New computer - Got it working, but another new question

[Jack JumperSH]

all i can say is WAIT FOR Se7en TO RELEASE FIRST because u don't wanna have to get a code and then get the upgrade because there is a hacking problem with the codes

[SC4BOY]

When the game crashes it crashes..whatever it is it IS NOT [generally] processor related ... I have a dual core AMD and in the last two months its started CTD's on a regular basis..plugins file 4GB+...

Just a followup to further reinforce my campaign against the "your computer makes your game crash" idea. When I wrote the above, I had just returned from about a year of not playing SC4 and was still playing the same region as before. However, since being away for so long, I was slowly in the process of upgrading my plugins as many had been revised, merged, added to, etc. During that time the CTD's were almost intolerable! It would crash every minute or so.  Now that I have pretty much completed those upgrades and am no longer "in transition" with the updates, it has almost totally stopped the CTD's. In the last week (dozens of hours of play) I've probably had 4 CTD's..

"So what is it you're trying to say?", you may ask. I'm reiterating that 99% of CTD's (other than the two or three well-known issues such as hovering pieces over transit lots, etc) are caused by poorly designed or incomplete plugin content..

[FrankU]

So now the time has come to decide.
And I still have some questions.

1. Is a dual core more useful for SC4 than a quad core? I am trying to compare the Intel core 2-duo E84 with the Intel i5-750. The latter being a bit more expensive, of course. My dealer told me that SC4 is a bit older game and probably won't take advantage of the multithreading possibilities of quad core. Is this true? Is quad core a waste of money?

2. A graphics card. As I said in my first post: I have the darkest suspicion that a quick graphics card will speed up my game enormously. But Andreas (whose opinion means a lot to me) said it doesn't really matter. Are you sure? Is an expensive graphics card a waste of money?

3. 64 bit or 32 bit. With 64 bit I have the advantage of more RAM, which is obviously better (maybe I even can make a RAM disk then: I'd install 8GB immediately). Apparently SC4 works in 64 bit machines, but how do I find out if stuff like Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office 2003, and other older programs I use work in a 64 bit machine? Does anyone have a clue?

Let me specify the three options I am considering:

Intel core 2-duo E8400
Asus PSKPL C2D FSB1333
Geforce 9800GT 512MB PCIe
4 GB RAM
HD: 1TB 7200rpm
Including Win 7 home premium about € 750,--

Intel i5 750
GeForce GTS250 512MB
Motherboard not specified (interesting isn't it?)
4 GB
HD: 1 TB
Including Win 7 Home premium about € 880,--

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Also no motherboard specified
Graphics card should be added. Let's say about € 100,--, I thought.
4 GB
HD:1 TB
Including Win 7 Home Premium about € 820,--

The price is not really a problem... But please comment on the system?

[Jonathan]

1) While SC4 itself won't use both cores, other applications running at the same time in the background will be able to use the other cores SC4 is not using (as well as the core SC4 )

2) I have heard that a few modern graphics card actaully cause problems with SC4, but I don't think it is very true. A really good graphics card will only give better performance on games that are very good quality 3D, like CXL.

3)Photoshop has has its own 64-bit version, and any 32-bit applications will run fine, it is the dirvers you need to check. If you buy the retail Windows 7 you get both the 32-bit disc and 64-bit, so you can decide when you install W7, and if you don't mind doing another clean install you could change your mind later. (personally I've gone for 64-bit, mainly because I had no problems with it when using the RC version of W7 and because I "planned ahead"(more like didn't know what 64-bit was at the time, nor that 32-bit OS had a limit ) and installed 5GB of RAM when I built my PC.

