If you are sure you have 2x256 sticks in you should have 512mb showing. Unless you have a 200something mb shared graphics card, I doubt one of your sticks is working.
E: :doh:
I'm getting tired, seems like you have a larged shared graphics card.
I had FX5200 too, and it was ~45-50fps with AMD Sempron (1.6GHz OC to 2.1GHz) and 512Mb RAM, so probably you, Kristis, must clean your PC, at least autorun.
Hi,
having read through the already mentioned suggestions I would like to state a mild kind of a warning: Don't throw away your hard-saved money on trying to improve an old Dell-PC!
If all that was mentioned about the "Optiplex"-range here is true, then it will only result in a loss of money and time rather than in any significant return of "speed" that you might expect.
Two reasons: "Pentium 4"-processors are out of production a long time ago, so everything related to them is:
1a: hard to get a hand on (such as accessories in cooling / higher-clocked copies of the same processor-range
1b: in no way a cost-effective upgrade is achievable in today's market
2a: you can find whole used machines with twice or more the processing-power in both general-cpu AND graphics functions for less than any on-gear improvement would cost you
2b: Old office-use - DELL-PCs often suffer from a non-standard design inside their computer-cases -- and sometimes even concerning the casing itself. So using standard-sized / -fitted aftermarket components to "update" your machine will physically prove impossible in a lot of cases. If your machine does look a bit "weird" when opened up, then please make sure you won't throw yourself into any greater expenses before you actually find out what's what!
Additionally I would like to say something a little more motivating:
2 years ago I built two identical low-cost computers from scratch (using new but most-affordable bits and pieces that had then-new "shared chipset-graphics" that could handle LFS at reasonable speed on 1024x786 resolution (17" CRT-screen), just fine. Such a system would set you back appr. 180$ at most if you were to buy one with identical performance-specs new, today. Thing is, world is moving on. Today you will easily find something three times as "fast" for anything like a few tenners more.
Maybe you get lucky and will eventually find some used rig from a friend or a relative that he/she doesn't want to use any more but will still run LFS -- that would be a much more desirable course of action I think -- and you could get the confirmation of how it puts up with LFS before you actually pay anything. Virtually anything newer than 2006 should be plenty, really!
Just look out for more than 512MB of RAM and if possible some "dedicated" graphics card (even the lowest-spec should make you much happier than what's inside of your current old-type DELL)
Dedicated graphics means a seperate graphics-processor that's not integrated into the mainboard and will make use of a seperate block of RAM that has no physical connection to the RAM the system-CPU makes use of. It usually also means that this type of graphics processor (and all that it needs) is located on a seperate add-in "card" that is interchangeable. Notebook-computers are another story, though.
Please make sure that when you start with LFS, you have at least 25 to 30 frames per second available when playing online against a full pack. You will have more fun when learning the racing techniques when your rig doesn't limit you to walking-pace reactions.
For your information: My lower-spec notebookd-pc that I still can use for LFS is built to the following spec:
Pentium-M ("Banias"-generation) 1.4GHz (much more punch/GHz than any P4)
1280MB of RAM (when it still had 512MB at stock-config it was easily the same performance for LFS, so don't worry!)
dedicated ATI-mobility M10/M11 chipset with 64MB of (seperate) Video-RAM [Nowadays 128MB+ would be preferable for LFS since even the LFS-engine can make use of more when set to high-detail, however it still "works" for me]
The hard-drive has been changed about a year ago -- still no performance-boost in any way for LFS in-race performance. Just a little faster throughout system usage in general.
To give you an idea: That older notebook-PC I still use originally was purchased when named a "better-than average in performance but low-cost brand product" in early 2004. So who says you need a lot of punch to run LFS competetively?? To all those with loaded bank accounts I say: Well, race me and think again! ((no offense!))
However when talking about a decent-performing (for LFS) computer you don't have to look that skillfully. Really any decent-built mid-range PC (as of app. 2006) will do perfectly when administred with a little care! You should be able to get ahold of one with little money. Better look for something that has a standard-ATX chassis and is thus more service-able than any office-spec DELL ever built.
When I bought LFS I was playing it on a laptop with onboard graphics and it ran perfectly well, infact I was really pleased with the way it looked! I think the system requirements for this sim have helped make it so popular.
I'd try reducing the screen resolution the game runs at. The PC I have now has more than double the processing speed, 4 times more RAM and a dedicated graphics card and I cant see a huge difference in gameplay.
On my old comp (Athlon XP 1900+, ATI R9550, 512MB DDR) I had like 40-50FPS alone, but when I switched to windowed mode, my fps dropped to 1-2FPS, so maybe that's doing to you too. Launch LFS, press SHIFT F9, and it would maximize to whole screen, maybe it'll solve your problem...
Well Shift + F4 is to toggle window or full: but also ,shift + F9-F12 are configurable in options/screen, to switch instantly between resolutions, very handy when testing displays and FPS
