Celestia Forums

Hello all, I just found this excellent program but I find that my PC is very sluggish to run it. I am thinking of buying components to build me a PC, but I am asking as to what would be recommended configuration to run Celestia at a high resolution, fast refresh rate and of course, no slow-down or flicker. I will spare no expense as I just got a hold of funds. Thanks for your help.

Get the fastest computer you can afford, with all the memory it'll take and the fastest disk and a top of the line PCI-e Nvidia graphics card

Some of Celestia's larger Addons will run slowly even on the fastest computer you can buy.

Celestia does not yet take advantage of more than one CPU, so it'll run only slightly faster on a dual-core machine than on a single-processor system that has the same CPU performance. There would be a slight difference because the other programs running on a dual-core system would not be competing for the same CPU.

selden wrote:Get the fastest computer you can afford, with all the memory it'll take and the fastest disk and a top of the line PCI-e Nvidia graphics card

Some of Celestia's larger Addons will run slowly even on the fastest computer you can buy.

Celestia does not yet take advantage of more than one CPU, so it'll run only slightly faster on a dual-core machine than on a single-processor system that has the same CPU performance. There would be a slight difference because the other programs running on a dual-core system would not be competing for the same CPU.

The latest Nvidia drivers are multithreaded actually.
So, even if the running app itself is not taking advantage of 2 CPUs, the driver will help it render a little bit faster.
That's another good reason to choose an Nvidia graphics card for Celestia.

Thanks for your recommendations. I will buy the components today. Would it matter if it is AMD or Intel? I really don't think so.

Today I believe Intel may a very slight lead in dual-core cost/performance. Not long ago AMD had the lead. For some people those small performance differences are worth persuing, though. You'll need to spend some time doing research -- not just asking people's opinions. Too often they'll be based on out-of-date experiences.

Getting a system that is reliable probably should be a priority, and/or one that's easily repaired when there are problems. Sometimes a local vendor can be more responsive to your needs than one that's far away, although they may be more expensive.

To add to what Selden said, I would recommend getting something that can be upgrade easily. Ram, PCI-E, Processor, SATA drives, etc. Pay paticular attention to the Proessor's socket and motherboard so you know what future proessors will work. Check out tiger direct not to buy from, but to compare different boards and processors. The more info you have the better decision you'll make.

cartrite

gleemonex69 wrote:Thanks for your recommendations. I will buy the components today. Would it matter if it is AMD or Intel? I really don't think so.

Right now, Intel Core 2 Duo is the way to go. It will smoke any AMD platform. Look at the reviews and benchmarks all over the web.
Even die-hard gamers are currently moving to Intel.
And all compatible motherboards will take the quad-core processor which will be available soon.

I am afraid that Celestia will become even more computer processing demanding,because I can??t do anything.I spend almost all my money in my system and it is NOT ENOUGH.But I will have money only in 2008,now.So,what can I do in 2007?
The problem is the DDR memories could be very difficult to find and will be more expensive,and I won??t have money to change all my computer.I wait I wouldn??t have to give up this program...

My system(again):Athlon 64 3000,Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe,1 GB RAM DDR400 Dual,VGA XFX 7600 GT PCI-E,HD Seagate 160.0 GB 7200 rpm and Windows XP SP2.

Boux wrote:

gleemonex69 wrote:Thanks for your recommendations. I will buy the components today. Would it matter if it is AMD or Intel? I really don't think so.

Right now, Intel Core 2 Duo is the way to go. It will smoke any AMD platform. Look at the reviews and benchmarks all over the web.
Even die-hard gamers are currently moving to Intel.
And all compatible motherboards will take the quad-core processor which will be available soon.

danielj wrote:My system(again):Athlon 64 3000,Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe,1 GB RAM DDR400 Dual,VGA XFX 7600 GT PCI-E,HD Seagate 160.0 GB 7200 rpm and Windows XP SP2.

As has been said before, that is not a bad PC. What I used to have: Intel Celeron 2.8 GHz, some crappy mobo, 1 GB of some slow value RAM, ATI Radeon 9250, 80GB HDD. Even that* ran Celestia at a decent framerate in most situations.

