An Ironic Fix for my lag

[Lotek19]

Ok, so you know how your supposed to check your internet connection or lower gfx and settings if you lag. Well in my case it was kinda different and funny in a diff. way. My graphics were all low except for texture...now i set this because i just wanted to raise my fps, BUT, there was something wrong, i lag everytime there is an orbital strike and when ever someone shots a gun really really really close to me. Huh....

Later (couple weeks) i go out and buy new noise canceling headphones from SONY. And these things are amazing, i love the sound and how the game sounds through them. Then i go to my settings for Audio, and raise audio quality from medium to high. Then go ingame and listen to how it sounds. Amazing.

Then a round in SWAT Gibralter comes up, im playing and playing, then trying to defend Ruins, then all of a sudden an orbital strike comes, now these are HE** for me cuz of lag and i can barely move 1 inch, but all of a sudden im moving free like a gazelle. I mean MAN THIS IS AWESOME. So i look at my settings, and i put them up to medium high gfx, then ..... wait..... the lag went away even more. No lag on orbital and no lag from close range shooting.

So my fix was. Up the settings on gfx and audio. compared to the usual "put them down for less lag"

Ironic ain't it?

[Field]

so you INCREASED your sound quality and you lagged less. uh yeeah thats kind of wierd

[Ghiblian]

Not really. If you up the sound level, you may be enabled certain hardware accelerated features. This takes load off your CPU.

Similar thing for graphics. And in my experience, sometimes setting graphics to the absolute lowest does hurt performance. I can't explain exactly why, though. Perhaps it has something to do with drivers and optimizations at different graphic settings.

[jake___]

Not really. If you up the sound level, you may be enabled certain hardware accelerated features. This takes load off your CPU.

Similar thing for graphics. And in my experience, sometimes setting graphics to the absolute lowest does hurt performance. I can't explain exactly why, though. Perhaps it has something to do with drivers and optimizations at different graphic settings.

Sounds about right to me.

[Bradley]

Same with COD4, when I had my old 7600GS.

I put the settings low, it ran like crap. I put em up, it runs fine.

But now I can't even play all on low with my new 8800GT, I get 5 FPS...

[fatmooseknuckle]

this sounds eerily familar. orbital strikes bring me to a crawl & when i get close to people i get quick freezes & lag. my pc specs are not all that bad, but i get the same lag that you speak of & i find it to just be maddening! i will be tinkering w/ my sound settings tonight when i get home. my next step was dumping a few hundred dollars into some new parts. who knows, that may still be the next plan, but i'll try the free steps any day first:nod:

[Lotek19]

Well, for one i was NOT going to put some new dollars, just to play battlefield 2142. I mean i love the game and all that action that kept me happy for more than a year, but i draw quite a fine line at how i use money toward it.

But hey man, post your specs, if they are better than mine then you will be fine, considering i have a HP Stock video card that is supposedly made by NVidia and is made specifically for my pc and vista....7500 LE.

I bet if you tinker around with your specs, you will find something.

Currently everything is low, except terrain and texture which are medium, view distance is 90%, res is : (i forgot >_<), and sound is high.

The littlest thing can make the biggest difference. Now im playing smoother and having the place and game look better.

Next step: I want an 9600. Anybody want to give me one? =p

[fatmooseknuckle]

But hey man, post your specs, if they are better than mine then you will be fine, considering i have a HP Stock video card that is supposedly made by NVidia and is made specifically for my pc and vista....7500 LE.

I bet if you tinker around with your specs, you will find something.
amd 4200
2 gb corsair 3200 xms (800 mhz low latency)
maxtor 250 gb sata2 h/d
bfg 8800 gt oc 512
and res is something like 1290x960...that sound right? i just got a widescreen a month or so ago, so i forget the widescreen res

like i said, the specs are not great by todays standards, but ok. i just don't get the performance that i should. the tinkering begins NOW!

[Shazanelli]

that set up seems more than fine! Is that dual core?

What fps you getting?? You should easily play the game smoothly, even in orbital strikes...

[fatmooseknuckle]

that set up seems more than fine! Is that dual core?

