rec.autos.simulators

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

Jason Moy

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Jason Moy » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 21:07:34

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:22:23 -0500, "Marc Collins"




>> Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really requires
>a
>> reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

>Ridiculous.

The world would be a better place if freeBSD or linux were adopted as
a *** platform.  That is all.

Jason

Dan_Leac

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Dan_Leac » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 23:50:08

Yeah .. windows sucks badly (any operating system that requires a registry
is a bad bad joke) and thanks to mr gates' meglomaniac tendancies we cant
use any of the better OS' about
 oh well     dan

> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:22:23 -0500, "Marc Collins"



> >> Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
requires
> >a
> >> reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> >Ridiculous.

> The world would be a better place if freeBSD or linux were adopted as
> a *** platform.  That is all.

> Jason

Mitch_

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Mitch_ » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:26:19

I found that by disabling "Fast writes" I gained 20 FPS..


> Great explanation.

> I also had a similar interesting experience going from a GeForce2 GTS 64MB
> to a 128 MB GeForce 4 8xAGP (Asus v9280).  In some games, the fps rose
quite
> a bit.  In GPL and NR2002, the fps was about the same, but I could run in
32
> bit with no impact and a few other little goodies also seemed to have no
> effect, so basically, you got a bit better looks, but no higher fps.

> NR2003 can bring my system to it's knees just by enabling shadows.

> P4 2.0, 512 MB Rambus, etc.

> Marc



> > I recently tested out a 9700 pro, and compared it to the 4600 I've been
> > using for months.  My system is a P4 2.53,  with 1gig of PC1066 RDRAM.
> > Anyway I found that the 9700 was about 10fps slower then the GeForce in
> > OpenGL, however it was about 5-8 fps faster then the GF in D3D, which
was
> > about the same FPS I was getting in Open GL on my geforce.  I also tried
> > disabling a bunch of things to see if I could get much of a FPS
increase,
> > and I really couldn't up the frame rate at all.

> > What I was running by default was 1600x1200x16  with 2x FSAA on, however
> on
> > the 9700 I was running 32 bit instead of 16 bit color, because I saw no
> > performance difference.  What I found was that I could turn on some
> > anisotropic filtering, and get no lose of performance.  Matter of fact I
> > could run 4x FSAA, and 8x AF with little or no performance hit, these
> > settings would have brought my Geforce 4 to its knees.  The game looked
> 10x
> > better on the 9700 with these settings and ran as well in D3D, as I was
> able
> > to run the Geforce in OpenGL.   So while you might not be able to get
much
> > of a frame rate increase with the 9700 you shoukd be able to turn on
alot
> > more candy with out any lose.

> > I did notice a much bigger performance increase in other games I tried,
> like
> > BF1942, and Ghost Recon.  For some reason these types of games saw a big
> > increase in frame rate with the 9700 pro, as aposed to NR2003 which saw
> > different results.

> > Jay Taylor



> > > Go through your settings and make sure things like 16x anisotropic
> aren't
> > > set on. Otherwise, there has to be remnants of your 4600 drivers still
> > >*** around. Did you install standard vga drivers before switching
> > cards
> > > or did you just install the ATI drivers right over the 4600 drivers?
If
> > you
> > > did it right and are still having a problem, you'll need to find a way
> to
> > > clean every bit of the 4600 drivers out of your system, including the
> > > registry.

> > > --
> > > Slot

> > > Tweaks & Reviews
> > > www.slottweak.com



> > > > So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings
in
> > > NR2002
> > > > and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg.
> > 8-10
> > > > less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> > > > Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> > > > I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> > > > Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
> > > settings
> > > > when the  Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> > > > 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D
in
> > the


Morris Jone

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Morris Jone » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 07:29:50

I gave up and took it back, not going to reformt my 120gig HD and loose all
my stuff and still may or may not get the performace I was looking for.
Think I give the Loud FX a card soon as it comes out.  This was in fact the
2nd time I had bought the 9700Pro, bought it back when it first came out and
gave up thinking it was driver issues at the time, I guess now it was not,
maybe my system, don't know, but to format my HD is not an option.

Thanks to all who tried to help,


> Yeah .. windows sucks badly (any operating system that requires a registry
> is a bad bad joke) and thanks to mr gates' meglomaniac tendancies we cant
> use any of the better OS' about
>  oh well     dan


> > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:22:23 -0500, "Marc Collins"



> > >> Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
> requires
> > >a
> > >> reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > >Ridiculous.

