|
Plz Help Lan game Issue.
|
|
|
drako17
Member
|
28. October 2007 @ 18:54 |
Link to this message
|
Dont know where to post this so if it needs to be moved feel free.
To start things off. i have a dell xps 410. 2.1 core 2 duo 2 gigs memory 256 geforce 7900 gs video. my friend has a dell 4700 2.8 H/T pentium 4. 256 ati x1950 pro. 3 gigs memory. My question is after we start playing a lan game. supreme commander to be exact. Only after 15 mins of play do the game slow down? Im the one hosting the game. i have a crossover wire linking both computers. We have the latest video drivers installed. Any help would be welcomed.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2007 @ 08:42 |
Link to this message
|
Supreme commander needs a Beefy CPU to run well, a 2.8Ghz P4 isn't going to cut it. Your friend's CPU is what's causing the lag.
|
|
drako17
Member
|
29. October 2007 @ 12:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
are you sure that could be the issue. i mean he can play the game just fine on mid settings. single player. i dont see why it such a big difference on the lan. could it be the intel pro 10/100 connection? i dont know im new to this kinda stuff. i just want to know if it could be that.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2007 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
100Mbps LAN could cause an issue, but I know for a fact someone with a high spec PC (except for having a single core CPU) caused huge lag in network games at a LAN party I visit. it may run the single player well, but over LAN you really need a powerful machine for it. Gigabit LAN is also recommended.
Onboard Networking uses loads of CPU usage, so if Supreme commander wants all of it well, something's going to end up slowing down...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. October 2007 @ 13:05
|
|
drako17
Member
|
29. October 2007 @ 13:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
so then its the processor that slowing down the game play? ok so do i need to update the processor or buy a new nic card? i dont want to spend money on something i dont need.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2007 @ 13:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ideally both, but the CPU first. That should have far more of an impact.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. October 2007 @ 13:58
|
|
drako17
Member
|
29. October 2007 @ 14:24 |
Link to this message
|
any ideas on whats the highest processor that can be put in the dell 4700? i know of the bios update to support newer processors but dont say which ones. could you help me with that plz?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2007 @ 17:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
It'll be a new motherboard if you want a decent dual core CPU, and possibly new RAM as well.
|
|
drako17
Member
|
29. October 2007 @ 17:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
one more question. could it be the video cards that are slowing it down too?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2007 @ 17:38 |
Link to this message
|
Both video cards are perfectly adequate for Supreme Commander. I only run an X1900XT, not much more powerful than your cards, and I can run the game at 1920x1200 Max with no issues. 2560x1600 works alright, but with lots of units gets a little choppy.
|
|
drako17
Member
|
29. October 2007 @ 18:07 |
Link to this message
|
well i ordered a xfx 256mb 8600 gts xxx edition and a intel pro gigabit NIC card. if that doesnt fix it then well ill just build a new computer and get rid of the dell 4700 for good.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2007 @ 18:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
You do realise the 8600GT is actually much slower than the graphics card you've already got?
|
|
drako17
Member
|
29. October 2007 @ 18:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
well im building my own system on the side. all i need is just the motherboard and cpu. im buying two of those cards and running them sli mood. i dont understand when you say there alot slower. the one i got has a core clock of 620 and the one that i have right now is clocked at 540 i believe. well the xfx has dx10 graphic and by the reviews that ive read is a pretty good card.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2007 @ 19:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
The corespeed isn't a good indication of speed. You'll need two 8600GTs in SLI to actually get the same level of performance as the old X1950 pro, and it won't always even be equal anyway.
|
|
drako17
Member
|
30. October 2007 @ 01:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
thanks for all the help you have provided me with. none the less i still purchased the video card and well ill see what happens when i put it in the new system. ill give you an update on what i think of it. regardless im still a lil confused but i guess trial and error is whats going to get everything straightend out. thanks for all your time.i will be asking more questions later. hope you can join and help out.
|
|
drako17
Member
|
30. October 2007 @ 02:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
by the way you were right. i purchased the wrong card. i got the gt xxx edition. i should of gotten the gts one. i'll be returning it. thanks i looked into it. thanks
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. October 2007 @ 05:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
The 8600GTS is still not as powerful as the X1950 Pro, but it's much closer to it, and will beat it most of the time if you get two of them in SLI.
|
|
drako17
Member
|
30. October 2007 @ 14:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
are you sure about that? i dont mean to doubt your words but from checking each of the cards specs. the 8600 gts is alot faster then the x1950 pro. the x1950 pro is a 256 as well but its an old card.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. October 2007 @ 14:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
There's a 512MB version of the X1950 Pro, and you're still only looking at clock speeds. The clock speed of graphics cards is almost irrelevant, it's primarily the architecture underneath that matters. Whilst the 8600GTS is newer, it does not mean it has a better architecture (hence why a 1.6Ghz P4 was trounced by a 1.2Ghz P3, the P3 architecture was simply better).
|
|
drako17
Member
|
30. October 2007 @ 14:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
ok yes i know theres a 512 out also but i own a 256. i aint only looking at the clock speed. im looking at everything else too. ill see if i could post the specs of both cards
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. October 2007 @ 14:43 |
Link to this message
|
I'll quote a few tom's hardware benchmarks.
Battlefield 2142 @ 1920x1200 Max:
X1950 Pro: 22.6
8600GTS: 16.7
8600GTS SLI: 24.4
Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, 1920x1200 Max:
X1950 pro: 20.3
8600GTS: 9.5
8600GTS SLI: 9.5 (Oh dear!)
Doom 3 1600x1200 Max:
X1950 Pro: 49.6
8600GTS: 36.6
8600GTS SLI: 78.0
Flight Sim X 1920x1200 Max:
X1950 pro: 14.6
8600GTS: 17.2
8600GTS SLI: 20.2
Oblivion 1920x1200 Max:
X1950 Pro: 10.8
8600GTS: 8.6
8600GTS SLI: 18.6
The only game out of any of those that the pair of 8600s is worth it for is Oblivion. For any of the other titles you're better off with a 1950Pro. The 8600 fares better in Flight Sim X, but the SLI benefit is tiny, and on the whole a single 8600 can't compete with an X1950 pro.
You could argue that the SLI pair gets a good score in Doom 3, but in truth, so does the X1950 pro, you would hardly notice the difference.
Note that this benchmark uses the 256MB version of the 1950 pro.
Spec lists will only get you so far...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. October 2007 @ 14:44
|
|
drako17
Member
|
30. October 2007 @ 14:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh ok so then its best if i get the 640mb or the 320mb 8800?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. October 2007 @ 14:50 |
Link to this message
|
640MB version, without question. The 320MB version can't play Crysis properly at all, and that will go for many of the upcoming new games.
However, you may wish to consider the 512MB 8800GT, a new product out, it has a lower power consumption, heat and noise level, and space requirement than the previous 8800s, and is faster than an 8800GTS in most games, in some cases equalling the GTX. It's also cheaper than the GTS.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. October 2007 @ 14:51
|
|
drako17
Member
|
30. October 2007 @ 14:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
thanks i kept tryin to decide what card i should get. ive made up my mind with your help.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. October 2007 @ 15:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Which is?
|