What fps you getting?? You should easily play the game smoothly, even in orbital strikes...
fps would vary between 40 & 60, but it actually ran more like 20-30 fps. i made those few adjustments it's a huge improvement already. i'll mess around w/ it more later. lotek is my here right now:salute:

[jake___]

fps would vary between 40 & 60, but it actually ran more like 20-30 fps. i made those few adjustments it's a huge improvement already. i'll mess around w/ it more later. lotek is my here right now:salute:

CPU might be bottlenecking the video card. Is that a dual core processor?

[deadman2312]

Sounds about right to me.

No, lol. I was just goofing around and upped my sound settings, because Titan has always been a stuttery turd for me, even though my PC is decent. It started acting horridly erratic, and CTD'd almost instantly upon entering the map, lmao.

Specs.....

3.2gh Intel

Nvidia 7950GT Oc edition, factory settings

400w PSU

2gb G-Skill

I think ill stick with medium sound settings and just play conquest.:thumbsup:

[fatmooseknuckle]

CPU might be bottlenecking the video card. Is that a dual core processor?
that was my original thought & i was ready to go w/ intel core 2 duo/quad. yes the 4200 is an entry level dual core. i think 4000 is the lowest dual core that they make

[wardogHk]

I want some sony head phones now..

[AvalancheDiode]

Got some funny story to tell about my rig. I told Field not to do this-and-that upgrade, but I myself just did things like that after being quite frustrated by new maps. The rig turns out just fine. I can run Crysis demo all low at 800x600 but still get good frame rate. But since I paid for some upgrade, why not go ahead and try it out? So I got this lame used Pentium D 3.0GHz to replace my venerable Pentium 4 3.0GHz and a new 8800 GS to replace my 7800GT. It runs crap at 800x600 and I experienced no improvement in FPS. Then ran it on all high at 1024x768, WTF? Better frame rate! The problem I have now is that the power supply unit, which came with this computer from HP 2.5 years ago, fixed once, now howls like it's going to die quite soon. It just doesn't have enough juice to push the 130W CPU and 8800 GS at the same time. So I pulled 12V molex off DVD player and disconnected/disabled all unnecessary stuff. Fortunately I still have a portable DVD so there's no problem playing this game. I guess that I just have to sell 7800GT really soon to get some funding for 600W PSU. I'm done with Intel, will buy AMD next time. I hope the new nVidia Hybrid can really save power while not gaming.

[jake___]

I'm done with Intel, will buy AMD next time. I hope the new nVidia Hybrid can really save power while not gaming.
OMG you're an idiot. Go visit the Tech Center sometime. :rolleyes:

Pentium D's perform like SH!T. Don't ever use one. They are really hot and barely better than a Pentium 4. I wouldn't expect that to cause any improvement.
Also, a Pentium D is not the same as a Core 2 Duo. A C2D is WAAAAAY faster and more efficient than a Pentium D or Pentium 4.


As for the 8800GS, it is not a very good card, but using a Pentium D processor will definitely bottleneck it (not allow it to use its full capacity).

[Shazanelli]

Here's a link for people to see if their rig is up to running 2142 sufficiently. Will let you know if anything is bottlenecking you.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

[AvalancheDiode]

OMG you're an idiot. Go visit the Tech Center sometime. :rolleyes:

Pentium D's perform like SH!T. Don't ever use one. They are really hot and barely better than a Pentium 4. I wouldn't expect that to cause any improvement.
Also, a Pentium D is not the same as a Core 2 Duo. A C2D is WAAAAAY faster and more efficient than a Pentium D or Pentium 4.


As for the 8800GS, it is not a very good card, but using a Pentium D processor will definitely bottleneck it (not allow it to use its full capacity).

Nope. You don't know the whole story about this. My rig is already 2.5 years old and the only thing I've done before this major upgrade is increasing RAM from 512 to 2Gig. I know that C2D is way faster than Pentium D, BUT MY MOTHERBOARD DON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING AFTER Pentium D 8xx. For $50 I think it's not the greatest bargain, but not too far off either. New E2160 still costs around $70 on newegg.com. So, both Pentium D and 8800GS ($120 after rebate) are stopgap upgrade before I can come up with satisfactory solution in the future (for at least 3 year service life with only minor upgrade). And who knows? PC Gaming is already getting ridiculous. Why not go console gaming in the future? Then my PC acquisition strategy will be completely different. At this moment, I am not certain what will be my requirement. So I won't spend money on any major upgrade.

