best way to improve performance.

**Sam Adams** · 12-24-2004, 09:40

i have a 2.8 pentium 512 ram and a radeon 9600 video card.

I had this computer built specifically to run this great game, which it does very well except for when 2 very large armies face off.

should I double my ram or get a better vid card? which would you do first?

**FURRY_BOOTS** · 12-24-2004, 10:01

my spec,
p4 3.6GHz (hyperthteading)
2x 160GB sata raid drives (raid 0)
1024MB ram
ATI radeon x800xt

soundblaster audigy 2 live 24 bit(has BIG driver issues

)

even with this spec my frame rate drops alot when 2 full stack armies face off

but then i have graphics ramped up to max.
with your graphs set to min or medium you should be ok, you dont need anti ailising when on the battle field, theres nothing to see.

**BDC** · 12-24-2004, 12:29

Originally Posted by Sam Adams

i have a 2.8 pentium 512 ram and a radeon 9600 video card.

I had this computer built specifically to run this great game, which it does very well except for when 2 very large armies face off.

should I double my ram or get a better vid card? which would you do first?

Video card first. The 9600 isn't too great.

**Byzantine Prince** · 12-24-2004, 13:11

I got 1.2 Pentium and 512 Ram, and also Radion 7500. What do i upgrade first?

**Red Harvest** · 12-24-2004, 18:47

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

I got 1.2 Pentium and 512 Ram, and also Radion 7500. What do i upgrade first?

That's a fairly dated system. That is a P3 1.2 GHz I assume? That would be the top of the P3 line, meaning there is no upgrade path for the processor. If it is a P3 it probably runs 133 MHz SDRAM. So while you could add more RAM, you should realize that it is 3 generations old now (266 DDR, 333 DDR, and now 400 DDR.) Again, with a P3 there is no upgrade path for memory bus speed.

You could try something like a 9600 to max out that old system, but you are going to find the FSB and CPU speeds are the limitation in many situations. I've got an old 133 MHz SDRAM/ Athlon XP2100+ /with 8500 that did good service, but it is at the end of its upgrade path and I've not even tried RTW on it.

**Red Harvest** · 12-24-2004, 18:50

Originally Posted by Sam Adams

i have a 2.8 pentium 512 ram and a radeon 9600 video card.

I had this computer built specifically to run this great game, which it does very well except for when 2 very large armies face off.

should I double my ram or get a better vid card? which would you do first?

Your vid card is probably the key bottleneck, but even a 9800 Pro has some limitations on large siege battles. Extra memory will probably help some as well, but it won't work miracles. It might matter more with XP than it does with my 98SE system.

**froglegs** · 12-27-2004, 03:56

I have a 3-year-old P4 1.8 ghz CPU with 512 MB Rambus 800 RD ram and a new NVIDIA 5600 256 mb video card. The game runs great with large armies for every race except for the Brits. When I have a large battle with ~15 light chariots and a number of the enemy start to flee, I just about loose all control of the game. Normally, I have the battle almost won so it does not matter. Again, this only happens with the Brits. Would a faster CPU help? If so , how much faster. My mother board only is good for up to a 2.4 ghz CPU and since Rambus RD ram is odd-ball, I would not want to replace it. Besides Rambus ram is faster IMHO. Any suggestions?

**Mudshovel** · 12-27-2004, 23:34

ke onda

so , what super computer can run a very huge battle of , mmmm macedonia with 20 units of 240 falanges vs seleucids with the same units ????

my computer can do that

but like a turtle , just like a camera , one image , and other image ....

**sapi** · 12-28-2004, 02:14

lol
i'd always upgrade the video card first, then the cpu, but that's me

**Vanya** · 12-28-2004, 17:45

GAH!

Vanya sez...

Vanya's previous surrogate head ran RTW just fine on the following system:

CPU: 386 50 MHz
RAM: 4 MB
HD: 512 MB (With Stacker 1.0, that is a full 1024 MB!)
OS: Windows 3.1/DOS
Video Card: Dunno, but Vanya had monochrome monitor, so it not matter much.

Did Vanya have lag? Once in a while when playing 3v3 MP battles on line.
Did Vanya have problems with flaming arrows? Heck no!
Did Vanya have an abysmal frame rate? Not if you consider 3 fps "bad".

Vanya fought those battles wearing a loincloth... and ate only lint peeled from behind the ears of the vanquished... and He marched His grand armies UPHILL when traveling to meet the foe AND when His men ran away... in the snow... piled 30 ft. high... beneath the scorching desert sun... Heck, Vanya's frost-bitten naked fanatics also turned a lively red from the unholy sunburn bequeathed upon them by Apollo...

Did Vanya complain? Heck no! He did all that AND LOVED IT!

Youz young 'uns just have it good with all that P-this and P-that with RAM up the wazoo and that whole "HT" thingie-or-whatever...

GAH!

**Oaty** · 12-28-2004, 23:01

You have onboard sound. Have you turned off hardware accelaration for audio. You will still get good quality sound so either turn that down or get a sound card.

I can play RTW on my comp with no lag. I also played MTW on this comp and considering the specs are less for MTW, I will get lag in MTW if I don't turn hardwareacceleration down.

For windows XP
control panel
sounds speeches and audio devices
Sounds and audio devices
Advanced under the speaker settings
performance
Once there turn hardware acceleration down and sample rate conversion.

**castle** · 12-29-2004, 01:22

To play new games at a good frame rate and high detail it is best to have a 3g processor, 1024 of ram and a gforce 6800 or better. With this everything should run smooth.