<<EDIT 1 : Seems as though CPU is not enough power>>
<<EDIT 2: GPU Card is fine, I have recently upgraded CPU and all is well now>>

Im at a loss here...

Upgraded most of my sytem this week, mainly to go from AGP to PCI-E.

My display is 22" 1680x1050 DVI

Old System:
Intel PentiumD 830 3.0Ghz SKT775
Intel D865GSA Main Board
2x 512MB DDR400 RAM
ATi (PowerColor) X1950 DDR2 256MB AGP Graphics
40GB Seagate IDE HDD
Antec 500W PSU
WindowsXP SP2


New System:
Intel PentiumD 830 3.0Ghz SKT775 (same)
Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3R Main Board
2x 1024MB RAM DDR2-6400 800MHZ 4-4-4-12 Team Dark
MSI N9600GT DDR3 512MB PCI-E 2.0 Graphics
80GB Seagate SATA HDD
Antec 500W PSU (same)
WindowsXP SP2 (same) fresh install

Well the build went well, but after some online testing the problem is that it hasn't seemed to have boosted LFS performance by much at all. I first noticed only 40 FPS in a section of a complex layout config and then a drop of FPS in SO6 at CTRA1 to about 45 FPS in the chicane. At the rear of the start grid on CTRA1 with 12 players I had about 48 FPS. Pretty bad really considering my 256 MB AGP performed about the same.

I only play LFS so I don't need the most uber system to run crysis at 100FPS, I'd just like to be able to play LFS at 60 FPS solid in an average race condition at its highest settings - AA AF max and 1050x1680. I thought upgrading to this spec would have given me that at least.

I did a test on a server with a complex layout next to guy with a 8800GT. He had 298 FPS I had 37 FPS ?!?!, from inside the car. He did say he had a intel core 2 duo e8200, but my CPU is running LFS on one core at about 60% (that is what it did on the older system) so I hardly think it's the CPU creating a bottle neck. I should be getting more than 37 FPS surely ?

I tried going back to older nVidia Drivers, no change. Tried an earlier version of LFS, (these tests are on y24), the only thing that happened different was a decrease of about 10FPS going back to Y0.

Strange thing is, changing the AA-AF from nothing to Maximum in LFS changes the graphics but not the FPS.

So wth is wrong here? It's like I've built a PC that is the SAME and I'm really annoyed.

Here are the specs in detail:
DxDiag.txt

I've done a test at BL in Single player so there is no unknown variables. nVidia control panel (175.16) 3D settings were set all to default settings(application managed).

Screen settings in LFS : 1680x1050x32

Following screenshots are halved to save space, but are only here to show settings.

AA-AF off (101FPS)


AAx8 AFx16 (102FPS)


Other relevant settings


After completing 3 laps, Temps and CPU Performance charts
All temps seem ok.


Oh, and in case you're wondering, it's not limited t0 100 FPS, I can drive to some areas and get a higher FPS:


If it is at all helpful I have a 3D Mark03 result:
Full AAx16Q-AFx16

My older system scored half of this.

Yes I know I am describing examples of bad FPS in notoriously bad areas, (layouts, SO Chicane), but the thing is my old spec with half the RAM, and half the power could still pull this off. Only difference was it never went over 120 FPS. This new spec does get over that, but the low FPS is quite frequent here.

Do I have to overclock this GPU ? I would have though out of the box it would be able to literally piss all over LFS.

Thanks for any assistance.

Your CPU is holding you back - is that 60% load overall (as in what task manager says) or is that 60% load on one core?

Layouts are CPU HOGS.

If you have no cash, get an E1400 - it's a Celeron, but based on Core 2 architecture and can hit over 3.4 GHz on Air if overclocked.

Thanks fast reply.. I didn't know layouts were CPU intensive.

39% load overall - task manager. Isn't that okay? Sorry I dunno too much about this.

I just looked at the graph on the right to see that one core was about 60% while I did about 3 laps in full screen.




And If I'm going to upgrade I'll be getting a good CPU, no point getting low end stuff. Probably can afford an E6850 or E8400. I always end up worse off buying low end stuff that these days. I really thought my current CPU was enough. I thought it was my AGP was holding me back on my old system.

Jakg is right, a new CPU will massively benefit you.

I wouldn't recommend an E1400 though, as I would think the tiny cache would hinder performance a lot.

The best value CPU imo would be an E2180, normally under 50 quid. If you want performance, the E8400 gives massive performance and isn't too expensive.

Hmm no such thing as a cheap upgrade huh? I wanted to future proof it a bit more than my last "upgrade" which only lasted me about 12 months. So I'm willing to add another ~50 quid to the E2180 and get something like a E8400 unless someone can suggest something better for that price.

Dave your skids v2 sounds are still, the best <3

OK thanks guys. Well at least I don't have a dud card, and that is what I was worried about.

