How come my laptop runs GTA San Andreas (etc) perfectly, but struggles with FM?

[not a rant]

Genuine question

As the title suggests, how come I can play plenty of 3D games on my laptop with no problems, but FM's (very basic, let's be honest) 3D match engine is slow, jumpy, blocky and generally not worth watching as it hurts my eyes?

I was playing GTA San Andreas earlier there and it runs as smooth as milk; great graphics, colours, definitions, depth and virtually no slow-down or loss of frame rate regardless of how much is going on on the screen.

I can also (and do) play games like Auran's "Trainz [sic] Railway Simulator" and drive multiple trains around huge 3D worlds, again with not much noticeable problems. Even the addition of weather effects like blizzards, thunderstorms and lashing rain have little to no detrimental effect on graphics and speed, and thus my enjoyment of the game is not lessened.

I just wonder how SI have managed to produce a game that is so basic graphically, yet is so resource-heavy that plenty of even modern machines chug along like a heavy-laden steam train up a mountainous track.

I'll reiterate the point that this is not a rant, I'm just genuinely curious.

[/not a rant]

Probably due to all the calculations going on behind the graphics?

Smooth as milk? That's a new one on me

As for your un-rant, I can only guess that it's maybe that FM is fairly processor intensive, rather then graphics intensive like other "flashier" games. Hence the slowdown

just out of curiosity what are your specs for the laptop? ive found the machine im on now (1.6 dual core celeron 1gb ram and integrated graphics) runs fm fairly well even late into games after a few seasons although technically according to www.systemrequirementslab.com it shouldnt.

Yeah, pretty frustrating when I am playing Empire Total War but FM is slow. But the lads up there are right, it'll have something to do with the processing and the amount of calculations taking place per second.

That's all I'm asking. Like I said it wasn't a rant, I just want to watch the match in 'glorious' 3D but can't. My laptop will play it, but like I said it's jerky and annoying. Suppose it is to do with all the behind-the-scenes calculations.

As for the 'smooth as milk' comment, I'm not sure where I got that. Will use it again though; I like it

EDIT: Stevie G - my specs are:

Vista 32-bit

Intel dual-core @ 1.86GHz

1Gb RAM

256Mb Integrated graphics.

It does run very, very badly for what it is but I suppose thats because the CPU is being used at 100% all game which introduces a bottleneck. Its probably also why the GUI needed 2 or 3 clicks to register 1 click.

Hopefully this has been smoothed out for 10.

Games like GTA definitely rely more on your graphics card (and yours is a pretty good one). FM tends to rely more on RAM. If I were you I'd buy 3 more gbs of RAM (might set you back 50 quid). 32bit vista machines can go as high as 4gb of RAM. Just make sure you've got enough slots in your motherboard...

It does run very, very badly for what it is but I suppose thats because the CPU is being used at 100% all game which introduces a bottleneck. Its probably also why the GUI needed 2 or 3 clicks to register 1 click.

Hopefully this has been smoothed out for 10.

Your luck.. the GUI has been revamped and responsetime has drastically improved so chances are good for you

Wee Aja.. If you can try installing Windows7 or WinXP.. The could perform better.. I had some problem on some games under Vista, but now I have Win7 and all games run like they "should"..

I have a suspicion that FM fails to use the dual core in some computers. I have plenty of RAM (3GB), and a 2.66 Ghz dual core. I think it's only using one, whether I tick threading on or not. Because when I untick threading, I don't see any slow-down at all. No difference. That's why the suspicion.

I get jerkiness only in some matches using 3D, but surprisingly in all the 2D views. GUI is sluggish and processing between matches is very slow compared to FM 08 on the same machine.

Next computer I get I will make sure that each core has a high processing speed to begin with, and not rely on the combined speed of both (or more) cores for every game.

Games like GTA definitely rely more on your graphics card (and yours is a pretty good one). FM tends to rely more on RAM. If I were you I'd buy 3 more gbs of RAM (might set you back 50 quid). 32bit vista machines can go as high as 4gb of RAM. Just make sure you've got enough slots in your motherboard...

you can install 4gb of ram on a 32 bit but it will only recognise roughly 3.25gb

What's this threading malarky then?

What's this threading malarky then?

When you start FM up, go into Preferences - General, and you will see an option called Threading, that is supposed to allow the use of multiple cores during processing. At least, that's my understanding.

you can install 4gb of ram on a 32 bit but it will only recognise roughly 3.25gb

True, but I managed to squeeze out 3.45gb. About 6 months ago I added 2 more gbs of ram to the 2 I already had and I didn't really see a noticeable difference in fm... I wonder if The Gaffovski's theory about dual cores is correct...?

What's this threading malarky then?

page 6 football manager 2009 manual

threading - this option is only capable if your PC possesses threading capabilitys. threading makes one single processor act like two logical processors, when enabled this allows the processor to execute multiple threads simultaneously, which will prodcude significant performance improvement.

