rec.autos.simulators

by **Jeff** » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:59:26

About a month ago I tried upgrading my GF 4200 to a Radeon 9800, but went
back to the 4200 because the 9800 was slower running NASCAR 2003. I now
purchased a GF FX 5900 Ultra and I am experiencing the same thing. All
settings the same, at the start of a race my 4200 gives me 40fps and the
5900 ultra gives me 29 pfs. My question is, could my power supply be the
reason these cards are not performing well? The Radeon suggested a 300w and
the FX 5900 Ultra suggest a 350w ps. I am currently using a 300w ps. I do
not get any boot errors or reboots. I was just thinking the cards might not
be getting the power to push them. Anyone have any comments on this.
Thanks.

Jeff

by **Darryl Johnso** » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:11:15

Does your CPU have enough horsepower to push bits at the video card?
It's all related. You need enough CPU power, enough electricity,
enough cooling, enough video rendering, enough RAM....

For what it's worth, when I had some power (electrical) problems, it
was my motherboard not feeding enough power to the AGP slot. (Older
motherboard not designed for the latest AGP specs, I guess.) But the
symptoms were intermittent crashes, not low framerates. 'Course, a
sample of 1 is hardly much of a sample.

Good luck!
--
Darryl

by AD » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:10:13

I am elated the 5900U is no faster.....after reading all you wrote before
about the 9800 Pro which flies on my system and many others.

Might you now agree with what was written...?

All comes to he who waits has never been truer...:-p

AD

p.s Hope you have fun sorting it...lol

> > About a month ago I tried upgrading my GF 4200 to a Radeon 9800,
> > but went back to the 4200 because the 9800 was slower running
> > NASCAR 2003. I now purchased a GF FX 5900 Ultra and I am
> > experiencing the same thing. All settings the same, at the start
> > of a race my 4200 gives me 40fps and the 5900 ultra gives me 29
> > pfs. My question is, could my power supply be the reason these
> > cards are not performing well? The Radeon suggested a 300w and
> > the FX 5900 Ultra suggest a 350w ps. I am currently using a 300w
> > ps. I do not get any boot errors or reboots. I was just thinking
> > the cards might not be getting the power to push them. Anyone
> > have any comments on this. Thanks.

> > Jeff

> Does your CPU have enough horsepower to push bits at the video card?
> It's all related. You need enough CPU power, enough electricity,
> enough cooling, enough video rendering, enough RAM....

> For what it's worth, when I had some power (electrical) problems, it
> was my motherboard not feeding enough power to the AGP slot. (Older
> motherboard not designed for the latest AGP specs, I guess.) But the
> symptoms were intermittent crashes, not low framerates. 'Course, a
> sample of 1 is hardly much of a sample.

> Good luck!
> --
> Darryl

by **Jeff** » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:24:42

Am I missing something here AD? You make it sound like I said something bad
about the 9800 Pro. Which I never did because I have never had a 9800 PRO.
I tried the 9800 non-pro. And I don't recall ever saying anything negative,
other than it would not work in my system. Maybe you have me confused with
someone else.

It just seems my MB doesn't like powered video cards for whatever reason.

Jeff

> I am elated the 5900U is no faster.....after reading all you wrote before
> about the 9800 Pro which flies on my system and many others.

> Might you now agree with what was written...?

> All comes to he who waits has never been truer...:-p

> AD

> p.s Hope you have fun sorting it...lol

> > > About a month ago I tried upgrading my GF 4200 to a Radeon 9800,
> > > but went back to the 4200 because the 9800 was slower running
> > > NASCAR 2003. I now purchased a GF FX 5900 Ultra and I am
> > > experiencing the same thing. All settings the same, at the start
> > > of a race my 4200 gives me 40fps and the 5900 ultra gives me 29
> > > pfs. My question is, could my power supply be the reason these
> > > cards are not performing well? The Radeon suggested a 300w and
> > > the FX 5900 Ultra suggest a 350w ps. I am currently using a 300w
> > > ps. I do not get any boot errors or reboots. I was just thinking
> > > the cards might not be getting the power to push them. Anyone
> > > have any comments on this. Thanks.

> > > Jeff

> > Does your CPU have enough horsepower to push bits at the video card?
> > It's all related. You need enough CPU power, enough electricity,
> > enough cooling, enough video rendering, enough RAM....

> > For what it's worth, when I had some power (electrical) problems, it
> > was my motherboard not feeding enough power to the AGP slot. (Older
> > motherboard not designed for the latest AGP specs, I guess.) But the
> > symptoms were intermittent crashes, not low framerates. 'Course, a
> > sample of 1 is hardly much of a sample.

