rec.autos.simulators

Always had GeForce cards after the TNT range stopped.so the amount of
'tweaks' in the Ati Control Panel is bewildering.

Firstly 3DMark 2001SE CTD halfway through...not very happy was I..!!

Secondly.....Nascar 2002 is showing higher FPS but only a little and doesn't
go above 100fps until you go down to 1024 x 768 x 16 single player
testing....as low as 9 fps in race scenario at 1290 x 960 x 32

All AA and antistropics are default..not touched anything on Ati panel.

So....has anyone tuned this card and could help me a little.?

CD installed 4.13.01.9056 drivers......i changed to 4.13.01.9068's with no
real change in results.

Many TIA

AD

rms

I have Win ME....so i have the latest drivers.

It crashes at the Nature scene each time,the screen going bright white in
the 2 seconds it actually shows the Nature scene.

Although the screen is bright white you can still see vaguely the fps
display in bottom right corner.

Hopefull in time i will pick up enough help to tune this card for the
expected performance.

At the moment it isnt out performing my GF3 ti 500 o/c

AD

If you are experiencing a lack of improvement the reason is probably due to
a CPU bottleneck.  NR2002 is very cpu dependent so you may be able to crank
up some graphic options and not lose too much in fps but gain something in
visual quality.  What cpu do you run?

-Tim

Been messing around a little  and found another major problem.

F1 2002 has horrid polygons missing and tears in the cars and tracks.Mostly
visible in the tyres.

Wasn't quite prepared for games being like this...near to tears here :(

Any ideas please

AD

Well, I don't think it's the game's fault because it runs quite nicely on a
8500.  Sounds like the usual Ati driver woes.  Voice your concerns to Ati
and hopefully they will fix their drivers.  This is really disappointing for
me, I've been hoping for a decent alternative to nVidia and their laughable
10% speed improvements with the GF4 Ti.  I own a 4600 and the performance
improvement over the GF3 is relatively miniscule.

A good example is when I upgraded my AMD AthlonXP System from a GF3 Ti500 to
a GF4 Ti4400.  Yes, I saw a noticeable improvement, but I saw just as much,
if not more, of an improvement when I replaced the processor/system board
with a P4 2.53Ghz system.

Sometimes the CPU holds up the video card, sometimes the video card holds up
the processor.

It's a never ending battle :)

You need a LOT of CPU power to keep a 9700 Pro well fed and happy.

-Larry

    I saw exactly the same error in Win98.  This will disappear if you
upgrade to WinXP, which you should prolly do anyway :)   Its not clear
whether this is a 3dmark bug or a WinME 9700 driver issue, but the XP
drivers appear to be updated more often anyway.  I think this is becoming
more common with all hardware as Win98/ME becomes less and less supported.

rms

    Again, this may be a driver issue that has already been fixed, but I'm
not running either f12002 or WinME, so can't be sure.  I suggest you try
these drivers, which may help:
http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4095.html
Let us know after you install them.

rms

True, but I've heard a number of people claim that the 9700 removes quite a
bit more burden from the CPU than the nvidia cards and hence runs games
faster on slow CPUs.

Like the other guys said, if you're not noticing significant
improvement, it's the CPU limitation.  They use a 2.8GHz P4 in their
tests.

I have read another interesting article at this site which shows how
the Geforce4 has much better image quality in certain tests, but I
doubt it would be THAT noticble in an actual game. I'm thinking of
buying the 9700Pro because I've been waiting a long time for a
graphics card which will let you run very hi res with full detail and
quality at a very good framerate.  I hope it's here!