> > The world would be a better place if freeBSD or linux were adopted as
> > a *** platform.  That is all.

> > Jason

Damien Smit

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Damien Smit » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:44:07

I dunno, I tried out Linux Mandrake 9.0 the other day.  It seemed to be just
as bloated and unreliable as Windows XP - probably more so.  It also seems
that the only software available for Linux is geekware.

Marc Collin

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Marc Collin » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 10:22:28

You can reinstall Windows, I'll just make sure I clean up my old drivers.

Marc








> > > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
> > requires
> > > a
> > > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > > Ridiculous.

> > $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
> perormance
> > improvement when he does

> Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story" thread
just
> a few up from this...

> "So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
> re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some left
> over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

> He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

> Doug

Marc Collin

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Marc Collin » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 10:24:24

If you run defrag every other week, it suggests you don't know much about PC
maintenance.  Once a year should be adequate unless your system is a test
slave having massive software installations and uninstallations occurring
every day.

Marc


> Care to tell me what you think was poorly maintained on my system Tim?
When
> you follow the directions that are available for removing all drivers for
> the Ti4600, and then install the ATI 9700Pro according to the available
> instructions, I don't see where that is being poorly maintained....

> If you are considering maybe defrag, or other "housecleaning issues" then
> save your breathe.  Defrag is automatically run on my system every other
> week, and not the wimpy Windows version either.  Diskkeeper is about the
> best I have found, and the most reliable.

> So either explain your statement, or choose better wording please.

> Glen Pittman



> > Only when a system is poorly maintained.  But operated correctly, you
> won't find a 10-15% performance gain.









> > > > > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change
really
> > > > requires
> > > > > a
> > > > > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > > > > Ridiculous.

> > > > $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
> > > perormance
> > > > improvement when he does

> > > Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story" thread
> just
> > > a few up from this...

> > > "So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
> > > re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some
> left
> > > over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

> > > He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

> > > Doug

Glen Pittma

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Glen Pittma » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:11:44

You know what Marc, I took your advice and decided that since my OS has only
been installed for 2 days, there wasn't any need to defrag, so I only
analyzed the disk.  Seems you may be right, judging from this report
generated by the Windows defrag utility (Haven't re-installed DiskKeeper
yet).  If this is only 2 days, then I can only imagine how a year would
look....

Thanks for the advice, but I believe I will stick with my plan.

Volume WINXP_2 (F:)
    Volume size                                = 21.00 GB
    Cluster size                               = 4 KB
    Used space                                 = 6.33 GB
    Free space                                 = 14.66 GB
    Percent free space                         = 69 %

Volume fragmentation
    Total fragmentation                        = 14 %
    File fragmentation                         = 28 %
    Free space fragmentation                   = 0 %

File fragmentation
    Total files                                = 29,450
    Average file size                          = 254 KB
    Total fragmented files                     = 2,144
    Total excess fragments                     = 10,325
    Average fragments per file                 = 1.35

Pagefile fragmentation
    Pagefile size                              = 768 MB
    Total fragments                            = 1

Folder fragmentation
    Total folders                              = 1,919
    Fragmented folders                         = 153
    Excess folder fragments                    = 1,098

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
    Total MFT size                             = 31 MB
    MFT record count                           = 31,405
    Percent MFT in use                         = 99 %
    Total MFT fragments                        = 51


> If you run defrag every other week, it suggests you don't know much about
PC
> maintenance.  Once a year should be adequate unless your system is a test
> slave having massive software installations and uninstallations occurring
> every day.

> Marc



> > Care to tell me what you think was poorly maintained on my system Tim?
> When
> > you follow the directions that are available for removing all drivers
for
> > the Ti4600, and then install the ATI 9700Pro according to the available
> > instructions, I don't see where that is being poorly maintained....

> > If you are considering maybe defrag, or other "housecleaning issues"
then
> > save your breathe.  Defrag is automatically run on my system every other
> > week, and not the wimpy Windows version either.  Diskkeeper is about the
> > best I have found, and the most reliable.

> > So either explain your statement, or choose better wording please.

> > Glen Pittman



> > > Only when a system is poorly maintained.  But operated correctly, you
> > won't find a 10-15% performance gain.









> > > > > > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change
> really
> > > > > requires
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > > > > > Ridiculous.

> > > > > $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
> > > > perormance
> > > > > improvement when he does

> > > > Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story"
thread
> > just
> > > > a few up from this...