Besides, new things always come alone. Are you going to get a C2D with DDR2? Or spend another 200 to get DDR3? That's the major reason that I don't choose to replace my current motherboard. If it's time to migrate, I will migrate. But it's not that time to me yet.

The decision to use 8800GS is because the system can still barely run under a 400W PSU so that I don't need to buy a new one at this moment. By doing this I am extending service life of my current rig for another 2 years until it is absolutely necessary to replace it. It might seem to be a stupid idea to you at this moment, but the whole acquisition since November 2005 pays itself. Besides, I can get a 8800GS of the same brand and same model with cheaper price in the future and make it an SLi.

COD4 and Crysis work seriously better on Pentium D than Pentium 4. I haven't try COD4 yet, but Crysis demo runs 30-50 FPS @ 1024x768 DX9 medium. Bottlenecking? Nah, the goal of upgrade to me is to be able to run certain games at certain condition, and they are balanced according to budget, performance and level of enjoyment. For a budget upgrade of less than $200, I would say it reaches all my goals (able to run DX9 Crysis @ 1024x768 medium) while brings some other problems (PSU reaching limit, no reason for replacement, power consumption etc, but ironically, no heat problem because Asus and HP designed that board and computer to handle Pentium D in the beginning, and I don't even need to replace CPU cooler).

And I am not going to buy another Intel system in the future anyway. Why invest money to get a C2D?

[Skaggy]

8800GS ($120 after rebate)

The decision to use 8800GS is because the system can still barely run under a 400W PSU so that I don't need to buy a new one at this moment. By doing this I am extending service life of my current rig for another 2 years until it is absolutely necessary to replace it. It might seem to be a stupid idea to you at this moment, but the whole acquisition since November 2005 pays itself. Besides, I can get a 8800GS of the same brand and same model with cheaper price in the future and make it an SLi.

You can get a 9600GT for that sort of money.

It'll consume roughly the same amount of power as the GS and will give you better performance.

[Field]

yeah i got a pentium D 805 (the slowest one lol) and looked at upgrading it and all that and probably the reason i saw that you cant get cd2 for alot of mobos is because in my case it was DESIGNED for a processor that uses 90nm transistors giving them a certain voltage, the 65nm that are used in c2d cpus are not given the voltages that they should be so therefore theyre not compatible.

and also with my proprietary dell, the mobo and the bios that i have i cant overclock or anything even though i heard that the 805 was an awsome overclocker that you could speed up to 4ghz with a bit of work so yeah i got a 7900gs which isnt that bad and then i crammed as much ram 3.25gb as possible into the mobo and did all of the other stuff that i could to speed up the computer but ultimately the slow processor will always bottlneck my system. yeah when i get a job and more disposable income i wont be able to make excuses about bad hardware caus im gonna make sure to get a fast cpu before any other hardware because it dictates how uber your computer will be.

[AvalancheDiode]

You can get a 9600GT for that sort of money.

It'll consume roughly the same amount of power as the GS and will give you better performance.

Not really. Mine is factory overclocked, and benchmark shows that it performs better than 9600GT at 10x7 no AA, which is the config that most practical to me. 9600 GT is better at higher resolution with AA, but, I don't think it performs reasonable at those setup. It's just that 8800 GS fits my operational range more than 9600 GT.

[Lotek19]

fps would vary between 40 & 60, but it actually ran more like 20-30 fps. i made those few adjustments it's a huge improvement already. i'll mess around w/ it more later. lotek is my here right now:salute:

happy to help :salute:, i was quite suprised too when i made those changes...i may even be able to play on higher settings then what i am right now ;):thumbsup:

I want some sony head phones now..