Until 6 months ago I was running a K7 900 mhz with 512 mb of ram, then for a short while a 700mhz k7. I got by. This one is better though.

danielj wrote: The problem is the DDR memories could be very difficult to find and will be more expensive

Danielj, I'm not in your pocket so I don't know what is the amount you can spend for improving your PC, but many times it has been told "put in ALL the RAM your card can load".
Well, today a 1 GB RAM DDR400 Dual memory card can be found at about 80.00 US$, and your motherboard and OS can take 2 GB, so with 80 dollars, no more, you can have a big gain, believe me.
Try to have it as a Xmas gift or buy it yourself, if you can, it's worth the price.
But if you want to have the top of the top, to obtain the best that Celestia (and not only Celestia) can give, well, this will need a lot of money, and to change your system probably once a year.
I remember when you told me that I had the best available system, about 5 months ago. Actually it's become old, the new graphic cards and processors are a lot more advanced than mine.
But 6 months from now, in their turn these will become old, and so on.
I remember when, many many years ago, I bought the Sinclair ZX 1 KB RAM (yes, it's correct, 1 KB!) PC, and how I was enthusiast to have it.
But after a short time more complex and sophisticated machines (the Commodore 64, just to remember one) become available, and for about five years, everytime I had finally decided to buy my PC, some news arose on an even better machine that was on the move, so I decided to wait for that. An so on, and so on.
So for 5 years I had no PC, because I always was searching for the best on the market, without understanding that round the coirner there will always be something sharper, faster, better that the actual one.
Danielj, as many already told you, you have a system that is absolutely good for most of Celestia, so use it and, most important, learn to use it in order to obtain the best it can give you.
You are very far from this, IMHO.
Bye and good luck!

Andrea

Thanks,but first of all,I live in Brazil and here the price is at least the double.
Second,the Geforce 7900 GTX have very few video cards above it.From Nvidia,I think only the 7950 GX2 is better than your video card.The 7950 GT is not as good as.And third,even one year from now,I won??t have money to buy a system like yours.Here in Brazil,it cost more than 3000 dollars.The income taxes here are very high.
And last,but not least.I can??t raise my memory in 2006.Because of the lack of support and the spread of DDR2,DDR memories will be more expensive than 80 dollars.
And almost everyone now have 2 GB of RAM.If Celestia gets a little more complex and detailed,it will be obligatory.The Celestia 1.5.0 pre 1 "beta version" fully loaded requires more than 1 GB,because even when I put 4 GB of virtual memory,I have plenty of white screens and the program takes AGES to load...

ANDREA wrote:

danielj wrote: The problem is the DDR memories could be very difficult to find and will be more expensive

Danielj, I'm not in your pocket so I don't know what is the amount you can spend for improving your PC, but many times it has been told "put in ALL the RAM your card can load".
Well, today a 1 GB RAM DDR400 Dual memory card can be found at about 80.00 US$, and your motherboard and OS can take 2 GB, so with 80 dollars, no more, you can have a big gain, believe me.
Try to have it as a Xmas gift or buy it yourself, if you can, it's worth the price.
But if you want to have the top of the top, to obtain the best that Celestia (and not only Celestia) can give, well, this will need a lot of money, and to change your system probably once a year.
I remember when you told me that I had the best available system, about 5 months ago. Actually it's become old, the new graphic cards and processors are a lot more advanced than mine.
But 6 months from now, in their turn these will become old, and so on.
I remember when, many many years ago, I bought the Sinclair ZX 1 KB RAM (yes, it's correct, 1 KB!) PC, and how I was enthusiast to have it.
But after a short time more complex and sophisticated machines (the Commodore 64, just to remember one) become available, and for about five years, everytime I had finally decided to buy my PC, some news arose on an even better machine that was on the move, so I decided to wait for that. An so on, and so on.
So for 5 years I had no PC, because I always was searching for the best on the market, without understanding that round the coirner there will always be something sharper, faster, better that the actual one.
Danielj, as many already told you, you have a system that is absolutely good for most of Celestia, so use it and, most important, learn to use it in order to obtain the best it can give you.
You are very far from this, IMHO.
Bye and good luck!