Games like GTA definitely rely more on your graphics card (and yours is a pretty good one). FM tends to rely more on RAM. If I were you I'd buy 3 more gbs of RAM (might set you back 50 quid). 32bit vista machines can go as high as 4gb of RAM. Just make sure you've got enough slots in your motherboard...

What about if i stuck a 4gb flash card into my laptop and used readyboost, would that help out any lack of RAM problems?

page 6 football manager 2009 manual

threading - this option is only capable if your PC possesses threading capabilitys. threading makes one single processor act like two logical processors, when enabled this allows the processor to execute multiple threads simultaneously, which will prodcude significant performance improvement.

So if you have a dual core you should untick 'threading' or will it not make a blind bit of difference?

PS I like the way you said 'page 6 football manager manual'. Made it sound like you were quoting space core directives (or whatever they're called) from Star Trek.

What about if i stuck a 4gb flash card into my laptop and used readyboost, would that help out any lack of RAM problems?

unlikely to make a major difference.

So if you have a dual core you should untick 'threading' or will it not make a blind bit of difference?

PS I like the way you said 'page 6 football manager manual'. Made it sound like you were quoting space core directives (or whatever they're called) from Star Trek.

will only be effective if your processor has threading technology. and for the record its RED DWARF

space core directive 594... never end a game of football manager when your only 2 months from the end of the season.

will only be effective if your processor has threading technology. and for the record its RED DWARF

space core directive 594... never end a game of football manager when your only 2 months from the end of the season.

For the record, it is Space Corps

and for the record its RED DWARF

Dammit! I KNEW that!!

Thanks Stevie. Obviously not that much of a sci-fi nerd...

I think I misunderstood the threading thing. Deals with making one processor work like two, not with using dual or quad core. Thanks stevie G. So basically, ticking the option won't hurt? If your processor has threading capability it will start doing it, and if it doesn't then it won't make a difference?

Guess mine doesn't then as it doesn't make a difference.

For the record, it is Space Corps

ok so i cant spell but the sound was right

I think I misunderstood the threading thing. Deals with making one processor work like two, not with using dual or quad core. Thanks stevie G. So basically, ticking the option won't hurt? If your processor has threading capability it will start doing it, and if it doesn't then it won't make a difference?

Guess mine doesn't then as it doesn't make a difference.

i dont suppose so but googling your processor and finding the entry on the intel or amd site should give you an idea if it has threading capabilitys.

So if your laptop is a little low on RAM, would it be helpful for FM10 to stick a 4gb flash card in and use readyboost? would i notice much difference?

unlikely to make a major difference.

will only be effective if your processor has threading technology. and for the record its RED DWARF

space core directive 594... never end a game of football manager when your only 2 months from the end of the season.

So if your laptop is a little low on RAM, would it be helpful for FM10 to stick a 4gb flash card in and use readyboost? would i notice much difference?

i already answerd you

sorry stevie g i missed that. thanks

That's all I'm asking. Like I said it wasn't a rant, I just want to watch the match in 'glorious' 3D but can't. My laptop will play it, but like I said it's jerky and annoying. Suppose it is to do with all the behind-the-scenes calculations.

As for the 'smooth as milk' comment, I'm not sure where I got that. Will use it again though; I like it

EDIT: Stevie G - my specs are:

Vista 32-bit

Intel dual-core @ 1.86GHz

1Gb RAM

256Mb Integrated graphics.

I'm amazed the OS runs with that much RAM, nevermind FM...

Probably due to all the calculations going on behind the graphics?

San Andreas simulates a whole world! Oh, part of it at least. However, you may easily have more than 22 "objects" (i.e. people, cars, helicopters, boats, etc.) on a screen San Andreas - all with their own AI and physics. Not to forget San Andreas likely computes things you can't see in anticipation of you seeing it in the near future.

Given that the San Andreas PC game is simply a port from a console is even more impressive - if it were written specifically for the PC, it would be even faster.

Remarkably, San Andreas isn't that graphically intensive - an old non-onboard nVidia/ATI 128 Mb video card will usually do. Even with fire and particles flying everywhere, it takes quite a bit to lag a system today on San Andreas.

I've always thought Football Manager is awful to demand specifications vastly above the likes of Unreal Tournament 2003 considering it is barely 3D. Unresponsive GUIs are horrible.

It's also possible SI don't use a proprietary 3D engine which is optimised and quick, preferring to write their own to keep their code "theirs".

Truth be told, you do not have enough RAM to efficiently run Vista, let alone anything else on that machine. As mentioned several times, purchase more RAM for your machine. Also, check the background programs and make sure you don't have something running in the background that is leeching away memory from the RAM stick. If something is running, find out if it is necessary to run in the background. If not, you might have to create a new profile through windows that dictates which programs will run based on the profile selected. To be honest, I have not done this in Vista...only XP.

