rec.autos.simulators

by **Don Burnett** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 02:34:04

My base system:
Athon XP 1600+
Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb)
EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr)
Windows XP Home

Ok, I had a Hercules GeForce 3 Ti200 in this system. Installed the new
Gainward GeForce 4 card this morning. The Herc card was not overclocked, and
I have not overclocked the Gainward card yet. I left all my settings the
same on the Gainward card to get a good comparison
1280x1024x32 display
vsynch disabled in opengl and d3d
blend on the mimpapping
29.42 official det drivers ( I did uninstall and reinstall)
No AA

3d mark 2001 with Geforce 3 Ti200 - app 7150
3d mark 2002 with GeForce 4 4400 - 9999 ( let's call it 10k) :)
I was pretty impressed, I really was expecting less of a difference, like
upper 8k to lower 9k.

Ok, so that's just a benchmark, let's compare 2 of my most played games.

Nascar 2002 - running in opengl 1280x964x32 - testing at Michigan
GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged mid 70 fps
GeForce 4 4400 - averaged around 140 fps
I was stunned, practically doubled my framerates here.

F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full
field of ai
GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps
GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps
( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so
dispay was increased some)
Pretty darn significant performance increase.

That's all I have done so far, I figured this would be the best way to
compare apples to apples. Needless to say, I am very impressed initially. I
truthfully did not think I would see that big a performance increase. I am
very satisfied so far with my decision to upgrade. I look foward to playing
around now with fsaa and overclocking this card, with the GeForce 3 Ti200 it
would not overclock well at all, and running any fsaa would kill the
performance of it.

Did I really need the upgrade? Heck no, my games were certainly playable
with the previous card. But I sure am pleased with what I have, if you are
running a similar system and have the extra money, then you too will
probably be pleased with the upgrade..
Gotta run do some errands with my daughter, I'll try to report more later
tonight or tomorrow.

Don Burnette

by **David L. Coo** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 03:33:22

What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I
would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you
think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

- David Cook

by **Rob** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 04:34:01

Well, I have a Athlon XP 1800+ and a GeForce 4 Ti4400 and at 1024x768x32
with Quincunx 4xAA enabled I average around 38fps in N2k2 with all settings
on (including 3d audio), 32 drivers up front, 8 in rear and 87% view
distance. The lowest I have ever seen it fall with smoke and a huge pile up
is around 24fps.

I don't see how anyone can run N2k2 without AA of some kind--it is jaggy as
all hell without it!

--
---------------------
Rob Berryhill

> > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full
> > field of ai
> > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps
> > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps
> > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so
> > dispay was increased some)

> What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I
> would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you
> think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

> - David Cook

by **Jon Van Ginneke** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 04:42:24

I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered
checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would be
slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA the
ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just to
run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my
monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit would be
worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to bring
that # down a bit).

Jon

by **The Other Larr** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 04:50:46

My difference wasn't quite as large since I upgraded from a GF3 Ti500, but
still pretty solid.

The 128MB RAM really made a difference in quality I believe. Far less
'smudging' of graphics going on. I _think_ mipmapping is what does this.
Whatever it is, it's a lot happier now :)

The improvement's in 2D quality really jumped out at me. They have really
cleaned up the Analog signals on the GF4 cards, and I think it's every bit
as good as ATI's now.

Just to save you the trouble, I tried overclocking mine to 300/600, which
matches the Ti4600. I'm not an overclocker, but I wanted to see how much
difference it made.

It made very little difference. Hardly worth the risk at all. Everything
is back to stock now (275/550).

-Larry

by **David L. Coo** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 05:09:51

> > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?
I
> > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't
you
> > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

> I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered
> checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would
be
> slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA
the
> ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just
to
> run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my
> monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit would
be
> worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to
bring
> that # down a bit).

I'm running 1600x1200 in F12002 and it's still too "jaggy" for me. NR2002
is even worse IMHO.

- David Cook

by **The Other Larr** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 05:09:50

I'll take 100fps and jaggies :)

-Larry

> Well, I have a Athlon XP 1800+ and a GeForce 4 Ti4400 and at 1024x768x32
> with Quincunx 4xAA enabled I average around 38fps in N2k2 with all
settings
> on (including 3d audio), 32 drivers up front, 8 in rear and 87% view
> distance. The lowest I have ever seen it fall with smoke and a huge pile
up
> is around 24fps.

> I don't see how anyone can run N2k2 without AA of some kind--it is jaggy
as
> all hell without it!

> --
> ---------------------
> Rob Berryhill

> > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with
full
> > > field of ai
> > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps
> > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps
> > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so
> > > dispay was increased some)

> > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?
I
> > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't
you
> > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

> > - David Cook

by **Rob** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 05:14:47

NASCAR 2k2 is REALLY jaggy. You really want 4xAA and with the GeForce4 you
take only a slight performance hit, especially if you use Quincunx (I see
only like a 2fps drop) and it's still 4x. Even at 1280x1024 it's almost
impossible to see other cars that are very far ahead or behind unless you
have AA enabled with N2k2.