60 bucks mate :D

I'm done with Intel, will buy AMD next time. I hope the new nVidia Hybrid can really save power while not gaming.

why would you downgrade on a processor....thats like...downgrading from an HDTV to a crappy one with the dials and sh**

[whiteguy16]

Here's a link for people to see if their rig is up to running 2142 sufficiently. Will let you know if anything is bottlenecking you.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

this thing is whack!! it says i can't run BF2142 because my graphics card isn't good enough. i play the game (almost) every day :laugh:

[deadman2312]

Here's a link for people to see if their rig is up to running 2142 sufficiently. Will let you know if anything is bottlenecking you.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest



LIES!!! Lol.....(kidding)

SRL says my computer passes both minimum and recommended, yet 2142 Titan mode is almost unplayable for me!? WTF already!? If i turn settings up beyond medium in Titan, then it gets REALLY bad, what the F am i missing already? Or is EA full of it as far as requirements?:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[jake___]

LIES!!! Lol.....(kidding)

SRL says my computer passes both minimum and recommended, yet 2142 Titan mode is almost unplayable for me!? WTF already!? If i turn settings up beyond medium in Titan, then it gets REALLY bad, what the F am i missing already? Or is EA full of it as far as requirements?:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Too slow of internet connection?

I have Comcast and get 5mbps with wifi and over 10mpbs with using a LAN cable.

[Field]

eh im not sure how internet relates to framerate, maybe hit detection but not how smooth your game is necessarily. but then again i have verizon DSL and have never played with cable internet

[jake___]

Nope. You don't know the whole story about this. My rig is already 2.5 years old and the only thing I've done before this major upgrade is increasing RAM from 512 to 2Gig. I know that C2D is way faster than Pentium D, BUT MY MOTHERBOARD DON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING AFTER Pentium D 8xx. For $50 I think it's not the greatest bargain, but not too far off either. New E2160 still costs around $70 on newegg.com. So, both Pentium D and 8800GS ($120 after rebate) are stopgap upgrade before I can come up with satisfactory solution in the future (for at least 3 year service life with only minor upgrade). And who knows? PC Gaming is already getting ridiculous. Why not go console gaming in the future? Then my PC acquisition strategy will be completely different. At this moment, I am not certain what will be my requirement. So I won't spend money on any major upgrade.

Besides, new things always come alone. Are you going to get a C2D with DDR2? Or spend another 200 to get DDR3? That's the major reason that I don't choose to replace my current motherboard. If it's time to migrate, I will migrate. But it's not that time to me yet.

The decision to use 8800GS is because the system can still barely run under a 400W PSU so that I don't need to buy a new one at this moment. By doing this I am extending service life of my current rig for another 2 years until it is absolutely necessary to replace it. It might seem to be a stupid idea to you at this moment, but the whole acquisition since November 2005 pays itself. Besides, I can get a 8800GS of the same brand and same model with cheaper price in the future and make it an SLi.

COD4 and Crysis work seriously better on Pentium D than Pentium 4. I haven't try COD4 yet, but Crysis demo runs 30-50 FPS @ 1024x768 DX9 medium. Bottlenecking? Nah, the goal of upgrade to me is to be able to run certain games at certain condition, and they are balanced according to budget, performance and level of enjoyment. For a budget upgrade of less than $200, I would say it reaches all my goals (able to run DX9 Crysis @ 1024x768 medium) while brings some other problems (PSU reaching limit, no reason for replacement, power consumption etc, but ironically, no heat problem because Asus and HP designed that board and computer to handle Pentium D in the beginning, and I don't even need to replace CPU cooler).

And I am not going to buy another Intel system in the future anyway. Why invest money to get a C2D?

*sigh*

eh im not sure how internet relates to framerate, maybe hit detection but not how smooth your game is necessarily. but then again i have verizon DSL and have never played with cable internet

Not FPS, but it will affect lag and latency

[deadman2312]

Too slow of internet connection?

I have Comcast and get 5mbps with wifi and over 10mpbs with using a LAN cable.


As others have stated, a shotty internet connection wouldnt cause the issues im having. I used Comcast for many years as well, same result, im on Bresnan now, Wyomings version of Comcast, with no difference.