> > > > "So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
> > > > re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some
> > left
> > > > over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

> > > > He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

> > > > Doug

Jason Moy

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Jason Moy » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:18:49

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:44:07 +1000, "Damien Smith"


>I dunno, I tried out Linux Mandrake 9.0 the other day.  It seemed to be just
>as bloated and unreliable as Windows XP - probably more so.

Mandrake is nothing more than Red Hat (itself bloated and buggy) with
a lot of "ease of use" shit thrown on top of it.  It's horrible.

If you want a Linux that is easy to use but also rock very svelte and
rock solid I recommend SuSE.  I was a pretty *** Slackware and
Debian user for awhile, because they're both free of bloat and great
if you know you're way around the OS, but since switching my
workstations to SuSE I can say I'd never really give another Linux
distro a chance.  Unlike Red Hat/Mandrake/Corel/etc the "ease of use"
features don't significantly bloat the system and are essentially just
a front end/editing system for standard configuration files instead of
involving proprietary daemons such as linuxconf (in SuSE you can still
edit things by hand without breaking anything and then go back and use
the config tools again and it's completely seamless).  Even better,
the SuSE graphical utilities are not only well written but incredibly
easy to use, possiblty more intuitive and user friendly than anything
in the newer Windows distributions.  As an added bonus, the newest
versions include Racer as an optional package.

Also Racer. =)

I've heard conflicting reports of people getting GPL to run using Wine
and OpenGL, but haven't really pursued it since I'm kinda stuck using
Windows at home until the Xbox 2 destroys PC *** for good. =p

Really, tho, there is no reason to run Linux (or Solaris or BSDI or
freeBSD) unless you're using it for some sort of scientific work.  I
stick to Sparc-Solaris and x86-freeBSD for server applications and
SuSE Linux as a development and troubleshooting environment.  At home
it's Windows on both the *** PC and the Dreamcast/Xbox.

My cuirrent workstation at my office is running Windows 2000, and
using it to do any real work is about as clumsy as trying to get a
DirectX app running under any unix-based Windows emulator.  Basically
I spend my entire day in SecureCRT bouncing around screen sessions on
various *nix boxes.  Different tools for different jobs and all that.

Jason

Dave Henri

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Dave Henri » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:21:24



   Just erase the windows folders.  Leave everything else alone.  (make
sure you have a working boot disk first.!!)
dave henrie

Doug Elliso

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Doug Elliso » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 23:50:31


Fair enough - but why on EARTH do you have a 120 gig hard drive?

I really dont understand people who have huge hard drives. Can you really
afford to have 120 gig of stuff killed in one hard drive crash?

Much better is to have say 2 60 gig hard drives

You then have a back up caperbility, and redundency caperbility and an
increased security level

Doug

Tim Mise

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Tim Mise » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:00:38

Once a year?  Keep in mind that games ARE massive installations and
unistallations.  With 1-2 GB sizes being the norm nowadays, games are some
of the largest programs available that you can put on your hard drive.  Even
Microsoft recommends performing a defrag before installing it's games.

-Tim


> If you run defrag every other week, it suggests you don't know much about
PC
> maintenance.  Once a year should be adequate unless your system is a test
> slave having massive software installations and uninstallations occurring
> every day.

> Marc



> > Care to tell me what you think was poorly maintained on my system Tim?
> When
> > you follow the directions that are available for removing all drivers
for
> > the Ti4600, and then install the ATI 9700Pro according to the available
> > instructions, I don't see where that is being poorly maintained....

> > If you are considering maybe defrag, or other "housecleaning issues"
then
> > save your breathe.  Defrag is automatically run on my system every other
> > week, and not the wimpy Windows version either.  Diskkeeper is about the
> > best I have found, and the most reliable.

> > So either explain your statement, or choose better wording please.

> > Glen Pittman



> > > Only when a system is poorly maintained.  But operated correctly, you
> > won't find a 10-15% performance gain.









> > > > > > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change
> really
> > > > > requires
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > > > > > Ridiculous.

> > > > > $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
> > > > perormance
> > > > > improvement when he does

> > > > Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story"
thread
> > just
> > > > a few up from this...

> > > > "So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
> > > > re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some
> > left
> > > > over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

> > > > He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

> > > > Doug

Vintoo

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

by Vintoo » Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:47:55

And progressively gets worse each time you use it too. :)

Vintook




> : Only when a system is poorly maintained.  But operated correctly, you
> won't find a 10-15% performance gain.

> When the OS is by Microsoft - it's poorly maintained from the day you
> install it

> Doug


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.