I have no idea about the 3 options you are considering, and if I were you I'd wait for someone else to either correct or agree with me

btw, I would went for the Home Professional (because of XP mode and Remote Desktop, and because Ultimate was too expensive comapred to what it offered over Home Pro)

Jonathan

[Andreas]

Well, I built myself a new computer some weeks ago as well, so here's what I can report so far:

1) I bought an AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE, which is a dual core CPU with 3.1 GHz and free multiplier, so overclocking is very easy. When I ran SC4, it appeared that it only uses one core, although the list of command line parameters mentions a "-CPUCount" command, saying that by default SC4 is using all available CPUs. I assume that even though Windows displays several performance diagrams in the task manager, a multi-core CPU is still treated as one physical CPU, so a quad core won't be faster for SC4 than a dual core, only the clock speed is relevant. Personally, I'm an AMD fan, so I don't know that much about Intel CPUs, but compare the models and see that you find one with a fast clock speed, rather than multiple cores. Newer programs might be able to use multiple cores, but older programs that only run on one core will perform better on a CPU with a higher clock speed.

2) I don't know a whole lot about those new graphic card models, and since SC4 even ran fine on my old Matrox P650 card (only in software mode, so I wasn't able to use shadows, but it worked fine otherwise), I decided that an on-board graphics chip should do fine. I bought an ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO, which has an integrated ATI Radeon 4200 HD with 128 MB dedicated graphics memory. Since there were several reports that SC4 doesn't run as well on ATI cards, I was a bit wary, but unfortunately, there was no other proper on-board graphics available for the AMD AM3 socket platform. So I said to myself "what the heck, if everything fails, I can still buy an external graphics card", but to my surprise, SC4 runs pretty decent, and although I didn't have time to play for more than a few hours, I had no crashes whatsoever so far.

3) If you don't have any 64 bit programs, 32 bit should be enough, but of course, you can't use more than the 3.something GB of RAM with a 32 bit system. Since all 64 bit systems have built-in 32 bit support, you can go with 64 bit without any problems. Just check in advance if you have some older hardware (such as a printer or a scanner) that you want to keep, and look if there are 64 bit drivers available. I originally planned to keep my 32 bit WinXP Pro, but unfortunately, I can't get past the installation, the first start always results in a bluescreen right away due to some S-ATA RAID driver incompatibilities. I don't want to lose my RAID, since it has proven very performant when dealing with large files (videos, DatPacked SC4 files ), so I decided to use the 64 bit Win7 RC version. SC4 and all other 32 bit programs seem to run fine, except some system utilities and other programs that integrate into the system very deep.

All in all, I'm very pleased with my decision, and although I had somewhat of a hard time to get used to Win7, the system performs very well. I was even able to unlock a third core, and overclocked the CPU to 3.6 GHz without any problems so far. I assume I could even go a bit higher, but there's really no need for that at the moment. I opted for 4 GB RAM, and for the programs that don't run properly on Win7, I installed Sun VirtualBox, where I run my good old WinXP inside a virtual machine. Since I now have a "free" additional core, and 4 instead of some 3.25 GB RAM that I would have been able to use with WinXP, there's no loss at all if I dedicate those to the WinXP virtual machine. SC4 performs greatly, the medium speed is now as fast as the fast speed setting on my old machine (AMD Athlon 64 3000+), Videos convert with some 80 or 90 frames per second instead of 15 or so, and the whole system runs smoothly.

The best thing is probably the price I paid - it was a mere 350 EUR for a new case, the mainboard, CPU, and RAM, and since I sold my old machine (plus a few spare parts I had laying around) for 150 EUR, I basically got a new computer for just 200 EUR (and some work, plus cursing about the non-functional WinXP S-ATA RAID drivers). I'm continuing to use my old HDs and the old DVD drive, plus all external components, so the only thing that I'd need to buy next year is a new copy of Win7 (or try and see if there is a new version of the S-ATA RAID drivers which finally works properly). Personally, I think that Intel machines are overpriced; with a little work and some knowledge, you can max out those new AMD CPUs very well, and they basically come at a bargain price if you don't need a hyper-fast computer for the newest games and stuff.

[FrankU]

Andreas,

Thank you very much for the elaborate answer.

Maybe I specify waht the thing is that I don't like on the old computer.
I speak now of region with 18 large tiles, of which 13 are completely empty and 3 have a population of 400k together. Not a too large development, I guess? And a pluginsfolder of about 1,3GB.
My screen has a resolution of 1024x768.
Gameplay is slow: If I select a menu and I scroll, the menu often stops.... and goes on suddenly a second later.
If I zoom in or out or change view the time to rebuild the screen is about, lets say.... 2 or 3 seconds? 5 maybe?
Loading of the game plus the city takes about 5 minutes. I relly fear for the time that the region shows real development with all cities and millions of Sims.
Is this normal? Will it help to invest in a new machine? What are your findings?