> > Good luck!
> > --
> > Darryl

by **Tom Pabs** » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:53:19

Jeff...

Depending on which GF4200 you had (there's a wide range within that GPU),
the upgrade to a 9800 (non pro, non XT) might not been much of a jump in
video card features/speed or resources.

Also, motherboards, drivers, settings, power supplies, AGP port voltage and
CPU capability....all effect video card performance and the mobo/power
supply importance triples with the new video cards. Are you really sure you
are comparing FPS at "apples to apples" with regard to all of this?

My guess is, you have something set different than you had it with the
GF4200....but you are possibly not aware of it and that is accounting for
the performance drop you are experiencing.

You will need to provide all information as to settings and hardware, before
anyone here can be of much help to you. My suggestion is you find one of
the good video card "guru" sites (like Guru3D) and go read up on their
boards for a few hours and get you "basics" up to snuff.

Regarding drivers: The Radeon 9800 shipped with the 3.8's......they were
"rushed" out the door and way under performed. Everyone is using the 3.10's
on their Radeons. My 3dM03 score jumped from low 5,000's to low 9,000's
just with the driver change to the 3.10's (from the CD installed 3.8's on a
9800XT without "turbocharged" turned on).

Regarding power supply: This is an issue that has been taken lightly,
because it was not such a big deal....UP UNTIL NOW! Not all power supplies
are created equal. You need to check the rating on your PW300 and make sure
it is at least 12amps on the (+12) circuit. 15amps would be better....but
12amps is a must. If you must buy a new pw-supply.....get at least a
PW500......power consumption is going up....not down....on our computer
*** hardware!

Regarding Radeon 9800 power supply connection: You are supposed to make
sure your video card and hard drive (primary hard drive, the one that
contains your C drive if you have multiple hard drives in your computer)
share the same power connection! This is critical on a 9800XT, so much so
that they provided a "harness" just to use for making this connection. A
few people, with spare power connections bi-passed using this harness (think
it was more of a convenience item rather than a "requirement").....and end
up not only with a slow video card, but also with having to reinstall their
operating system! Seems the "shutdown" of the video card and HD need to be
coordinated or the ops-sys (WinXP has the biggest problem with this) can't
save the operating system files to the hard drive fast enough. After just a
few shutdowns....your registry is hosed and you have to reinstall because
the back ups are all hosed too!

Just some "food for thought." Hope it's helpful.

Regards,

Tom

PS: Antec makes the best power supplies, IMHO.

by **alex** » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:00:19

I highly doubt that power supply may be the cause, but here're
few random thoughts... Nvidia supports OpenGL better (unless it has
changed recently) and Papy games are faster in OpenGL. Might it be
that difference in OpenGL drivers negate the difference between GF4200
and Radeon (if you're running in OpenGL of course)? Still it doesn't
explain the difference between 4200 and 5900. Have you tried to
reconfigure 3d card from the game (I think it does some benchmarking
with some purpose)?

Alex.

by **Jeff** » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:05:29

Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec 550w
power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no change.
All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same as
when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's
website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a
NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break.
The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully compatible
with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with N2003.
It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001 se
Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200. But
when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set the af
to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the
29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have the
latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various BIOS
tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade the
motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all now.

amd 2400+
xp os
onboard sound
512 ddr

by **Dave Henri** » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:28:30

The general impression I have gotten about the Nforce1 motherboards is that they
are slow. Especially compared to a Nforce2 mb. Also you have onboard sound, and
while they have made great strides in that area...I just have never felt comfortable
using onboard sound. Call me Han Solo...."I've been all over the galaxy, but I have
never seen an onboard sound setup I like. Gimmie a good Sound Card anyday."
And finally...with all the videocard switching you've done, there is a good chance
you have lots of nvidia driver fragments hiding on your system. Do a complete
scrubbing of your old drivers before installing the ATI drivers. Most 3d sites have
utilities that will help you with that. Good luck.
dave henrie

by AD » Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:32:40

Jeff.....until you have completed the boring part of graphic card upgrading
thoroughly i dont think you can compare like for like.

My routine at this point in your shoes would be this :-

- Add/Remove Programs and Uninstall any Nvidia drivers from the 5900
install.
- While there look for any Ati entries(idiotproof procedure ;)
- Download Driver Cleaner and run it for all Ati options and all Nvidia
options
- Device Manager and remove whatever is in Display Adaptor if anything is
left.
- Reboot with Nvidia drivers downloaded and ready to use.
- After the pc finishes and you are back at desktop with 5900 installed,goto
Advanced Properties and set everything to highest performance in Direct 3d
and OpenGL and make sure Vsync is always off in Open GL settings.
- Open Nascar 2003 and do the 3d config with 1280 x 1024 x 32 for example
and use OpenGL first.
- Go into game graphic options and switch off a few items that are not
needed,some shandows and reflections,drawing distance at 70% is ample etc
etc.
- Then do the fsp readings.
- Then do the same with Direct3d
- Then move graphic card properties to highest quality and see the
difference
- Use Fraps as well as the Papy fps counter

NOW

- Buy a cheap 10/$14 5.1 soundcard and install
- Check fps again.

