Just Upgraded to 4GB RAM -- Performance Issues

[jabezscratch 159]

I just upgraded from 2GB to 4GB RAM.  They are 4 DIMMs of exactly the same model of Kingston RAM (DDR2 667).  RAM is posting properly.  Running WXP+SP2.  Intel Core 2 DUO E6700 (usually set to one core when I run SC4) + ATI 1900GT (AA off for SC4).  No issues w/ games or apps on my system other than on SC4.  In bigger cities, I'm finding a noticeable lag that was never present beofre installing the extra 2GB.  The automata motion is jerking, i.e., cars move forward then halt then go forward again in a jerky motion.  And the clock jerks forward in spurts.

The game still runs well and actually seems to run even better on smaller and mid-range cities.

I've fiddled w/ the virtual memory settings but can't eliminate this lag in the game on the bigger cities.  I've read generally that Windows XP does not like the 4GB RAM max for some reason.

Questions:

1) Any general thoughts on the performance issue?

2) Any recommendations on what to set virtual memory at for 4GB?

3) Can I remove one 1 GB DIMM and go w/ 3 GB RAM and try that?  My thoughts are that, since the other two are running in dual channel mode, the RAM won't post and the computer won't even boot.

[tungston 19]

I have a system with almost the same spec's, Ballistix 800MHz memory, X1900XT [512MB compared to 256MB], I have to run the game with software rendering. I have another system with a X850XT that I used an older driver so I didn't have to use software rendering.

You really don't need much virtual memory with that much physical memory. Mine will use about 1.2GB.

If you use only 3 memory modules, you will lose the DDR2 function, the modules need to be paired.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

At the very most, XP will only give a non-server process 2GB.  No matter what else you do, the rest will swap.

If the game is slow on a large city, think of what it is doing.  Each pass of the simulator looks at each and every tile in the city and performs a calculation.  This sometimes causes a recursive calculation to adjust previous stuff.  This is all kept in memory tables unless they are swapped.  Are you getting much disk action when you are running?  This is an indication of swapping going on.

You would have to have a very much faster processor, which isn't likely because the hardware mavens have now gone to dual and quad cores to get more throughput.  But this only helps with multiple tasks.  Most programs, this one included, cannot be multi-processed because they are not coded for it.

Sit back and enjoy the animation, and don't be in such a rush.  If you need something else to do while the game catches up, play another game on your other processor.

[tungston 19]

N O Body: He has a Core2Duo E6700, which is just under the extreme processor. My CPU usage shows 60 to 80% usage on core 1, and 40 to 60% on the core 2, when I run the game.

Window XP can use up to 4GB of memory.

[jabezscratch 159]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Are you getting much disk action when you are running?  This is an indication of swapping going on.

.quote>

 

I'm not getting much harddrive activity at all except naturally at the beginning when the city is loading.

It's not that bad -- it's a jerkiness that definitely was not there before I went from 2 to 4GB RAM.

tungston raised the point of the ATI card, in particular the newer drivers.  This has been a thorn in my side too for a while b/c, like yourself, I must run the game in software rendering mode.  This is too bad b/c I can't help but think how much better the game would run if I could free up the CPU a bit and run it in hardware rendering mode.  But, as noted throughout the forum, the newer ATI drivers seem to prevent everyone w/ a recent ATI card from doing that (unless you roll back to earlier drivers but then you suffer w/ other more modern, 3D-accelerated games and apps).

[pogoboymtk 9]

I'm using a Core 2 Duo 6900 w/ 2GB RAM on an Asus P5B-E mainboard. No issues here. I know with other multi-core processors and some AMD ones ( specifically I tried the 6600, I think ) you had to set the game on one core to have it run well. With my new Core 2 Duo, I have had not issues running on both cores. The game actually runs extremely well. If you haven't tried running on both, I would suggest trying it. It works for me.  As much as I loved my All-in-Wonder cards that I always had in the past, I have switched to a GeForce 7900, and everything runs substantially better. I think I've only dropped out of the game once since I got this setup, and that was my own fault because of the rail puzzle piece bug that exists.

 Good Luck.

[jabezscratch 159]

Thanks pogoboymtk -- I do run the game on both cores too and, frankly, I don't notice any real difference. I'm seriously considering breaking my pattern of buying ATI cards and going w/ NVIDIA unless the ATI driver issue w/ SC4 gets resolved by someone, somehow, someway.

[SC4BOY 20]

I have no problem at all.. using pure stock ATI drivers for my X1600XT card...I did make adjustments when I first installed SC4 on this pc.. but it was pretty simple.. just install the simplest stuff you can (not counting screen size.. which is very key if you are using certain LED type monitors (and certain portables are very touchy). you have to have synch'd size for the native resolution on the monitor.