I was told that Intel cpu's were better for gameplay then AMD. I myself have always had AMD cpu's and I never did any kind of comparison, so I don't know about this.
But your explanation about 64 bits and the multi cores is very clear to me.

I am not able to fool around with cpu's. So overclocking or unlocking cores is not my cup of tea. Except maybe if with a very simple process and certainty of no overheating or other troubles...   

I guess that the best choice now is
- Not a too large graphics card, you say it does not really bother.
- A CPU with high frequencies and because of the price better invest in a quick dual than a slower quad.
- Motherboard: i don't know, the shop will advise me.
- 64 bit install and a lot of RAM (place for a 2 GB RAM disk with all SC4 files!)
- RAID for two hd's (If new HD: a quick one) for quickest reading of models and props. or maybe one of these new flashmemory "disks"? Don't know if they are available already.

[Andreas]

Well, what I noticed is that whenever I scroll through a large menu, change the zoom or rotation, or load the game or another city, the most busy part in my system is the hard drive. So that's definitely the bottleneck, and after changing the zoom level in a large city with many trees, or a lot of buildings, it takes some 30 seconds to one or two minutes until the harddrive finally idles again. Since the game starts loading items from the point on your screen and continues in a concentric circle around it, it doesn't really matter how long it takes, but during the loading time, gameplay tends to be a bit jerky, even the traffic animation is stuttering a bit, at least on my machine, but that might be related to the somewhat "low-end" graphics chip. But once everything is loaded, all animations are smooth again, so it has to do something with that, I assume.

I have not used my DatPacked plugins folder for my preliminary tests so far, since I changed something in the plugins folder recently, but I'll plan to do some more testing in that regard, and see how smooth the game will be when getting the max out of large DAT files on my RAID-0. Obviously, you need two identical HDs for this, so if you need 1 TB, get two 500 GB HDs - and as myself, you might need to use a more modern OS, since WinXP isn't able to deal with S-ATA (only with additional drivers, and who knows if that works). Overclocking my CPU, on the other hand, was really easy - just setting the clock frequency to "Manual" in the BIOS, and picking the desired frequency. One thing I did was using another CPU cooler than the standard one, but that only cost some 15 EUR, so it wasn't a big deal. Most time, the CPU runs with 800 MHz anyway ("Cool'n'Quiet"), the full clock speed is only unleashed if it's really needed - browsing the web, using office programs or listening to MP3s doesn't need more than 800 MHz, so the system stays cool, silent, and doesn't need as much energy as under load.

I don't know how well those hybrid flash HDs are performing, they seemed to be a very big hype when Windows Vista was released (so they could make use of the "Ready Boost" feature), but I don't know if you can control what happens to the data that is loaded into the flash memory. If you could select it manually, that would be similar to a RAM disk, but if the OS decides what goes into those flash chips, you might get a better system speed, but your loading speed inside SC4 might not change. Using a dedicated solid state disk might provide an awesome performance boost, but if I look at the prices for the faster models, I think I can safely say that it's still a waste of money - maybe in a year or two...

Anyway, I wouldn't waste my money on a dedicated graphics card if you don't need it because of other programs/games, since I doubt a more powerful one would bring a notable performance boost. Try the integrated onboard graphics (as long as it is from nVidia or ATI), and if you think it's way too slow, upgrade to a dedicated card later. Onboard VGA only costs some 5 or 10 EUR more than board versions without them (at least for AMD boards, dunno about Intel), so it's really a no-brainer. Check for a fast HD or two; RAID isn't that hard to set up, but be aware that there's a slightly higher risk of failure if you use RAID-0 (striping), since you'll lose all data even if only one of the HDs fails. But making regular backups is necessary anyway, so don't worry too much about that. I need to check if the RAM disk software that I mentioned a while ago works with Win7 as well; from what I see, Windows itself doesn't have proper RAM disk capabilities built-in. As for the mainboard, I like ASUS, but other brands like Gigabyte or MSI should perform nicely as well. Personally, I would avoid cheap brands like AsRock, but I hear from other people that they also run fine.