Quote from DaveWS :

I wouldn't recommend an E1400 though, as I would think the tiny cache would hinder performance a lot.

It's not an ideal CPU, but I got the idea (from the CPU) he was broke...

If your not, an E8400 (or even a Q6600) would be a very VERY big upgrade.

Well I'm not broke, but I just didnt want to have spend over $750 AUD to get a steady 60FPS on a game like LFS. It's not meant to need a crash-hot system. Or so I thought.

When I bought the CPU originally, they said I most likely could take it to another main board the next time I upgrade. Which is true in a sense, but I just didn't think I would have such bad performance.

I'm actually noticing less performance than when I had my AGP card. This is crazy. 35 FPS from some layout objects areas. My other card would happily go at at least 45-60 FPS and would scarcely drop below 40 FPS.

And something I really don't like, is the AA seems really second rate on this nVidia Card. I have to put the MIP right up to 0.0 so everything is blurred to remove the "running ants" from barriers and the curbs even at max AA/AF. So now LFS looks worse and is worse FPS.

When I get another CPU in a few days I'll follow up.
Thanks for the tips.

BTW: is there any point in getting a quad core for LFS, I mean - it only uses 1 core doesn't it? Q6600 is only $10 more for me.

LFS only uses 1 core, but what do you do on your PC? for me a Quad Core is a much better idea as when I need CPU power, i need all 4 cores (i.e. WinRAR etc.)

I play LFS. Thats all. I don't even use the pc for word processing. It is essentially my gaming machine, I have another PC for photshop and media editing. I don't run anything else when playing LFS except for CSR and a joytokey profiler which use like 0.1% CPU. :/


I may end up trying some other driving games, Dirt or RBR etc. I don't like First Person Shooters. But these games are usually bling'ed out so bad, you can afford to turn down the graphics and it still looks ok. With LFS you need everything maxed to make it look reasonable.

But my main aim of the question was..
Since LFS uses only one core, will LFS run better on a INTEL CORE2 QUAD Q6600 2.4GHZ or a "faster?" Intel Core2 Duo E8400 3.0Ghz it's only $10 different but, I'm worried it will run slower on the E6600 because it's got a lower clock speed.

Thanks mate.

LFS would be slower on the Q6600.

The E8400 runs cooler and has a better achitecure, meaning a 3 GHz Conroe (which is a 65nm Core 2 Duo) would be slower than a 3 GHz Wolfdale (which is a 45nm Core 2 Duo, which is what the E8x00-series are) as the E8400 has support for a few new features that would make things run faster if the program supports them (like SSE4.1) and a few more things that should benefit all programs.

If you ONLY use the PC for LFS, an E8400 would be the best bet.

(Although i'd take the Q6600 )

If performance is slower than the old card, then try running some benchmarks - try running 3DMark06 (to see if your GFX card is working fine - perhaps try updating drivers and making sure that theres nothing left of the ATi drivers on your system), and SuperPi 1M (to test your CPU & your memory a bit) to see what results you get.

i agree with jack on this of your using the pc only for lfs, a bit pointless imho but hey, then the e8400 will be great but for me i do multiple things on my pc, some video making, pic editing, transcoding movies to dvd format, and alot of stuff were spreading the load works really well,so like jack i have a q6600, i depends on what you want to do, multi tasking, 4 cores are good but if you are only playing lfs a high power dual core is better

edit:and another thing to really remember especcially with all pc stuff is that just because its the most expencive dont mean its the best or the best for your needs

I don't have a Q6600... :P

FWIW I think (or at least, hope) that LFS will, one day, become multi-threaded - probably around the same time that the rally pack is launched (:P). For me, the idea of going for a dual-core seems silly, but maybe for you it's not.

This is a new mobo and a new HDD and new Ram, so if ATi stuff is on there then I'll eat my PC (hat) hehe. Only original stuff is CPU/cooler and PSU/Case. I didn't get those cause I was under the impression I wouldn't need a new CPU for a while.

I was trying to avoid 3dmark06 - its half a gig download, but I can get it.
I did run 3Dmark03 and it was double my old system, so I was guessing my GPU was ok. I'll get mark06 now. to be sure

And I'll try SuperPi 1M as well. Not heard of that, but learn something everyday.

Now I got difficult choice to make after what you said. Thanks :0
I'd be happy to spend an extra $10, but not if its going to only pay off after 2 years, and in the meantime my game is always MUCH MUCH slower than it should be :/
What sort of difference are we talking about here? I mean comparing E8400 or E6600 what would be the loss in FPS?? as a guess. If its 20 FPS loss from 250 FPS - well I dont care - I only need solid 60FPS. But if it's at 80 FPS on a 8400 and loosing 20 FPS for a E6600, that's not good. What's the scale we are talking about? I'll probably go E6600 but not if it takes me right back where I started. :/ Sorry .. I'm full of questionss today.

Just to point out it's Q6600 for the Quad Core, and E6600 for the Dual Core.

