I've got 3 systems at home I use that can run EQ.

Anyone have any tools / utilities that would measure the performance of processor, memory, video regarding games like EQ?

1 system runs with latency / lag issues. Another system with almost identical hardware runs noticeable better. Right now the most significant difference is one is running Win ME, the other is running Win XP. The Win XP box is the "laggy" one.

I'm trying to find something that will better isolate what component is having the issues. I assume it is one of these:

Processor
emory
Video
Disk

Any ideas?

Not sure on what tools you could use to figure stuff out, but I can mention a couple "common sense"-type things:

Win XP is a giant install compared to ME. It will run much slower than ME on two computers with the same specs. (Hence the XP box feeling laggy.) However, ME tends to be much less stable than XP.

For EQ, I find that having more RAM really helps out. If one box has more memory than another, it will in theory be better (considering same processor, HDD, video card, etc)

Hard drive space is nice to have, but I haven't found it to be essential for EQ. Same for video cards. I don't think they would cause lag, but a nicer video card is good to have.

I can probably think of more to add in a bit of time, but hopefully this is a start.

Note: Not sure how computer-literate you are. If you have a good handle on hardware, you should be able to figure a lot of this out on your own. If you feel adventurous, you can try swapping hardware to make a "better" box. (I'd recommed sticking with XP, IMO it's a billion times better than ME. ME was like the black sheep of the Windows family.)

Hard disk speed is also something I think that's pretty important for EQ. There's a lot of loading of files and swapping going on and having a fast HD or one with a nice big cache can probably help a lot.

You can use the XP task manager to identify resource problems. The Options menu will allow you to monitor many different types of resource usage. One thing to watch out for are crappy drivers and services which burn CPU cycles. For example, I found that the driver for my DeskJet 3820 starts paging non-stop an hour or two after I've used it to print with. This drives my frame rates way, way down. I guess that's what I deserve for buying a cheap printer (although surprisingly good apart from the driver).

Yet another thing to watch out for: if your system comes with a pre-installed version of the OS from a company like Gateway or Dell, they tend to install all sorts of crap that you'll never need. They also tend to favor drivers from OEMs over drivers from Microsoft (who does a much better job testing drivers than most OEMs do). When I've bought systems from Dell in the past, the first thing I do is reinstall them with a plain vanilla version of the OS.

Lastly, the 3DMark video benchmarking software is pretty good and can help with finding good settings for the overclocking.

Clakar says: Anyone have any tools / utilities that would measure the performance of processor, memory, video regarding games like EQ?

For general 3D game performance, <a href=http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark2001.shtml>3DMark2001 SE</a> is a popular benchmark (don't use the 3DMark2003). Pay particular attention to the first three game benchmarks (car race, dragothic, lobby), as these are the most accurate indicators of your EQ performance, not the total number. At default resolution (1024x768), 3DMark2001 is about 50% CPU/memory and 50% video card power. As you go up in resolution, the video card becomes more important in the total figure.

For raw CPU/memory/hard disk performance, grab <a href=http://www.sisoftware.net/index.html?dir=dload&location=sware_dl_x86&langx=en&a=>SiSoft Sandra</a> and run the CPU arithmetic, multimedia, memory bandwidth and hard drive benchmarks. Since Sandra is so commonly used to benchmark, it's easy to see deviations in the numbers if your system is off.

1 system runs with latency / lag issues. Another system with almost identical hardware runs noticeable better.

Sounds like some sort of driver or hardware conflict. Do both systems have the same hardware? Same version of drivers? It's hard to tell from just the information you have given.

Kanissa says: Win XP is a giant install compared to ME. It will run much slower than ME on two computers with the same specs.

This is soooo wrong! The difference in speed between the two is small, however the difference in stability is night and day, with WinME being crap for stability of course. In benchmarks, Win2K/XP often win out over WinME. For example, read <a href=http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/os/index.x?pg=1>this review</a> comparing the OSs.

Since you have more than one computer, install 98 on one and only use it for games. Might have changed by now, but 2000 was designed before, so that software could not directly access software. It's not a bad thing, just not real great for games that rely on being able to do so.

If you notice you're lagging more when you are turning, then possibly a new video card will help. I know taking my weak, old board, from 64MB to 384MB certainly helped out just in itself. Upgradeing my weak, old video card, from 16MB to 64MB AGP 2 x (when PoP came out even. I played all through velious, and didn't buy luclin until PoP came out...I just wasn't playing), helped a bunch also. Actually I bought the video card a little later. It wasn't until after I was running around in PoK, and a few places in Luclin, that I decided that a new video card wasn't just a luxery if I wanted to continue playing.