[FrankU]

With your former post in mind I went to the shop after I had finished my lunch.

I found the AMD II X2 250 CPU, dual core with 3.0 GHz. And it's 64 bits. maybe I should then buy an extra cooler so that I may try to overclock it a bit.
Motherboard: Asus with GeForce 8300, 128Mb on board.
Then I thought: let's try 64 bit (so I need Win7 Home Premium), which gives me the opportunity to install 8 GB. So I can make a RAM disk of 2 or 3 GB for my plugins. (Does a RAM disk mean that I have to copy my plugins into this RAM disk every time I fire up my computer? Guess so.. But that can be made easy with some Xcopy script file.)
Another possibility is to place two identical HD's and RAID them as you do. I could even do both.

Intermezzo: I am in the happy situation that I am not a rich man, but that I have enough to throw some money at it without getting into trouble.

The flashdisk option is not yet available, or it will be way too expensive. So I forgettaboutit.

Maybe there is some faster CPU avaliable somewhere else....?

I even have another option: in fact the computer I have now is appropriate for most activities I do. So I could use this one for usual work, like Internet, office, etc... This means I could dedicate the new one to only heavy duty activities (SC4, Photoshop, Music editing...) and let everything like virusscanners, firewalls and that kind of business out of the system. This will give the computer a lot less to do. I guess that might be good for gameplay too.
Only thing I must do then is always use the old computer for scanning new files for viruses etc.

[WC_EEND]

depending on what the main usage of the PC will be I'd go for a better GPU (atleast Nvidia 8800GT or 9-series)

[Jonathan]

Andreas, so your saying if I installed SC4 on a pen drive ( USB stick) it would run faster than if on my HDD?

[Andreas]

@Jonathan: Only if the USB stick is faster than your HD - which I doubt, unless you buy a really fast (and expensive) stick. There are various types of flash memory, and some of them are a lot faster than others (those for solid state disks are usually fast, hence the hefty price tag). The main advantage of flash memory is the shorter access time, since there's no mechanical part that needs to move around the read/write head and such. Plus, USB 2.0 is slower than a S-ATA connection, so this might reduce the maximum performance as well. I guess that "ready boost" feature is only nice if you have to load a large number of smaller files that are scattered around your HD otherwise. For large files that are not fragmented on your HD, a RAID-0 is definitely faster. The only thing that is definitely faster is proper RAM - but that is always volatile, needless to say.

@Frank: Keep in mind that not all AMD CPUs have a free multiplier (which makes overclocking really easy). Only the "Black Edition" (BE) usually work that way. And yes, you'd have to "re-load" the RAM disk every time you'll restart your PC, but as you said, this could be done by a script or something like that. As for using two different PCs, I had simiar thoughts, i. e. buying an ASUS eeeBox, which is basically a netbook without screen, that you could mount behind your TFT. It's very silent, powerful enough for the usual internet/MP3/office tasks, but then again, if you need more power, you have to switch to another PC, accessing files only works with a network (requires both PCs to run) or an external HD (requires constant unplugging and replugging). If you get a fast PC that also features silent and energy-efficient components, there's really no need to have a second PC. Yes, you could leave out the virus scanner etc. on your gaming machine, but then again, with modern PCs, resouce consumption isn't that much of a problem anymore.

[cogeo]

Can anyone please answer this?

I have installed a new graphics card (nVidia GeForce 9400GT, 1GB) and everything works fine, except for a problem in the UDI missions: the image is flickering and unstable, and the automaton is often darkened. The previous card was a very weak onboard chip, and the (new) card was installed after installing the game. Is there something I can do to fix this?

