More Lag on a Better System for M2TW?

**Deacon Byron** · December 30, 2007, 03:20 PM

So I just got a new computer with an INSANELY better graphics card compared to the one I DID have... and a better processor and 1 more gig of RAM (3 gigs).

I was able to run full graphics on my old graphics card and it pushed 2 full stacked armies on huge scale units. The thing is... my new computer actually lags on the world map AND it seems like it lags a bit more on the battle map.

Oh yeah, my new comp has Vista as well... But I've experienced NO problems with Vista as of yet. Can someone please give me some kind of solution? Thanks in advanced.

**Ummagumma** · December 30, 2007, 06:27 PM

Is it a pre-built system? It may be worth spending half an hour or so ensuring all the drivers are recent and that there is no obvious IRQ conflicts (rare, but still worth checking for..).
Although they are entirely academic (i.e., not much use in the real world) you might want to run some benchmark software to identify any areas that do not perform as well as they should (Sisoft Sandra or Futuremark pcmark, for example). *waits to get slagged off for mentioning synthetic benchmarks*

I can't help you with any potential Vista issues - I've never used it. Other than the memory usage it should be fine though..

**spartan_phalanx** · December 30, 2007, 07:41 PM

Likely a driver issue, check to see that you have the latest for your video card. If you can give your specs we might be able to help further. Also what version of Vista are you using (3GB's should be fine for any of them though)?

**Deacon Byron** · December 30, 2007, 11:55 PM

oh, thanks for the replies guys... That's alot of help already. I'll look into the driver, but if you want to go the extra mile and whatnot, the card is an Nvidia GeForce 8300 GS. Processor is AMD Athlon Dual Core x2 5000+. 3070 mb of RAM.

I'm gonna add Rep to Ummagumma, but your answer was great too, Spartan.

**Deacon Byron** · December 31, 2007, 12:13 AM

well, never mind guys... I updated the driver. Don't know why I didn't think of it before, but thanks. Splended answers. Keep up the good work

Oh, and sorry to double post... my edit was glitching out on me.

**Doono** · December 31, 2007, 12:14 PM

what card did you have before because the 8300gs is an absolute piece of crap

**Deacon Byron** · December 31, 2007, 02:38 PM

ATI Radeon 1600.... bigger piece of crap

**Doono** · December 31, 2007, 03:40 PM

no acctually the radeon 1600 is alot better, all the low end 8000 series cards are junk, all cards of the 8800 series are amazing, there is no middle ground.

**Metellus** · January 04, 2008, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by Doono

no acctually the radeon 1600 is alot better, all the low end 8000 series cards are junk, all cards of the 8800 series are amazing, there is no middle ground.

By low end, do you mean 8600 as well? Reason I'm asking is I'm considering getting an 8600GT or 8600GS mainly because the 8800 series is a bit outside my price range.

**spartan_phalanx** · January 04, 2008, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Metellus

By low end, do you mean 8600 as well? Reason I'm asking is I'm considering getting an 8600GT or 8600GS mainly because the 8800 series is a bit outside my price range.

You should seriously consider an HD3850? It's the closest in price to the either of the two you mentioned but it's considerably better (excluding the harder to find x1950). Or pick your budget and go off what's outlined here.

There is talk of some new 3400 series GPU's coming in February, but not sure how they are going to match up.

**Doono** · January 04, 2008, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Metellus

By low end, do you mean 8600 as well? Reason I'm asking is I'm considering getting an 8600GT or 8600GS mainly because the 8800 series is a bit outside my price range.

Yep they are trash as well, they perform on par with the 7600GT and cost more.

Try and grab a HD 3850 they are relativly cheap and have excellent performance for the price.

**Simetrical** · January 06, 2008, 05:23 PM

Vista does perform worse than XP for gaming as well as other uses, but not dramatically.

**Doono** · January 06, 2008, 05:33 PM

It is true that xp is better for gaming but i wouldn't go out and activly purchase xp just for that reason. Vista will be just as good if not better within a year i would guess. And most games coming out are dx10 which when developers get used to it should perform better than dx9.

**Ummagumma** · January 06, 2008, 05:38 PM

Those SPECviewperf figures are shocking! I guess I'll be staying in XP-64 land until someone sorts out the OpenGL issue..

**Metellus** · January 07, 2008, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by spartan_phalanx

You should seriously consider an HD3850? It's the closest in price to the either of the two you mentioned but it's considerably better (excluding the harder to find x1950). Or pick your budget and go off what's outlined here.

There is talk of some new 3400 series GPU's coming in February, but not sure how they are going to match up.

Thanks Spartan, since posting this I had a look at the 3870 (slightly better than the 3850) and am going for that one.

**nightwar** · January 07, 2008, 01:41 AM

I see u have 3 gig ram. I assume that's in 3 1 gig stick's? if so that could mean u are running single channel mode and not dual channel. so lower performance.

**Simetrical** · January 07, 2008, 12:24 PM

I was going to say that according to what I've seen, dual-channel isn't useful for games, but it seems that reaction was wrong. This shows a decent improvement, this is more ambiguous (single-channel outperforming dual-channel sometimes for some games), this shows practically no difference. So I guess it's not clear, but either way you may as well use dual-channel if practical.

Regardless, when I had 3 GB of RAM it was two 512 MB sticks, which came with the computer, and two 1 GB sticks that I used to upgrade, so it was dual-channel.