What affects gameplay speed more - CPU or HD?

[Eric]

Does anybody know which has a bigger impact on the simulation speed of the game? Is it the CPU to do all the calculations or the hard drive for the file I/O when data is written back?

I have a SSD (solid state drive) and a regular hard drive (7200 RPM). I'm debating about running the game off the SSD but it doesn't have much space left.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Eric

Does anybody know which has a bigger impact on the simulation speed of the game? Is it the CPU to do all the calculations or the hard drive for the file I/O when data is written back?

I have a SSD (solid state drive) and a regular hard drive (7200 RPM). I'm debating about running the game off the SSD but it doesn't have much space left.

The simple answer is both, but the CPU speed effects mostly the game simulation. The issue is complicated since if you are simulating a month of games it's a combination of gameplay (CPU) and saving the stats (HD). That probably isn't what you were hoping for, but an SSD and a fast CPU would do the best overall.

[rudoggy]

not what was asked, but if you are looking for a boost in production, bumping up the ram helped me out alot.
Before my new computer, i had a single core 3.something, with 1gig ram. I bumped it to 2.5 gb ram as i had the room and it made a big difference. Im sure ootp would never need that much. Ram is dirt cheap right now, just make sure you get the right ram for your machine.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by rudoggy

not what was asked, but if you are looking for a boost in production, bumping up the ram helped me out alot.
Before my new computer, i had a single core 3.something, with 1gig ram. I bumped it to 2.5 gb ram as i had the room and it made a big difference. Im sure ootp would never need that much. Ram is dirt cheap right now, just make sure you get the right ram for your machine.

Just for the record, the improvement seen depends on whether the OS and PC are 32 or 64 bit; a 32 bit OS or CPU can only use up to 2gb max

[The Wolf]

If your computer isn't obsolete or underpowered then you should be running a 64-bit operating system in the first place.

[robc]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

If your computer isn't obsolete or underpowered then you should be running a 64-bit operating system in the first place.

Not true. My last computer ran OOTP just fine with Windows XP 32 bit.

[rudoggy]

Originally Posted by Henry

Just for the record, the improvement seen depends on whether the OS and PC are 32 or 64 bit; a 32 bit OS or CPU can only use up to 2gb max

Not that it matters, but 32 bit os can use 4gb ram, 64 bit can support a crazy amount, something like 16 exbytes, though of course hardware limitations will stop you.
The reason you can have 4gb is there is 4gb address space, this comes from 32 bit address space = 4096, or 4 gb ( (2 ^ 32 / 1024 / 1024 = 4096 ))

of course the system uses some that you can not, around .5-.8 if i recall. So you can actually use about 3.2 gb space. Sorry about my guesses on the system use, been a while since i had to do the math.

And with OOTO being a ram hog, more = better.

[endgame]

OT, but good to see you again Henry. Taking me way back.

[Valhoun]

Pretty much what everyone else said, just make sure you don't have one component acting as a huge bottleneck and you'll be fine.

With good ram, cpu, HD you can sim an entire season in a minute or so if you felt like it.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by robc

Not true. My last computer ran OOTP just fine with Windows XP 32 bit.

Completely true. With a 64-bit OS your system can address more RAM and it can dramatically improve the speed of many if not most applications. It may not necessarily make your copy of OOTP run faster, but if you do any graphics or video processing on your system then it's a no-brainer.

Unless your system is obsolete or underpowered you should be running 64-bit anyway. We recently bought both a new Mac and a new PC, and both of them came with 64-bit OS pre-installed.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by rudoggy

of course the system uses some that you can not, around .5-.8 if i recall. So you can actually use about 3.2 gb space.

It depends on the system. IIRC, when I upgraded to 4 sysinfo said I had 3 on the dot, but now it says 2.99 and I've read that some see as low as 2.5. Regardless, the RAM was cheap enough and performs so well that I'm perfectly happy with the upgrade. In addition, since it's dual channel memory it's probably working better than just buying 3GB would have worked.

To at least somewhat contribute to answering the OP's question, however, and while I'm probably not nearly as much a techie as many here are, I have to think the answer largely depends on not only your particular system, but the league you're running too. Maybe just test it yourself by timing a simulated year. Even if it does run better on the SSD you might not find it that worthwhile.

[Valhoun]

I wouldn't run OOTP on an SSD simply because of how much copying, erasing, rewriting, etc that OOTP does. That's not particularly healthy for an SSD and it's not really playing up to the strengths of such a drive.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Valhoun

I wouldn't run OOTP on an SSD simply because of how much copying, erasing, rewriting, etc that OOTP does. That's not particularly healthy for an SSD and it's not really playing up to the strengths of such a drive.

