16 May 2001 07:45:09

Not quite sure I understand why the cpu temp is even an issue. If a
standard AMD Tbird cpu runs hotter than a standard P4 cpu, who cares?
Shouldn't the question be which chip runs programs faster??

A Porsche engine runs hotter than a Ford engine but I'll take the Porsche
thank you!

-Tim

> BTW if you think that a a processor can come even close to running for
> any period of time your wrong. The AMD's have to have the higher rated
core
> temp because their avg. temp is that much higher.

> Charlie

> > >highest ive seen during N4 or otherwise is 109*f. Right after bootup it
> > >shows 114.. but it falls whether or not I start a program.

> > >Charlie B

> > 109f is not 20c lower than the average T-Bird temp would run at. My

> > are rated to 95c core, Pentium 3 I believe is rated to 70c.

> > --
> > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
> > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Jagg** » Wed, 16 May 2001 23:39:37

Good analogy.

--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

rec.autos.simulators

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc

N4 and new pc