--
---------------------
Rob Berryhill

> > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?
I
> > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't
you
> > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

> I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered
> checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would
be
> slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA
the
> ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just
to
> run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my
> monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit would
be
> worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to
bring
> that # down a bit).

> Jon

by **The Other Larr** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 05:16:41

Who thought of that name? Quincunx? What does it stand for?

Sounds like someting Opie & Anthony would come up with...

-Larry

> NASCAR 2k2 is REALLY jaggy. You really want 4xAA and with the GeForce4
you
> take only a slight performance hit, especially if you use Quincunx (I see
> only like a 2fps drop) and it's still 4x. Even at 1280x1024 it's almost
> impossible to see other cars that are very far ahead or behind unless you
> have AA enabled with N2k2.

> --
> ---------------------
> Rob Berryhill

> > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?
> I
> > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't
> you
> > > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

> > I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered
> > checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would
> be
> > slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA
> the
> > ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just
> to
> > run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my
> > monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit
would
> be
> > worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to
> bring
> > that # down a bit).

> > Jon

by **The Other Larr** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 05:17:54

It doesn't look that bad to me. Maybe your glasses need to be 4X ? Just
kidding :)

-Larry

> NASCAR 2k2 is REALLY jaggy. You really want 4xAA and with the GeForce4
you
> take only a slight performance hit, especially if you use Quincunx (I see
> only like a 2fps drop) and it's still 4x. Even at 1280x1024 it's almost
> impossible to see other cars that are very far ahead or behind unless you
> have AA enabled with N2k2.

> --
> ---------------------
> Rob Berryhill

> > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?
> I
> > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't
> you
> > > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

> > I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered
> > checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would
> be
> > slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA
> the
> > ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just
> to
> > run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my
> > monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit
would
> be
> > worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to
> bring
> > that # down a bit).

> > Jon

by **Per Thuli** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 05:43:30

Quincunx is the scientific name of the geometric figure used by the the
GeForce cards when calculating this type of AA -- an arrangement of dots
just like on the 5-side of a normal 6-sided die.

I have recently installed a GeForce 3 Ti200, and played around with the
FSAA settings, but I must say I can't stand what Quincunx does to the
legibility of text on screen (i.e., destroys it!). What good is racing
without jaggies if you can't even tell what lap youre on?? :)

--
"Walk like a Syrian"

Per Thulin

Visit Jane The Hamster (and Pelhamina & Grenville) at

http://w1.541.telia.com/~u54108168/

(Spamblock in operation - remove "hamsters" in email address to reply by
mail.)

by **Tim Mise** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:41:52

> I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered
> checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would
be
> slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA
the
> ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just
to
> run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my
> monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit would
be
> worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to
bring
> that # down a bit).

> Jon

Hi Jon, when I had my V5 running with N4 I could either run at 800x600
w/4xfsaa or 1600x1200 with no fsaa and get about the same framerate but the
800x600 on the V5's FSAA was so much better than the 16x12 without FSAA it
was a no brainer even on my 19" monitor so if I were you, I'd try it out to
see if it floats your boat.

-Tim

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:58:45

Don, did you mean 3dMark 2002?
According to your tests, you have about a 40% gain with the new card. I've
generally found that the gain I get in 3D Mark pretty much reflects the
gains I get in games. Your games are showing a much larger increase. This is
really puzzling me. Maybe it's a gForce thing?
I've ordered an MSI Ti4400 to replace my Radeon 8500. It was supposed to be
here last week and now I doubt it's even been sent out (according to their
web site) even though they assured me it was sent on Monday. Anyway, it'll
give me something else to play around with.
A couple nights ago I tried the new Catalyst ATI drivers and my 3DMark went
up 400 points even though I took a couple clicks off my FSB (it's 100 in
here, you know).
I don't know if this link will work, but it should show the scores, 10000
vs. 9600.
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=2867857

--
Slot

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

by **Dave Henri** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:48:27

"Tim Miser"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...We need to merge the FSAA of
3dfx with the speed of Nvidia. Nvidia FSAA, at least with my GF 3ti is
almost non-existant.
dave henrie

by **Don Burnett** » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:38:06

> > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full
> > field of ai
> > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps
> > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps
> > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so
> > dispay was increased some)

> What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I
> would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you
> think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic.

> - David Cook

Haven't tried 4X yet, however I did just run F12002 in 1280x1024x32 with
quincux AA,. and was getting in the upper 50's low 60's.
I'll give 4X a try at 1024x768x32 and let ya know.

Don Burnette

rec.autos.simulators

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400