I think I just wasted $1000 on upgrades (Vista64, 8GB Ram, Dual 9800gtx)

[Eteocles]

Just dittoing Mages' post... AMD x64 4200 or 4500+ dual-core processor, 2gb dual-channel ddr2 ram, XP pro sp2, 7900 GS vidcard(unsure on ram, been so long I've forgotten lol) and I get about the same FPS he does in the same places, with maxfpsbk set to 20 and main maxfps set to 64 since it seems to max out around there anyways even if I set it higher. 30+ is playable though, wow ain't the most beautiful/realistic game in the world so a little fps/purdiness loss won't kill ya for performance ;p

I reiterate to OP though, try 1 card at a time as someone else suggested afterwards as well, and try non-keyclone maximizer, or outright manually setting the windows yourself; extra programs to do that work still eat cycles and every bit can count for us ;p you can also try running multiple windows that're the same size/stacked on top if you don't NEED to see them all at once(like I do; all 3 windows = 1280x1024, same res as my desktop res, windowed mode but maximized and none minimized to taskbar); having them maximized but not visible saves rendering cycles without being as bad for your switching as minimizing is, the latter causing lag as it brings the window back up and catches up to what's going on.

A fire totem would usually be the culprit for starting the meltdown. I always assumed it was a heat issue

I can't be the only one who lol'd at that. :P But yeah Sunwell Island has ALOT of npcs, ALOT of players just like shatt, but these players are ALSO in combat with fast-respawning monsters who chase for miles, adding constant varied spell graphics to the equation, and then take the fact that blizzard likes to make blood elf areas look too fucking good for it's own good, lightning texturing etc you name it, there's extra load, plus all the bombing in those areas, constant flights, people porting in and out; it's a madhouse. :P Also, try toning down your front fps...90 is OVERKILL lol, 64 should be fine, maybe tone down the backgrounds to 20, barely noticeable difference :p

[Kaynin]

You can turn of the Are you sure thingy.

Are you sure?

Funny, but just incase you are sincere and really don't know.

(I do this by translating my dutch vista into english words, if any of you english people notice I didn't quite translate one proper that might cause confusion, please correct me. :P )

1. Go to configuration panel.
2. Go to user accounts.
3. Click on "user account configuration turn on/off"
- Turn off user account configuration (UAC) by clicking the check box.

4. Restart your pc.

Basicly, all it does is put an Are you sure, before every change to your system. It's designed for people who don't know how to use common sense when browsing and click on stuff they shouldn't click on. If you feel you are sufficiently informed on how things go online and properly protected by other means. (Common sense, ad blockers, etc, etc.) Then turning this off will not negatively effect your pc and you won't have to click the are you sure everytime something changes.

[Gallo]

Basicly, all it does is put an Are you sure, before every change to your system. It's designed for people who don't know how to use common sense when browsing and click on stuff they shouldn't click on. If you feel you are sufficiently informed on how things go online and properly protected by other means. (Common sense, ad blockers, etc, etc.) Then turning this off will not negatively effect your pc and you won't have to click the are you sure everytime something changes.

The "enhanced" layer of security with the "are you sure" crap in Vista is nothig more than a smoke and mirrors game. The end user is generallly still lost.

Sssshhhhhhhh

[Kaynin]

Well, the general idea behind it is, if you dont know what its for, dont click yes. :P

But yeah, I suppose most people would even then still click yes. xD

[Eteocles]

Don't be afraid to ask questions before you blow up your computer kids! Better to look a lil dumb about newfangled technology and learn from it than to stupidly click yes and end up having bonzi buddies having an orgy while advertising male growth pills on your desktop while someone hax into your Steam accounts and cheats on 'em without your knowledge getting you permabanned, followed by a rootkit turning your comp into a warez distro :p

Computers're still relatively "new" tech...and the computer generation is only now hitting adulthood while the majority are still old people who shat themselves at the wonders of "CLAP ON CLAP OFF LOL"; and as I said before, they're a finicky non-logical thing that the weirdest things will fix ;p

Also, post #1,000! Ding, 375/375 Forum Trolling skill ;p

[Kaynin]

I get better results with Vista.

But maybe it's just me being a driver junkie.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

It is my personal opinion that running 5 different instances of wow, from 5 different installs on 5 different disks is a total waste of both disk space, and money. If you look at how operating systems go about caching on-disk data in memory, I'd say running all instances of a single install is your best bet. So you might want to try that.

I'd say, with your setup, neither CPU power nor graphics power should pose a problem. The more likely culprit would be either disk caching, or maybe the pci bus speed. Or, maybe network traffic, but that doesn't sound very likely tbh, as a bottleneck there would result in you seeing shadows, instead of getting low fps in cities (at least that's what I think).

If your disk activity is a blip here and there, using one vs many install directories won't yield a perceptible difference. Load times are really the only thing that affects, which should only result in Org/Shatt/IF lag for the first few seconds assuming you have _enough_ RAM.

I do agree that PCI or FSB speeds may be an issue here. That or RAM configuration/compatibility.

Nitro, what brand/spec RAM are you using?

[Nitro]

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =56832#post56832][quote='Blubber',index.php?page=Thread&postID=56772 #post56772]It is my personal opinion that running 5 different instances of wow, from 5 different installs on 5 different disks is a total waste of both disk space, and money. If you look at how operating systems go about caching on-disk data in memory, I'd say running all instances of a single install is your best bet. So you might want to try that.

I'd say, with your setup, neither CPU power nor graphics power should pose a problem. The more likely culprit would be either disk caching, or maybe the pci bus speed. Or, maybe network traffic, but that doesn't sound very likely tbh, as a bottleneck there would result in you seeing shadows, instead of getting low fps in cities (at least that's what I think).[/quote]If your disk activity is a blip here and there, using one vs many install directories won't yield a perceptible difference. Load times are really the only thing that affects, which should only result in Org/Shatt/IF lag for the first few seconds assuming you have _enough_ RAM.

I do agree that PCI or FSB speeds may be an issue here. That or RAM configuration/compatibility.

Nitro, what brand/spec RAM are you using?[/quote]

[url='http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145176']CORSAIR XMS2 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory[/url]

The cheap stuff :P

I purchased 2 sets of these for a total of 8GB

Is there a test I can run to find out if my memory is a bottleneck in this situation?

[Gallo]

I've always wondered if the 1066 RAM is THAT much better. My mobo supports it, but the 800 was so much cheaper, I couldnt resist.

[d0z3rr]

I added another Raptor Drive and installed Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
It automatically found all the drivers I needed, very painless

BAD idea! As much as I like Windows, it does not handle drivers very well.

You should immediately go to the manufacturer's websites and download all the drivers. Get your motherboard/chipset drivers from intel.com, gfx card drivers from nvidia.com.