I do have to set the proc to single tho (AMD 64 X2) .. the game is very eratic on dual cores.. The Core2 doesn't seem to have the problem.. don't know if anyone has tried the extreme quad unit

[castironpigeon 1]

Originally posted by: jabezscratch I'm seriously considering breaking my pattern of buying ATI cards and going w/ NVIDIA unless the ATI driver issue w/ SC4 gets resolved by someone, somehow, someway.quote>

If you're looking to buy a new video card in the near future I'd suggest nVidia. I recently put together a new computer with Core 2 Duo e6600, 2 GB Kingston RAM, and the GeForce 8800 GTS 640 mb card on WinXP Pro. With the latest drivers installed SC4 runs flawlessly on large, full cities with max graphics settings at 1280x1024 (highest my monitor goes). As a bonus, the 8800s are DX10 cards and ATI will probably be dragging its feet on the R600 series for a good long while.

As for your original problem, I doubt the extra RAM had much to do with it. Not knowing anything else I'd blame the graphics card since your current setup should be running quite a bit better than mine.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: tungston N O Body: He has a Core2Duo E6700, which is just under the extreme processor. My CPU usage shows 60 to 80% usage on core 1, and 40 to 60% on the core 2, when I run the game.

Window XP can use up to 4GB of memory.quote>

I think you'll find that only 2GB is ever assigned to any process.  Yes, it will use 4GB, and with care, even more if you monkey the HAL, but 2GB of RAM is all any individual process gets.  I don't think there were changes in this area in SP2, so my manuals are probably still good.

[Spinmaster 75]

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

In short... add the /3GB switch to your boot.ini.

But this won't help SimCity because only applications designed to take advantage of that switch will do so, and very few "common" apps for XP do... nevermind games. It'll help those apps if you have any, but SimCity... I'd seriously doubt it.

[drivetheory 0]

How about framerates? my PC is old but when i bought it it was top of the line. I did however buy a new video card until i put together my new PC when Vista SP1 comes out.

All of the following refers to running at 1600x1200 with all settings at maximum:

In the game If nothing is on-screen and im looking into blank space (tileset/map is just off-screen) my framerate is 500+, but if i look at the map (with anything on it, be it trees or buildings) at any zoom level FPS drops to 5-20...

I've contacted ATI about this issue in the past with my old video card and now with my new video card. ATI's tech support is a complete joke... however ATI makes great, reliable hardware (my Rage3D from the 1990s still works to this day on my Pentium II based linux box i use for my FTP server)

Changing quality settings in SC4 or ATT (ATI Tray Tools) has little impact on performance, little meaning framerates change +/- 10fps. As well, changes in resolution have the same proportional effect.

Moving the map stutters horrible when you scroll the screen sideways.

The clock goes and stops and goes and stops and goes....

Basically im not getting the performance from my card /system that i should be and i can't figure out why.

HOWEVER, if i change to Software Rendering i get 20 FPS and less stutter but the stutter isn't completely gone.

System Specs:

Intel P4 3.0GHz HT

Intel D865PERL (800MHz FSB)

Crucial 2GB DDR400 (512MBx4)

ATI Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB

Creative SB Audigy 2 ZS Pro Platinum

Seagate 300GB SATA-150 HDD (250GB Free; 4092MB SWAPFILE)

Why doesn't the new GPU increase performance?

Why do i remember BETTER performance 4 years ago with an OLD ATI card and OLD drivers?

I feel your pain jabezscratch!!!

  Edited April 30, 2012 by drivetheory  

[rushman5 33]

Wow, I'm running on 756mb of ram and 1.4gb of plugins. Intel Pentium 4 (original), 256 nvidia graphics card, and may lage, fully developed cities zips along just fine. The step up from 2 128mb slot, and adding 2 256 slots of memory was a signifigant increase, but I am still happy with waht I got. Of course, I can't afford a 28" flat panel display, but I do have a 17" box!

Still, my pc runs Sc4 just fine, with the game taking 1-2 mins to load, and 2-3 minutes for a fully developed large tile to load (10 secs if not developed)

[tungston 19]

Drivetheory:

I have been able to run SC4 with hardware rendering option in the game, with Vista [DirectX 10], and a ATI X1950 Pro [which only has 256MB].  There is some stutter with vertical scrolling, but the horizontal is pretty smooth.  But at least it isn't stop and go when scrolling, or zooming.

No go for any card with Xp though, with any driver less than two years old.

[outriderdriver 4]

Wow I guess others have realized more cores does not mean faster gaming. I had just sold my amd tower which was an affordable beast in 2004. Still faster than the 1.6 dual amd laptop i got instead, but its worth the trade off now that I can play on the road. If you really want great gaming get the last single core AMD FX chip (59?). I hear those are awesome.

[tungston 19]

I am wondering how you benchmarked SC4?