[wouanagaine]

Did you install the drivers from nVidia or from you card manufacturer ?
Always prefer nVidia drivers

Try also to reinstall DirectX

[FrankU]

Andreas: with 2 PC's I meant the option of keeping my current PC (the one I work on at this moment) and connect it with a switch box together with the new PC on one screen, one mouse, one keyboard. Depending on what I want to do I fire up PC one or PC two.
This also takes away the need to back up current files, reinstall, configure etc.... The new PC will be clean and efficient. And maybe one day Someone will like to have my current PC and I can give or sell it.

I'll start a search on the fastest AMD black edition CPU I can find around here.
Let's see what they come up with.

And WC Eend: so you think a fast GPU helps?

[wouanagaine]

With tons of plugins, the bottleneck for SC4 will be the hard drive, the faster you can buy the faster SC4 will run
As SC4 is a 32 bit program, it will theorically deals with a max of 3GB, but as windows and other concurrents programs will reclaim RAM at the same time, I guess SC4 use around 1.5 Gb and the others 1.5 is paged from HD, and SC4 itself use HD as it can't load 4GB in memory
I think the top could be ( only a guess as I can't buy that ):
-Win7 x64 with 8GB of RAM so SC4 can really use 3GB of physical RAM
-a 150GB Velociraptor 10000 rpm for your plugins

[Andreas]

This also takes away the need to back up current files

The rest yes, but you should backup the files of every PC in more or less regular intervals.

[FrankU]

Sure, I make a backup of my files every day:
I have written a small script that copies "my documents" to a second HD in my computer and then automatically shuts off the system. So vereytime I used my computer a copy is made.
And, not often enough I must admit, I copy this whole stuff onto my external HD.

And I found the processor you bought for about € 100,--. Wou's advice will be taken into account.
And I am considering to buy 8 GB RAM for a RAM disk with my plugins in it.
To overclock the AMD Phenom, do I need special memory that can be overclocked also? Is there a place where I can find info on that?

[Andreas]

100,- €? Is that a local shop or an online store? I paid about 83,- € or so in a German online store. The native memory clock speed of the AMD Phenoms is 1333 MHz, so you can get those. Most mainboards also support faster RAM, but if you just overclock the core (by selecting another multiplier or another core frequency, depending on the mainboard), all other components won't be touched at all. These days, some mainboard manufacturers even provide software, so you can overclock the CPU from inside Windows. If you google for "overclocking AMD Phenom II", you should find enough guides that provide you with some information about the process. Needless to say, be very careful, and only do it in small steps, but I think with those unlocked CPU models, overclocking has become a lot easier than ever before.

[FrankU]

It was in a local store. There is also one where I'd pay about € 90, but that shop does not provide other things I want. And Germany is traditionally a bit cheaper in electronics than the Netherlands, has to do with taxes, I guess.

I am not the kind of guy that assembles the thing himself, so I will not buy from several shops and put it all together. I go to a store and select the components and let them put it together.
My favourite shop does not even provide the CPU, but maybe they can order it for me. I'll phone them.

Anyway. I also read that it is easy to unlock two extra cores on the CPU.... And overclocking? I am not sure I dare to experiment with it. Probably I won't do it.

Thaks for your help. I'll let you know when the machine is here...

[Andreas]

Ah, ok, for a local shop the prices seem reasonable, esp. if they also build the machine for you. And overclocking and unlocking cores is purely optional, of course - usually, it won't do any damage if you're careful, but of course it's on your own risk, and not covered by any warranty. The main reason why it is so easy for the current AMD CPUs is because AMD is using the very same chip design for an entire series of CPUs. All AMD Phenom II processors are originally quad core CPUs, and they just disable those cores that don't work properly, re-brand them as triple or dual core and adjust the max. frequency to what they can guarantee for any system, even with the CPU fan that comes with the box. But naturally, if more people want to buy dual core CPUs because they are cheaper, they might have to disable cores that actually work fine, so if you're lucky, you can unlock one or even two disabled cores. As I said, I was able to unlock one of them, and it seems to work fine. I haven't made a stress test that lasted for hours (if you really want to know if your overclocked/unlocked CPU works fine, you should do so), but on the other hand, the system runs stable, so I don't worry too much. But as I said, it's more of a thing for the advanced users who know their hardware inside out, like car enthusiasts who are spending their time in the garage in order to tweak their engines and such.