That's what I suspected. I plan on only having programs where there's a lot of reading and not much writing on my SSD.

[robc]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Completely true. With a 64-bit OS your system can address more RAM and it can dramatically improve the speed of many if not most applications. It may not necessarily make your copy of OOTP run faster, but if you do any graphics or video processing on your system then it's a no-brainer.

Unless your system is obsolete or underpowered you should be running 64-bit anyway. We recently bought both a new Mac and a new PC, and both of them came with 64-bit OS pre-installed.

I wasn't disputing that new machines come with 64-bit OSs, or that new machines with 64-bit OSs are not faster then older machines with 32 bit OSs. All I'm stating is that depending on a person's needs a machine with a 34-bit OS may be sufficiant for their needs (and therefor not obsolete). A machine is only obsolete if it no longer has use (for whatever reason). With computers, electronics, etc, people make the mistake that just because it doesn't have the newest features or is the best out there that it is obsolete. That is what I was disputing.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by robc

I wasn't disputing that new machines come with 64-bit OSs, or that new machines with 64-bit OSs are not faster then older machines with 32 bit OSs. All I'm stating is that depending on a person's needs a machine with a 34-bit OS may be sufficiant for their needs (and therefor not obsolete). A machine is only obsolete if it no longer has use (for whatever reason). With computers, electronics, etc, people make the mistake that just because it doesn't have the newest features or is the best out there that it is obsolete. That is what I was disputing.

You're completing missing the point. The point was that if you're running a modern CPU that will support a 64-bit OS, then you should be running one. Older processors can't do it and are by definition obsolete. Modern budget processors can't do it and are by definition underpowered. Whether you're happy with an obsolete or an underpowered processor has nothing to do with anything. This is a technical issue only.

[robc]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You're completing missing the point. The point was that if you're running a modern CPU that will support a 64-bit OS, then you should be running one. Older processors can't do it and are by definition obsolete. Modern budget processors can't do it and are by definition underpowered. Whether you're happy with an obsolete or an underpowered processor has nothing to do with anything. This is a technical issue only.

From merriam-webster:
OBSOLETE: no longer in use or no longer useful
Obsolete - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If it is useful, it is not obsolete. If a computer with a 32-bit OS is useful it is not obsolete.

This debate between us is obsolete as it is no longer useful. We can agree to disagree.

[MizzouRah]

The biggest benefit using W7 64-bit vs 32-bit is that you can use more than 3GB of memory, which obviously more memory = faster pc.

Of course the processor works hand in hand, so a dual core CPU would run fine with a 32-bit OS, but if you have a quad core CPU, I would recommend W7 64-bit and more memory.

So, the OP question I would say CPU and memory.. HD doesn't factor as much.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by robc

From merriam-webster:
OBSOLETE: no longer in use or no longer useful
Obsolete - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If it is useful, it is not obsolete. If a computer with a 32-bit OS is useful it is not obsolete.

This debate between us is obsolete as it is no longer useful. We can agree to disagree.

That non-technical definition is irrelevant. This is a technical issue, and you are simply wrong.

[beorn]

Eric, I think the that there are two separate variables here:

CPU is one of them, and will make a big difference, regardless.

The other is that the game requires a lot of short term memory. If you have a lot of RAM, that will do it for you. If not, then the overflow will go into the swap space on the hard drive -- in which case the SSD drive would make a big difference. However, given the vulnerability of SSD drives to wearing out, it would probably be wiser to add RAM, which, as has been noted above, requires a 64 bit OS to go over 3.2GM -- although that really ought to be sufficient for OOTP.

Neither of these variables has anything to do with longer term storage of league files, etc. That is a matter of the size of your hard drive. SSD drives are extremely fast, but not large.

That aside, I think robc makes a very valid point. If your computer's capabilities are up to the things you are asking of it, it is misleading to call it obsolete. You can save a whole lot of money each year -- the equivalent of working a ton or overtime or a great big raise -- by only buying upgrades for various technological advances when you are sure you really need them.

If your hardware isn't several years old, it can probably handle a 64 bit operating system, but is it worth giving all that money to Microsoft? Probably not, unless you have a particular graphics need where that 64 bit OS really matters, regardless of which dictionary you use to define "obsolete."

Of course, next time you are buying an OS, like when you buy a new computer, I cannot think of a reason not to choose 64 bit.

[robc]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

That non-technical definition is irrelevant. This is a technical issue, and you are simply wrong.

You go on thinking that if it makes you feel good. Take care.