I have two systems running Nascar 2003 my 9700 Pro one and my GF4ti4800se
one.The OpenGL GF4 one is always in the 90's for fps alone on the track and
gets as high as 150 at times.The Direct3d 9700 Pro also does the same
fps....this shows the OpenGL advantage is massive....so i expect your 5900
card to be flying in OpenGL with performance settings and vsync off.

AD

by **Jeff** » Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:00:53

Thanks, Ill do as you suggested.

Jeff

> Jeff.....until you have completed the boring part of graphic card
upgrading
> thoroughly i dont think you can compare like for like.

> My routine at this point in your shoes would be this :-

> - Add/Remove Programs and Uninstall any Nvidia drivers from the 5900
> install.
> - While there look for any Ati entries(idiotproof procedure ;)
> - Download Driver Cleaner and run it for all Ati options and all Nvidia
> options
> - Device Manager and remove whatever is in Display Adaptor if anything is
> left.
> - Reboot with Nvidia drivers downloaded and ready to use.
> - After the pc finishes and you are back at desktop with 5900
installed,goto
> Advanced Properties and set everything to highest performance in Direct 3d
> and OpenGL and make sure Vsync is always off in Open GL settings.
> - Open Nascar 2003 and do the 3d config with 1280 x 1024 x 32 for example
> and use OpenGL first.
> - Go into game graphic options and switch off a few items that are not
> needed,some shandows and reflections,drawing distance at 70% is ample etc
> etc.
> - Then do the fsp readings.
> - Then do the same with Direct3d
> - Then move graphic card properties to highest quality and see the
> difference
> - Use Fraps as well as the Papy fps counter

> NOW

> - Buy a cheap 10/$14 5.1 soundcard and install
> - Check fps again.

> I have two systems running Nascar 2003 my 9700 Pro one and my GF4ti4800se
> one.The OpenGL GF4 one is always in the 90's for fps alone on the track
and
> gets as high as 150 at times.The Direct3d 9700 Pro also does the same
> fps....this shows the OpenGL advantage is massive....so i expect your 5900
> card to be flying in OpenGL with performance settings and vsync off.

> AD

> > > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a
Antec
> 550w
> > > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no
> change.
> > > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same
> as
> > > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's
> > > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is
a
> > > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a
break.
> > > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully
> compatible
> > > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with
> N2003.
> > > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In
3Dmark2001
> se
> > > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the
4200.
> But
> > > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set
the
> af
> > > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from
the
> > > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have
> the
> > > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various
> BIOS
> > > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade
> the
> > > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all
> now.

> > > amd 2400+
> > > xp os
> > > onboard sound
> > > 512 ddr

> > The general impression I have gotten about the Nforce1 motherboards
is
> that they
> > are slow. Especially compared to a Nforce2 mb. Also you have onboard
> sound, and
> > while they have made great strides in that area...I just have never felt
> comfortable
> > using onboard sound. Call me Han Solo...."I've been all over the
galaxy,
> but I have
> > never seen an onboard sound setup I like. Gimmie a good Sound Card
> anyday."
> > And finally...with all the videocard switching you've done, there is a
> good chance
> > you have lots of nvidia driver fragments hiding on your system. Do a
> complete
> > scrubbing of your old drivers before installing the ATI drivers. Most
3d
> sites have
> > utilities that will help you with that. Good luck.
> > dave henrie

by **SimRace** » Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:45:42

anyday."

I used to be the exact same way myself Dave. But I have been using a couple
of systems lately that I built-up from Asus A7N8X Deluxe boards with the
nVidia Chipset and on-board sound and I gotta tell ya, I have a ton less
issues (performance, conflicts, etc) than I ever did with a Soundblaster
(Basic 16 through Audigy2 MP3) and the sound is great. Of course I don't run
3D or surround sound even though it is supported, I save all those bells and
whistles for my TV entertainment system, so maybe I don't tax a sound device
in a computer like most gamers.

- Show quoted text -

by **Byron John Forbe** » Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:10:23

k7n420 pro ??????????????????

Um, could be that 4X AGP slot? Save yourself some reading. :)

by **Tom Pabs** » Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:36:09

Jeff...