I can play 48 player Camp Gibraltar with high settings, no video lag, yet a 32 player Titan match at medium settings(high settings lol, um no) causes me to curse profusely, and call upon demon powers to break my computer. If i would have to guess, i would say its my processor, even though it is "3.2ghz", it is an Intel Celeron D with specs listed below-

Intel Celeron D 352 3.2GHz 533MHz 512K LGA775 CPU OEM MFN HH80552RE088512 OEM Specification HH80552RE088512 Process Type: Intel Celeron D Processor 352 Frequency: 3.20GHz FSB: 533MHz Cache: 512 KB Process: 65 nm

Does that shed light? Or am i missing something?:shakehead:

[Shazanelli]

well, that isnt the best of processers, but what is the rest of your specs?

[jake___]

Shazanelli is right about the processor, but the rest of your set is good enough.
I used to have a Pentium D. I seem to recall not having too many problems with it though.

Of course, you'd see an amazing increase in performance if you upgraded to a new motherboard and core 2 duo.

Also,
There's a more data being transfered on Titan, especially when you're in the Titan. For example, on servers with a high ping (over 150) I often get lag on a Titan but nowhere else on the map.

Have you tried playing with the lowest settings or a lower resolution?
When you compare you're highest settings to your lowest settings you should notice some change in FPS, even if its still choppy. If you do see some improvement there's a good chance upgrading you're parts would fix the problem too.

Don't hold me too it though. ;)


well, that isnt the best of processers, but what is the rest of your specs?

Click on the "my system" under his name. ;)

[iPirate]

so you INCREASED your sound quality and you lagged less. uh yeeah thats kind of weird
weird? not really...
my brothers 8800 GTS lags when he turns his settings to low on most games.

[Wizrdwarts]

I have a Pentium D. It works fine with a HD 3650 but it'll probably bottleneck even more with a 8800 card.

[jake___]

I have a Pentium D. It works fine with a HD 3650 but it'll probably bottleneck even more with a 8800 card.

Have you done a benchmark test on it and compared it to a benchmark test on a similar PC set up but with a Core 2 Duo?

Unless you have and there was no improvement, you can't really conclude that. ;)


Sorry, I have to be the cynic and devil's advocated. Its just my thing. :D

[Wizrdwarts]

Yeah, but if you still want to buy a Pentium D, go right ahead. :)

[jake___]

Yeah, but if you still want to buy a Pentium D, go right ahead. :)

wait, what?

Who's buying a Pentium D?

[deadman2312]

well, that isnt the best of processers, but what is the rest of your specs?

Shaz, i have an emachines w3502(im bracing for the laughter). Yes an Emachine! But ya know what after some upgrades it really isnt all bad

Upgrades: 2 gb G-Skill, 400w PSU, NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT(oc edition factory settings) basically around 300$ of upgrades, and only 300$ for the machine originally, it could play Bf2 out of the box, not well, but it could play it.

Honestly it kicks a$$(after upgades) when playing 2142 conquest 48 players at high settings, Bf2 on high settings, Cod4 also on high settings, Hl2 on high settings, bla bla bla.

Yet the dreaded Titan mode kills me(literally), lol, i have a few milliseconds of graphic lag when targeting folk, and thats huge, the slow guy dies.

I think im just going to drop a hundred bones on a dual core, the fastest my motherboard(LGA 775 socket) will utilize is a 2.2ghz dual core Intel, and i have been eyeballing one on newegg for some time now. I think the time has come:thumbsup: I have read good things about it, associated with 2142, so why not?

I plan on giving this PC to my 9 year old son soon anyways, and buying a real beast, not an Emachine. :shakehead:

I think EA should have been a little more clear about processors, they recommend 3.0ghz, i have 3.2ghz yet it doesnt play right.

Shazanelli is right about the processor, but the rest of your set is good enough.
I used to have a Pentium D. I seem to recall not having too many problems with it though.

Of course, you'd see an amazing increase in performance if you upgraded to a new motherboard and core 2 duo.

Also,
There's a more data being transfered on Titan, especially when you're in the Titan. For example, on servers with a high ping (over 150) I often get lag on a Titan but nowhere else on the map.

Have you tried playing with the lowest settings or a lower resolution?
When you compare you're highest settings to your lowest settings you should notice some change in FPS, even if its still choppy. If you do see some improvement there's a good chance upgrading you're parts would fix the problem too.

