Which PC will run LFS faster? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Which PC will run LFS faster?

anttt69

9th May 2006, 20:03

MataGyula

9th May 2006, 20:27

I think the first one will run LFS better, as it has a separate Graphics card , and not an onboard "slowness" ^^

anttt69

9th May 2006, 21:05

Bump :bump:

Jakg

9th May 2006, 21:19

go for the gfx card

Stellios

9th May 2006, 22:15

What XP is it, and what A64 chip is it?

LFS is very heavy on the CPU due to all the physics etc, and it only runs on DirectX 8 i think?

For me its 50/50 as ive heard that the 9600s return decent performance, but due to the 6100 being a newer chip i dont know how it will perfom in comparison.

Although I wouldn't buy a card as old as that now.

Agreed, if your paying for a card id advise startign at about a 9700pro, anything lower is pretty pointless as itll struggle with anything other than LFS.

Slidaaaa

9th May 2006, 22:16

Graphics card FTW. Although I wouldn't buy a card as old as that now.

lol wtf, i use a geforce2 and plan to use it till it melts or something.

anttt69

9th May 2006, 23:39

What XP is it, and what A64 chip is it?

LFS is very heavy on the CPU due to all the physics etc, and it only runs on DirectX 8 i think?

Its gona be around the 2ghz mark for both so 2600+/2800+ or the Venice 64bit chip. Basicaly the fast as I can get for around 50quid.

Jakg

10th May 2006, 06:59

Agreed, if your paying for a card id advise startign at about a 9700pro, anything lower is pretty pointless as itll struggle with anything other than LFS.i (still!) have a 9600 Xt 256 mb version, and it runs lfs (and quite a few other games) fine!

Blowtus

10th May 2006, 07:49

depends on the graphical quality you want. The 64 will run higher fps but with crappier looking graphics. the xp should run perfectly reasonable fps anyway, so I'd go for it. A comparable graphics card to the first can be had 2nd hand for about $100, would make a lot more sense to me to go for the newer mainboard / socket design.
edit: sorry, $100 au, thought I was on an aussie forum :) :)

shim

10th May 2006, 07:58

id go for the A64 actually, cause then later on down the track it would cost less to upgrade the gpx card instead of gettin a whole new CPU/Mobo..

spsamsp

10th May 2006, 08:30

I dont know much about graphics cards... but i was wondering, i've got a computer from about 5-6 years ago, a dell dimension 4400 and im not at home at the mo so i dont know which one it is but do you think im due for an update? LFS works fine on it but i was jsut looking for something a bit more luxurious... any recommendations???

pb32000

10th May 2006, 17:50

Err can you still buy Athlon XPs. I dont think they make them any more, and the last time I looked they were in great demand, meaning any ones that were about were VERY expensive. As in, I bought my 3200+ just as they were fading out, and it cost me £60 new, I've now seen them going for over £100 on ebay..

Stellios

10th May 2006, 18:29

i (still!) have a 9600 Xt 256 mb version, and it runs lfs (and quite a few other games) fine!

Yes, but for the price that a 9700pro goes for these days you might as well pay the extra £10 and get that as its a fair bit quicker.

J.B.

10th May 2006, 18:42

Ok I am putting a computer together which will mostly play LFS 99% of the time.

I have two options:

1. Athlon XP system 512mb Radeon 9600/9700
2. Athlon 64 system 512mb Onboard NF4 6100 Graphics

the big question is, which is faster @ running LFS?

I know that the old xp processors still do the business with LFS but on the other hand the new 64bit processors coupled with a newer chipset may be better. Does anyone play LFS on an Nforce4 6100 board?

Please post your frame rates of similar rigs.

Thanks :)

Beware of the 6100, it is a lot crappier than you might think.

I know because I built a Venice 3000+/6100 system for my brother a while ago, thinking that the 6100 might be similar in performance to a 6200, which is more than enough for LFS. I was wrong, 6100 is too weak for all games, period.

On the other hand the A64 will completely pwn and Athlon XP so I wouldn't advise you to get an XP system either. You really need the A64 with at least an 6200 GPU, even if you can't buy it all in one go.

anttt69

10th May 2006, 18:51

thanks peeps :nod: its a tough decision

might come down to availability of parts

any more input on this subject would be appreciated

thank you

anttt69

10th May 2006, 21:03

bump .... :bump:

anttt69

12th May 2006, 12:05

& again,......, any opinions on this? :shy:

Blowtus

12th May 2006, 12:23

you've got perfectly comprehensive answers, what else do you want? :)
pages and pages of info could be found by searching, if you really want more opinions / info.

J.B.

12th May 2006, 12:55

I honestly don't know what more you want to know. Maybe there are some specific questions you should ask?

And why are you still considering a 6100? Believe me, it really isn't good enough for any kind of gaming. Hint: weaker performance than GeForce 3.

Another hint: going from an overclocked Athlon XP-M 2800+ to an overclocked Opteron 144 (basically the same as an A64, best overclocker around) gave me DOUBLED frame rates in LFS.

nicknet

15th May 2006, 06:56

Both those systems mentioned are barely worth $300 (Aud) ... with the exception of the 1st option have a semi decent card.. not worth buying i reckon

Save your money, spend at least $700-$1000 on a better system, or check on ebay, you'll probably find something there.

i'm looking at upgrading aswell and i'm running an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ with 1gb ram, and 6600gt.... I only get roughly 40fps with full everything on and 1400 x 900 res...

I think CPU will be the first to go.... X2 or opteron?? Somebody said opteron's can only be used with server boards and ecc ram, well that's been dispelled... but which opteron is good for a A8n-SLI board....?

Viper93

15th May 2006, 12:12

I would go with a 64bit processor. LFS isn't extermely graphic intense compaired to the new games out there. I run dual 6600GT's with LFS cranked and I run about 90FPS(that I think was limited by me, ingame) with Vsync off, I normally run with it on. (1280x1024) I have the new elder scrolls game, the graphics are amazing, but in order for me to get good frame rates and have all the graphics turned up I have to run 640x480 in the game!!! I tried running a bigger screen with less graphics but the game just looks too good with the grpahics up =) (but running two 6600's is kinda like running 1 6800 so it's nothing all that special)

Go with the new processor, video card can wait IMO, I think you will see better gains with it.

I donno too much about X2 or opteron, I always heard that the opteron's were for more server side equipment than gaming.