Andrea

my system:

win2k running on
Athlon XP 2600+ (running on FSB 166 with 2083 MHz)
1 GB RAM (PC333)
128 MB GF5900 FX
200 GB IDE HDD

I have no problem running celestia smoothly with a lot of textures and addons at 1280x1024, at least not until it needs to swap

Celestia 1.4.1 is OK,but Celestia 1.5.0 will be heavier.And you can run this smoothly without ANY AA or AF.

phoenix wrote:my system:

win2k running on
Athlon XP 2600+ (running on FSB 166 with 2083 MHz)
1 GB RAM (PC333)
128 MB GF5900 FX
200 GB IDE HDD

I have no problem running celestia smoothly with a lot of textures and addons at 1280x1024, at least not until it needs to swap

danielj wrote:Thanks,but first of all,I live in Brazil and here the price is at least the double.
Second,the Geforce 7900 GTX have very few video cards above it.From Nvidia,I think only the 7950 GX2 is better than your video card.The 7950 GT is not as good as.And third,even one year from now,I won??t have money to buy a system like yours. Here in Brazil, it cost more than 3000 dollars.

Danielj, this is Boux's system and, believe me, except for the RAM it's much better than mine

Core 2 Duo E6400 @2.8 GHz - 350 MHz fsb 1/1 - 2 GB ram - GeForce 7950 GX2 (primary) - GeForce 5200 (secondary) - Quad head display Nview+Xinerama 26"+19"+19"+17"

I live in Italy, and here prices are very high, probably as in Brazil.
But in the global market environment we are living now, I can buy in Usa, Cina, or wherever I can find the best price, and you can do the same.
The 80$ I was speaking of is the price I spent for each of my DDR400 Dual 1 GB memories I have, all coming from Internet resellers that you can find in ebay, as I did (if I don't mistake they came from Hong Kong).
Surely your actual system is very costly in Brazil, probably close to 2.000 $, but as I'm suggesting you, you can perform it much better with that single piece of not so expensive stuff.
BTW, I don't understand your continuos blame on the fact that your system is not good enough for you.
As many of us already told you, you have one of the best systems that Celestians have, much better than most of them, with only 1GB RAM missing to be almost perfect.
As many told you, and I repeat once again, instead of rumbling continuously on how "poor" be your system (you define it in this way, but you are absolutely wrong!), learn to use it, and you'll be surprised to find how many of its capabilities you are not yet acquainted with.
If you want, obviously.
Bye

Andrea

danielj wrote:Celestia 1.4.1 is OK,but Celestia 1.5.0 will be heavier.And you can run this smoothly without ANY AA or AF.

no celestia 1.5.x runs even better than 1.4.1

phoenix wrote:

danielj wrote:Celestia 1.4.1 is OK,but Celestia 1.5.0 will be heavier.And you can run this smoothly without ANY AA or AF.

no celestia 1.5.x runs even better than 1.4.1

No, on danielj's machine nothing ever works at all...

Adirondack

So the problem should be that YOUR version of Celestia 1.5.0 pre1 is better than mine.Maybe the cartrite installment needs some compiling,because EVERY TIME I change a thing;for example,toggle clouds on or go to another moon/planet,Celestia swaps and it takes at least 1 minute to get rid of the horrendous white screen.
I am almost giving up.Maybe it??s better to wait for a more finished version,later...
The problem is not with my computer configuration,though,because Celestia 1.4.1 at least,starts much faster and swaps far less.

phoenix wrote:

danielj wrote:Celestia 1.4.1 is OK,but Celestia 1.5.0 will be heavier.And you can run this smoothly without ANY AA or AF.

no celestia 1.5.x runs even better than 1.4.1

Well,

I still have Celestia 1.4.1 running on the machine in my sig.
But since it has become a bit lame for things I want to do, I will be buying a new one.

At them moment I am planning on a Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 with 2 GB RAM and a Nvidea 7900 GS with 256MB. That should be more than enough for Celestia to get good framerates.

I think I will have an equivalent system,but ONLY in 2008.Until there,I will suffer a bit...
I could buy an additional 1 GB of RAM,but I had to buy an eyepiece instead and don??t have money for both of them.

Guckytos wrote:Well,

I still have Celestia 1.4.1 running on the machine in my sig.
But since it has become a bit lame for things I want to do, I will be buying a new one.

At them moment I am planning on a Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 with 2 GB RAM and a Nvidea 7900 GS with 256MB. That should be more than enough for Celestia to get good framerates.