Faster HDD might help some with loading zones. If you don't have enough RAM on the board, and EQ is trying to borrow some virtual RAM from the HDD, then it might help even more.

There are some decent sites out there that test hardware out. The only one I can think of right now, is tomshardware.com something like that. Used to have some good tests in there. I remember watching a video of a chip smoking because it couldn't handle quake or something. Hopefully it's still got usefull info.

Try asking a few different stores. Some sales guys will just blow smoke up your @^#, but some know what they are talking about too. Some people out there sell that stuff, because they love it sooo much! If you can't get help in store, then ask customer :P

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The difference in speed between the two [XP/WinME]is small, however the difference in stability is night and day, with WinME being crap for stability of course.[/quote]
I completely agree. If there is a big difference in performance it is likely due to having a crappy video driver (see if there is a new/different version) or some application/service chewing up resources. WinXP ships with a boatload of video drivers -- if you're not already using one of those, give it a try.

You didn't mention how much memory the systems have but XP does use more memory than Windows ME so if you don't have that much, memory could be a performance bottleneck.

ME is not Scottish.

Oh forgot! If you can't find a good driver...check out drivers.com

Just be aware that many/all the drivers there are submitted by just about anyone. That means you, me, or the hacker next door could potentially be sending them in. They do have a comments area for anyone that has tried the driver though, so make sure you check those out.

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">The difference in speed between the two [XP/WinME]is small, however the difference in stability is night and day, with WinME being crap for stability of course.</blockquote>

Sorry, let me be a little more explicit in what I meant:

On rather low-end systems (P2 266, 128 RAM, etc) there *is* a large difference. The group I work tech support for wants to upgrade all their computers to XP, which is an awful idea, when some of their systems are that slow.

I doubt that those computers would run EQ at all, anyway. Guess my comment was a bit unnecessary.

On my computer (P4 2 GHz, 512 RAM, etc) there would be no difference in speed, so in that respect, you are correct.

Edit: Can't type.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>On rather low-end systems (P2 266, 128 RAM, etc) there *is* a large difference. The group I work tech support for wants to upgrade all their computers to XP, which is an awful idea, when some of their systems are that slow.[/quote]
I don't think you can even install XP on a 128MB ram system -- I seem to recall that it requires at least 196MB but that could have been a limitation of the beta version. You're exactly right, though, you don't want to run XP unless you've got a decent amount of RAM -- 512 MB works well for most applications.

If lack of memory was the only thing preventing me from upgrading to XP, I'd shell out the cash for more long before running any flavor of Win9x. Of course, that's just me -- I realize businesses and companies have budgets to work within.

Kanissa says: On rather low-end systems (P2 266, 128 RAM, etc) . . .

What part of EQ are you going to run on that system, the log on screen? <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.asp)
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

Windows XP Home (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/sysreqs.asp) had the same core requirements.

---
By the way, it will install on something slower and with less RAM (you gotta give it an "unsupported" push). However it'll be so slow, you'll wonder where your 3.1 disks were.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features[/quote]
"may limit some features" -- yeah, like running software :-)

Could you imagine trying to (attemt to) run Word or Excel on a system like that?

Office products (http://www.microsoft.com/office/word/evaluation/sysreq.asp) require additional memory. It's stated on their webpages.

inimum Requirements
Computer/Processor Computer with Pentium 133 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended

emory RAM requirements depend on the operating system used:
Windows 98, or Windows 98 Second Edition
24 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for Word
Windows Me, or Microsoft Windows NT®
32 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for Word
Windows 2000 Professional
64 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for Word
Windows XP Professional, or Windows XP Home Edition
128 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for Word

If these are work machines you are talking about, and depending on what you do, then no I wouldn't run 98. It's just not secure at all.

With those work specs you put out, I'd check out LINUX, maybe Lindows, but I have no idea what that needs to run.

If you have to have Windows, and it's networked, then NT is probably your best option for such low specs. NT 4.0 even sucked for stability, but it worked...most of the time...ok ok, part of the time.

For your home machines, Win 98 is the easiest way to go just for things like games. If you have any worries, then just don't ever put anything important on the computer, and don't allow that computer to access anything but your router to the Internet.