Assuming the 10% faster clock-for-clock rule is correct, then a E8400 should be 37.5% faster in LFS than a Q6600 (although I think my Maths must be wrong).

For referance, with my system on a single 1680*1050 I get round 40 FPS in my "full grid from hell" scanario and after T1 it's vSync all the way to well... the end of the race. On cruise servers with rediculously overkilled .lyt's it may touch 50 FPS in the craziest of areas but the rest of the time it just sits at vSync. That's at Max AA, Max AF, rediculous detail level etc, on a 2.13 GHz Quad Core (LFS is only using 1 core, though) and an 8800GTX (which is around 5-10% faster than your 8800GT)

Yes sorry Q6600.

Wow, I was getting really close to that already BEFORE MY UPGRADE with the exception of me having User LOD at 0.7 and Dynamic LOD reduction at 1.0

Well, it looks like i might need the E8400 after all. Those crazy spots you talk about are wat kills it for me. I'm always at the back of a grid, I am along way from any server so, getting through past the pack is usually out of the question due to lag danger. And layout situations bugg me to death. Dropping to 50FPS really annoys me.

Jakg - Just a question, what Dynamic LOD do you use and User LOD ?
If a Q6600 can do a fullish grid well (60FPS) on Dynamic LOD at 1.0 then I'm probably sold. If you're running 0.0 Dynamic LOD then I can fully understand 40FPS on a full grid.

3dmark is 1 hour download - so i'm off to bed.. thanks for the advice.

oh and I only got a 9600GT 512MB, not a 8800GT :-)

Isn't Dynamic LOD something that makes it look worse? If so, it's off :P

My CPU is NOT a Q6600, it's a 2.13 GHz Xeon which is based on a Q6600, but slower clock speed and slightly edited "prefetchers" that make it a little slower in games.

Yes, Dynamic LOD reduces the Level Of Detail dynamically depending on how much LFS is draining on your system.

The higher that number, eg: 1.0 the MORE detail is reduced when alot of cars are in your face. If it's a lower number, eg: 0.0 then the reduction of detail is also less, meaning it looks better yes.

I dont mind using Dynamic LOD reduction. I rather steady FPS than perfectly 100% rendered cars. I mean a car 100 meters away can't see much detail on it anyway. I was hoping to get it down to about 0.5 at some stage, if not, I can cope with it as long as I can get my 60 FPS.
I can get Full AI grid at 39 FPS with Dynamic LOD reduction at 1.0 now.

I think I should bite the bullet and go for a Q6600. I hope your maths was wrong... LOL ?

An E8400 and 9600GT will get you about 60 FPS at the back of a full grid with everything maxed, dynamic blaady blaa on 0 and perhaps 4XAA and 16XAF.

However this is only the start of the race, for the rest of it unless the pack stays in formation you'll be getting well over 100. I have a weedy E2140 @ 2.8Ghz which is slow - to be honest. A stock E6600 will beat it even though mine has a higher clock speed. Yet, I can still get over 60FPS for 95% of the race with everything maxed.

/me thinks he should have posted in the CPU's thread.... hehe

Thanks Jack. Some comforting words.

Results for 3D Mark06 and Super Pi 1M
For 3D MArk I set AAx16Q and AFx16 - without AF/AA wasnt much different but I cannot change past 1024x768 in 3D mark so I hope thats normal.



Thanks again for tips.

You should be getting closer to 10,000 3DMarks with a decent CPU...

EDIT - Leave all 3DMark settings at default please- it's the way all the settings are compared.

Ahh ok sorry, here it is again (no great imporvement ^_^) with default driver settings restored to default - I attached the screen because default is just "Application managed" and I think that's what you mean.


I do get alot of FPS when I'm alone on track, just layouts and some track spots with many object kill my FPS. Funny how my old system didn't cripple this bad. Someone told me today my old AGP X1950 256MB is in the same category/class as the PCI-E 9800GT 512MB, but is that at all correct?

But it looks like I'm going to have to reluctantly order a newer CPU after all. I'm hoping to get at least 2-3 years LFS development/progress from that.

I have no idea where you get your "info" from but an x1950 Pro is about half the speed of an 8800GTS...

Whoops I made a typo, I meant 9600GT (LOL I said 9800GT) but still 9600GT and 8800GT are sorta close anyway.

and the info came from another player in a server,
I re-iterated to him it (x1950) was AGP and half the RAM of the PCI-E 9800GT and also the x1950 has DDR2 and 9600GT has DDR3, he was convinced x1950 AGP was similar spec/generation to the 9600GT PCI-E, but thanks for clearing up that. I thought he was maybe confused with the X1950XT PCI-E but I cleared that up and he knew I had the AGP version. He said it (x1950 AGP) was a really good card and was a close match to the 9600GT.

Thanks again Jakg.

No offence but your cruiser friends are morons :P

They are in different leagues :P