Truth be told, you do not have enough RAM to efficiently run Vista, let alone anything else on that machine. As mentioned several times, purchase more RAM for your machine. Also, check the background programs and make sure you don't have something running in the background that is leeching away memory from the RAM stick. If something is running, find out if it is necessary to run in the background. If not, you might have to create a new profile through windows that dictates which programs will run based on the profile selected. To be honest, I have not done this in Vista...only XP.

this is not quite strictly true. Although ram and more ram can not hurt you could put loads of ram in it wont stop some lagg. Its the processor which is to blame why peeps have slow gaming with FM and not games such as GTA San Andreas. I will explain why.

Look at the prices of laptops PC's with mindboggling prices for processor power. Well folks to get cheap for maximum buck they say to run these graphic intensive games out there they compromise on the chipsets. Thats right you dont get all the chipset what usually goes is 2d performance as gamers dont need this as the computer going to be used for graphic intensive loads. So to make what normally would cost £2000 spec machine look £600 cuts are made in areas which would not be noticable. Check processor prices and you will see two versions at least one nearly double the other. Its the same with graphics cards to compromises are made which wont normally effect the end user.

The problem with FM its not just graphics orientated its also 2d hardcore big time it needs vast numbercrunching workload which most 3d gaming machines purchased cant handle that well as they dont posses the chipset. It dont mean they will crash and not do the calcalations it will mean they will take far longer. As the game gets more complex the issue will get worse.

I have a machine which has a server board and full chipset functioned CPU although on the slow side with power 1.6 ghz it ran quickly 2008 without a hitch and demo 2009 (cant check full game refused to buy). I only got 1.5 mB of ram. So ram although useful the pc must be geared to work numbercrunching to elivate bottlenecks ram cant be the magic wand to stop this.

The reason why FM09 stresses the hardware so much is simply due to poor and/or lazy and/or rushed programming. There can't be other reason than that. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

People talking about number crunching are not "on the money". FM08 and previous versions were, most likely, roughly the same. The big difference, between FM09 and previous versions, was the introduction of the 3D views. This is what taxes the machine quite heavily. But, given the rudimentary/poor quality of said 3D views, it simply shouldn't be so, unless one performs a poor programming job.

this is not quite strictly true. Although ram and more ram can not hurt you could put loads of ram in it wont stop some lagg. Its the processor which is to blame why peeps have slow gaming with FM and not games such as GTA San Andreas. I will explain why.

Look at the prices of laptops PC's with mindboggling prices for processor power. Well folks to get cheap for maximum buck they say to run these graphic intensive games out there they compromise on the chipsets. Thats right you dont get all the chipset what usually goes is 2d performance as gamers dont need this as the computer going to be used for graphic intensive loads. So to make what normally would cost £2000 spec machine look £600 cuts are made in areas which would not be noticable. Check processor prices and you will see two versions at least one nearly double the other. Its the same with graphics cards to compromises are made which wont normally effect the end user.

1 Gb of RAM is likely to not be enough on Vista, though - Vista itself pushes the 1 Gb limit with Firefox. With San Andreas, you'll likely be into virtual memory within a couple of seconds of starting the game, which I daresay is the bigger bottleneck.

this is not quite strictly true. Although ram and more ram can not hurt you could put loads of ram in it wont stop some lagg. Its the processor which is to blame why peeps have slow gaming with FM and not games such as GTA San Andreas. I will explain why.

Look at the prices of laptops PC's with mindboggling prices for processor power. Well folks to get cheap for maximum buck they say to run these graphic intensive games out there they compromise on the chipsets. Thats right you dont get all the chipset what usually goes is 2d performance as gamers dont need this as the computer going to be used for graphic intensive loads. So to make what normally would cost £2000 spec machine look £600 cuts are made in areas which would not be noticable. Check processor prices and you will see two versions at least one nearly double the other. Its the same with graphics cards to compromises are made which wont normally effect the end user.

The problem with FM its not just graphics orientated its also 2d hardcore big time it needs vast numbercrunching workload which most 3d gaming machines purchased cant handle that well as they dont posses the chipset. It dont mean they will crash and not do the calcalations it will mean they will take far longer. As the game gets more complex the issue will get worse.

I have a machine which has a server board and full chipset functioned CPU although on the slow side with power 1.6 ghz it ran quickly 2008 without a hitch and demo 2009 (cant check full game refused to buy). I only got 1.5 mB of ram. So ram although useful the pc must be geared to work numbercrunching to elivate bottlenecks ram cant be the magic wand to stop this.

Not to be rude, the issue actually boils down to front-side bus speed. Most people here have no idea of what the bus speed actually supports. A processor uses the bus speed to QUICKLY access the RAM. A system that has a bus speed of 400 MHz will not be able to access the RAM as quickly as a system that has a bus speed of 1600 MHz. I know this because I had two similar machines that had as one of their differences the bus speeds mentioned above. The graphics processor matters, but not as much since most video cards can support a game like this.

Yeah, pretty frustrating when I am playing Empire Total War but FM is slow.

Weird, my PC runs FM09 well but when I tried the Empire Total War demo, it was extremely slow and unplayable.