This is good advice from AD. The only think I would add to it is whenever I
change from one video card manufacturer to a new one (in other words, I'm
not just upgrading an existing same-manufacturer driver set), I also take
the added step(s) of uninstalling all programs that are "video"
related.....including all movie players and their codec's (like WMP and all
DIVx players, etc.). After I have my new video card installed, updated
drivers.....and CONFIRMED its running properly.....then I reinstall the
peripheral video programs back again.

This might be over-kill....but I've read more than once in some of the video
card forums where this has saved someone's ass!

By the way, the mobo forums are not the best place to find out information
about your mobo....as related to.....video cards and 3D *** issues. That
should be better done at the "video/***/3D forums like GURU3D or the
OmegaCorner forums. Obviously, everybody who has a video card.....has a
mobo of some kind. Yet, not everyone who has a mobo....has a high-tech,
*** video card! Get it?

Don't get frustrated, this is all a pain in the ass.....for all of us!

Regards,

Tom

PS: Your Antec 550w is a great power supply.......you can at least rest
assured you are not having a "power supply" issue on your mobo/video card.

PSS: Your BIOS settings on your mobo are "critical" to getting full
performance from you video card, especially in regard to 3D ***
performance. A. Make sure you have the latest BIOS version installed and
the latest "northbridge chip" drivers installed.....AND, don't do this if
you don't know what you are doing....get help with it first! B. Ask others
who have your mobo what their settings are in the BIOS and what "issues"
they have found/tweaked to make their rigs perform!

Example: On my current rig, with an ASUS A7N8X Deluxe mobo.....if I were to
set my BIOS to "optimized defaults"......my ***/video card performance
drops more than 50%! It's a huge difference!

by **Jeff** » Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:50:39

Alright figured it out. It's always the simple things. Uninstalled all
video drivers, and instead of installing the latest 53.03 I used the Omega
45.23. This brought my frame rate up to 42 fps at start of a race, just
like the 4200. BUT, I am able to turn on all graphics to max and have
4af/8aa and NEVER drop below 42fps. Much unlike the 4200. Once the race
begins this number skyrockets. Thanks for all the help. I have also tested
the card with F1C(which for some reason using the 53.03 and the ettc mod
caused flashing), Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty and others and it seems to
work great. My final question is I had taken the power supply out and
tested the afore mentioned on my 300w power supply, I wouldn't mind saving
some money, $120, and return the 550w power supply. Think I'll be ok with
the 300w? Thanks again guys.

Jeff

> k7n420 pro ??????????????????

> Um, could be that 4X AGP slot? Save yourself some reading. :)

> > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec
> 550w
> > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no
> change.
> > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same
as
> > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's
> > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a
> > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break.
> > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully
> compatible
> > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with
> N2003.
> > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001
se
> > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200.
> But
> > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set the
> af
> > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the
> > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have
the
> > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various
> BIOS
> > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade
the
> > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all
now.

> > amd 2400+
> > xp os
> > onboard sound
> > 512 ddr

by **Pete** » Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:44:16

Yep.
i'm running 3 x 7200rpm HDDs ,2 x CD drives, Radeon 9700, 512DDR AMDXp2400
on Abit NF7-S on a 235 Watter.

YMMV.

--
Pete H
GPL, NR2003, LFS suck .... you in

> Alright figured it out. It's always the simple things. Uninstalled all
> video drivers, and instead of installing the latest 53.03 I used the Omega
> 45.23. This brought my frame rate up to 42 fps at start of a race, just
> like the 4200. BUT, I am able to turn on all graphics to max and have
> 4af/8aa and NEVER drop below 42fps. Much unlike the 4200. Once the race
> begins this number skyrockets. Thanks for all the help. I have also
tested
> the card with F1C(which for some reason using the 53.03 and the ettc mod
> caused flashing), Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty and others and it seems
to
> work great. My final question is I had taken the power supply out and
> tested the afore mentioned on my 300w power supply, I wouldn't mind
saving
> some money, $120, and return the 550w power supply. Think I'll be ok with
> the 300w? Thanks again guys.

> Jeff

> > k7n420 pro ??????????????????

> > Um, could be that 4X AGP slot? Save yourself some reading. :)

> > > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a
Antec
> > 550w
> > > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no
> > change.
> > > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same
> as
> > > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's
> > > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is
a
> > > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a
break.
> > > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully
> > compatible
> > > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with
> > N2003.
> > > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In
3Dmark2001
> se
> > > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the
4200.
> > But
> > > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set
the
> > af
> > > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from
the
> > > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have
> the
> > > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various
> > BIOS
> > > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade
> the
> > > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all
> now.

> > > amd 2400+
> > > xp os
> > > onboard sound
> > > 512 ddr

rec.autos.simulators

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply

Video card and power supply