Don't hold me too it though. ;)


Lowest settings provide little to no improvement.:(

[jake___]

I think im just going to drop a hundred bones on a dual core, the fastest my motherboard(LGA 775 socket) will utilize is a 2.2ghz dual core Intel, and i have been eyeballing one on newegg for some time now. I think the time has come:thumbsup: I have read good things about it, associated with 2142, so why not?
GO FOR IT!!!!! :D

Lowest settings provide little to no improvement.:(
Hmmm... I'm don't really know what it could be now, if it isn't from your hardware being overworked.

Go to speedtest.net and tell my what you're speed is, just to make sure. :)

[whiteguy16]

i tried that speedtest thing and my download speed is 10092 and upload is 341. is that good?

[AvalancheDiode]

why would you downgrade on a processor....thats like...downgrading from an HDTV to a crappy one with the dials and sh**

CPU processing speed is not THAT important to FPS games. Bus speed and L2 cache do. That's why E2160 perform so well in games after overclocking, but it doesn't do any other jobs as well. After all, it all comes down to how fast you can transfer large chunk of data from one place to another. Once AMD moves to 45nm and DDR3, we'll see a huge improvement of AMD product line. Both AMD/ATI and NVIDIA are working on porting physics engines to GPU rather than CPU. I'm done with Intel because I am very unsatisfied by their product line. So what are they offering OTHER than speed? Is speed the only thing that we want in a computer? For CPUs that within my affordable range, AMD offers better total package, while Intel products are just expensive. If you can afford latest quad core Intel CPU that charges at $1500, good for you, but I'm not the lucky one and most of my hard earned money goes to insurance and rent.

For CPU on the line around $150 to $70, AMD's products worth their mark. Another concern of mine is power. Sure it is inevitable that big PSU is needed to run graphics cards, but does it need to be on all the time, draining 400W when it's on, even while I am reading the forum and talk reason to people who think I'm an idiot? Lucky for me that I am not paying electric bills at the moment, since my landlord takes it over. But time will come that I have to pay it. I've seen AMD and NVIDIA moving toward the direction, but not seeing anything Intel has done about the power other than mobile CPU and the new Atom. After considering two computer solution, which I dubed as ridiculous, I think AMD 45W CPUs offer a balance between power consumption and performance. The latest Tom's hardware shows that as long as your CPU is not too lame, GPU is more important to your rig's gaming performance.

[AvalancheDiode]

*sigh*

Not being offensive, but I started to build gaming rig before you went to grade school in order to get something to run X-Wing without lag (helping my friend upgrade from 386SX to 486DX 33MHz), and I always did it on tight budget since then. First 3D card I have is a 3dfx Voodoo and I can tell you Tie-Fighter's music is total awesome if you have a Maui. One funny thing about those old DOS game s is that you need to manage your memory because all you have is 640kB, and MS-DOS.sys and IO.sys takes 30-80kB depending on versions. Then came DOS/4GW and suddenly having 4MB RAM makes sense. In these old days, L2 cache was on the motherboard, and due to the price of L2 cache, not most people have lots of empty slots, and I have seen no one ever filled them out until much later. Played with 30pin, 72pin, 168pin, 184pin all the way to 240pin, and will get some DDR3 in the future. Someday, but not today.

[deadman2312]

GO FOR IT!!!!! :D


Hmmm... I'm don't really know what it could be now, if it isn't from your hardware being overworked.

Go to speedtest.net and tell my what you're speed is, just to make sure. :)


http://www.speedtest.net/result/273998596.png (http://www.speedtest.net)


There ya go.....not great, but not bad.....:salute:

And yeah, i went for it, should be here soon! Then we will see.:thumbsup:

EDIT: i get way better pings than that in-game 60-100

Not being offensive, but I started to build gaming rig before you went to grade school in order to get something to run X-Wing without lag (helping my friend upgrade from 386SX to 486DX 33MHz), and I always did it on tight budget since then. First 3D card I have is a 3dfx Voodoo and I can tell you Tie-Fighter's music is total awesome if you have a Maui. One funny thing about those old DOS game s is that you need to manage your memory because all you have is 640kB, and MS-DOS.sys and IO.sys takes 30-80kB depending on versions. Then came DOS/4GW and suddenly having 4MB RAM makes sense. In these old days, L2 cache was on the motherboard, and due to the price of L2 cache, not most people have lots of empty slots, and I have seen no one ever filled them out until much later. Played with 30pin, 72pin, 168pin, 184pin all the way to 240pin, and will get some DDR3 in the future. Someday, but not today.

