Is GE Force2 Ultra better?

[Guest]

I am a MSFlight Simulator 2000 user. I recently upgraded my video card to a VisionTed GE Force 2 Ultra 64 Meg DDR card.

This replaced a card that came from Dell on the system a year ago. That card was a GE Force 256 with 64 Megs of DDR ram.

Vision Tek support has checked that the card and latest drivers are correctly installed and working correctly.

There is no increase in frame rates with the new card. VisionTek says that apparently MSFS2K is not a program that can benefit from the latest technology.

I didn't expect better reflections in the cockpit glass. I just wanted higher frame rates.

Both the Nvidia site and Tom's indicate that the GE Force2 Ultra proceses more faster and should therefore give higher frame rates. See Tom's article on the GE Force 2 family.

My measurements of frame rates are based on a standard benchmark for MSFS2K. It is found on simflight.com.

I got the card for a good price by going through CNET, $327. If I end up having "blown" the money it will not ruin my life. On the otherhand I think that MS2K users should be aware of what I have found.

Does anyone have a theory about why the GE Force2 Ultra is not producing the results that it apparently should?

 

[noko]

Flight Sim 2000 is really CPU limited and not graphic card limited. Since it is a simulator with advance modeling of in flight characteristics and Instrumentation of modern aircraft alot of computations are needed. So really the Ultra won't help you there. The Ultra should help out tremendously in FSAA and give you a very much improve visual experience with no cost in frame rate. Upgrade your cpu to the fastest possible and you will see a dramatic increase in performance for FPS. That was a very good price for an Ultra and I am glad to see prices are indeed coming down for the nVidia cards.

 

[jerry557]

Yes, my friend uses flight simulator 2000 pro on his Celeron 500 and it does OK. But the thing is amazing on my 1.2 AMD Thunderbird. Simulation games and/or simulation applications require more than just graphics. They require calculations being made every second by the CPU so if the CPU is fast...the system can spend more time on the graphics. But if the CPU is slow; a high graphics card won't be able to go as fast. As for other games like Quake or other high graphics games; it isn't heavily CPU dependent and a better graphics card will make a difference.

Now, if you had a fast processor with the GeForce2 Ultra and a healthy system...You will be amazed! The system can only go as fast as the CPU will allow. You can have all the best, state of the art stuff piled in there but if the CPU isn't that fast...Don't look for the high performance that is promiced.

 

[OzzieBloke]

You didn't mention what speed processor you are using, but what the other guys have posted is correct; simulations and games that require high artificial intelligence will benifit more from a faster cpu than a faster graphics card. If I'm guessing you have a 500-700 range processor, then you really need to go 1 gHz or more to see an appreciable gain in performance... that coupled with your gf2U will work like a charm. Simulations will take even better advantage of the GF3 when it hits the shelves... that is, when people start coding for the thing

Australian PMs are like steer horns; a point here, a point there, & a heap of bull in the middle.

 

[HolyGrenade]

Hmm... Flight Sim 2000. Its alright but, wont it be more interesting if you could shoot down some planes every now and then. Like, Janes F15. The Ultimate in Simulation. Too bad it doesn't support Direct X.

I just think normal Flight Sims are a bit boring.

Anyway, this Janes F15 when in Full Simulation mode with all the bangs and whistles turned on, can be cpu intensive, although it runs perfectly fine on my Athlon 650.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[Guest]

Yeah like everybody else already said... simulators are limited by the CPU, but not ONLY by the CPU. A good simulation game is the hardest of all games to run fast, because it combines the graphics demands of a FPS with the CPU calculations of engineering math program.

I also read Tom's article on this, but unfortuanately I think he forgot to mention the exceptions of simulators. The games he tested on, and the vast majority of all games out there, benefit most from an improved graphics card, not CPU. With simulators you need both.

I wonder if this is part of the reason hard-core simulation games keep dropping out of the picture these days...

Regards,
Warden

 

[HolyGrenade]

Processors these days are more than enough to run any simulator.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>