Oregon Trail FTW!:yay:

[jake___]

Not being offensive, but I started to build gaming rig before you went to grade school in order to get something to run X-Wing without lag (helping my friend upgrade from 386SX to 486DX 33MHz), and I always did it on tight budget since then. First 3D card I have is a 3dfx Voodoo and I can tell you Tie-Fighter's music is total awesome if you have a Maui. One funny thing about those old DOS game s is that you need to manage your memory because all you have is 640kB, and MS-DOS.sys and IO.sys takes 30-80kB depending on versions. Then came DOS/4GW and suddenly having 4MB RAM makes sense. In these old days, L2 cache was on the motherboard, and due to the price of L2 cache, not most people have lots of empty slots, and I have seen no one ever filled them out until much later. Played with 30pin, 72pin, 168pin, 184pin all the way to 240pin, and will get some DDR3 in the future. Someday, but not today.

I had a C64, does that count for anything? :D

[Field]

oh ok that makes sense why my cpu sucks cause people were talking about stock the pentium D 805 that i got has a really slow fsb speed bah 1300mhz

thats pretty funny though X-Wing i remember playing that game im 20 now so however old i was when that game was out yeah i remember playing X-wing, Tie-fighter, DUke Nukem 3D and some other star wars fps game i forget the name

[jake___]

oh ok that makes sense why my cpu sucks cause people were talking about stock the pentium D 805 that i got has a really slow fsb speed bah 1300mhz

thats pretty funny though X-Wing i remember playing that game im 20 now so however old i was when that game was out yeah i remember playing X-wing, Tie-fighter, DUke Nukem 3D and some other star wars fps game i forget the name

I remember tie-fighter, actually, and always trying to convince my brother to let me play Duke Nukem 3D. :D

http://www.speedtest.net/result/273998596.png (http://www.speedtest.net)


There ya go.....not great, but not bad.....:salute:

And yeah, i went for it, should be here soon! Then we will see.:thumbsup:

EDIT: i get way better pings than that in-game 60-100


Nice on the Core 2 Duo. :thumbsup:

As for that speed test. It is awfully slow, but I'm no expert on telling what is too slow or fast enough. You're ping could obviously be lower, but it isn't too bad, although that might be part of the problem.

My connection is usually well over 10,000 kbps though, unless I'm using my motherboard's wifi card, then it drops to about 5,000 mbps.


If it isn't your internet connection and it isn't your hardware, I really don't know what to say! Sorry. :(


Don't hold me to anything. ;)

[Tim]

Lotek, I remember this was the case with me in the BF1942 days I think it was. I never really understood why raising the graphics more would help. I just couldn't put it all on the highest.

[Lotek19]

Lets get back on topic shall we.

Well, to be honest i actually do not know why raising graphics helps. I dont mind if someone gives a one paragraph explanation, but to be honest, it works, im happy, i can play better, own better, its ALL GOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDD

[AvalancheDiode]

Nice on the Core 2 Duo. :thumbsup:

Athlon 64 X2 5200+ OC to 2.8GHz performance close to your current one, but it costs only 2/3 to Core 2 Duo E6320. Actually you can go even cheaper by 5000+ Black edition.

Oh wait, let's add motherboard price to it.

With DDR2 1066MHz support and two PCI-E 2.0 x16 sots, the cheapest Intel X38 boards still costs $200 a piece, while there are cheap (but usually crap) AMD boards out there that cost half that. I'd pay $150 for a quality Asus board.

Lets get back on topic shall we.

Well, to be honest i actually do not know why raising graphics helps. I dont mind if someone gives a one paragraph explanation, but to be honest, it works, im happy, i can play better, own better, its ALL GOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDD

It's not the game or hardware. It's the Windows DirectX DLL that dumps your workload to CPU instead of your hardware.