rec.autos.simulators

by **Glen Pittma** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:37:02

OK, Here is my story. I have just installed a 9700Pro card in place of my
Ti4600. I decided to purchase it at Circuit City just in case I needed to
return it. My system specs are: Asus P4PE w/ 2.66 P4 running at 3.0 Ghz.
512MB of Samsung PC2700 DDR333 memory running at 385mhz. The PCI and AGP
are fixed at the default speed. No overclocking on either video card.

Nascar 2002 - All options turned on except steering wheel graphic -***pit
view - Single Race at Indy - 42 other cars - 40 drawn ahead, 10 behind
2 different fps numbers, the first is start of practice session sitting on
pit road, the other is last car in a full field at start of race as engines
are started.

OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
ATI - 98fps / 47fps
NVidia - 113fps / 53fps

OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
ATI - 86fps / 45fps
NVidia - 91fps / 45fps

OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
ATI - 92fps / 37fps
NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
ATI - 90fps / 34fps
NVidia - 48fps / 32fps

Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
ATI - 98fps / 45fps
NVidia - 90fps / 38fps

Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
ATI - 95fps / 42fps
NVidia - 72fps / 35fps

Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
ATI - 100fps / 39fps
NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
ATI - 88fps / 37fps
NVidia - 35fps / 22fps

All testing on the Ti4600 was completed using the 40.71 drivers, and the ATI
was using the latest 3.0 Catalyst drivers.
All above numbers came from uninstalling the Ti4600, and installing the ATI
in the same OS (WinXP Pro w/ SP1).

I then reformatted and reloaded WinXP Pro, installed all service packs and
updated drivers, installed DX9.0, then installed the ATI card drivers (3.0
Catalyst).

I tested once again at the same track, same options turned on, see below:

Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA on the ATI card.
102fps / 44fps

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.

At 2X FSAA 1600x1200x32, I doubled my framerates in D3D with ATI over the
OpenGL with NVidia when alone on the track. I gained about 25-30% frame
rate at the slowest points for both cards. As the resolutions come down, or
as the FSAA is turned off, the difference isn't that great. Of course, your
mileage may vary...

Time to do some more testing so I can decide if the upgrade is worth it.
Installing GTR2002 again now...

Glen Pittman

by **Kyle Robert** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:56:14

<plonk>

Self portrait?

by **Brian Oste** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:19:03

Hmm. Are you running anti-alising and v-sync? Because I don't have
near the system you do and I get better frame rates with basically the
same graphics options.

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:37:02 -0500, "Glen Pittman"

>OK, Here is my story. I have just installed a 9700Pro card in place of my
>Ti4600. I decided to purchase it at Circuit City just in case I needed to
>return it. My system specs are: Asus P4PE w/ 2.66 P4 running at 3.0 Ghz.
>512MB of Samsung PC2700 DDR333 memory running at 385mhz. The PCI and AGP
>are fixed at the default speed. No overclocking on either video card.

>Nascar 2002 - All options turned on except steering wheel graphic -***pit
>view - Single Race at Indy - 42 other cars - 40 drawn ahead, 10 behind
>2 different fps numbers, the first is start of practice session sitting on
>pit road, the other is last car in a full field at start of race as engines
>are started.

>OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
>ATI - 98fps / 47fps
>NVidia - 113fps / 53fps

>OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>ATI - 86fps / 45fps
>NVidia - 91fps / 45fps

>OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
>ATI - 92fps / 37fps
>NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

>OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>ATI - 90fps / 34fps
>NVidia - 48fps / 32fps

>Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
>ATI - 98fps / 45fps
>NVidia - 90fps / 38fps

>Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>ATI - 95fps / 42fps
>NVidia - 72fps / 35fps

>Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
>ATI - 100fps / 39fps
>NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

>Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>ATI - 88fps / 37fps
>NVidia - 35fps / 22fps

>All testing on the Ti4600 was completed using the 40.71 drivers, and the ATI
>was using the latest 3.0 Catalyst drivers.
>All above numbers came from uninstalling the Ti4600, and installing the ATI
>in the same OS (WinXP Pro w/ SP1).

>I then reformatted and reloaded WinXP Pro, installed all service packs and
>updated drivers, installed DX9.0, then installed the ATI card drivers (3.0
>Catalyst).

>I tested once again at the same track, same options turned on, see below:

>Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA on the ATI card.
>102fps / 44fps

>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.

>At 2X FSAA 1600x1200x32, I doubled my framerates in D3D with ATI over the
>OpenGL with NVidia when alone on the track. I gained about 25-30% frame
>rate at the slowest points for both cards. As the resolutions come down, or
>as the FSAA is turned off, the difference isn't that great. Of course, your
>mileage may vary...

>Time to do some more testing so I can decide if the upgrade is worth it.
>Installing GTR2002 again now...

>Glen Pittman

by **Glen Pittma** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:34:31

Not sure which card you are saying you have, but I have VSync turned off on
both cards. The results tell you which selection of FSAA I was using.

I am open to hearing what framerates everyone else gets, in fact that is why
I included details about which track and the graphics options, and also when
exactly the FPS count was recorded so that we know how it compares to other
peoples cards under the same circumstances. I have found Indy to be one of
the worse for frame rates during the start of the race from the rear, thats
why I chose it.

Glen

> Hmm. Are you running anti-alising and v-sync? Because I don't have
> near the system you do and I get better frame rates with basically the
> same graphics options.

> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:37:02 -0500, "Glen Pittman"

> >OK, Here is my story. I have just installed a 9700Pro card in place of
my
> >Ti4600. I decided to purchase it at Circuit City just in case I needed
to
> >return it. My system specs are: Asus P4PE w/ 2.66 P4 running at 3.0
Ghz.
> >512MB of Samsung PC2700 DDR333 memory running at 385mhz. The PCI and AGP
> >are fixed at the default speed. No overclocking on either video card.

> >Nascar 2002 - All options turned on except steering wheel graphic -
***pit
> >view - Single Race at Indy - 42 other cars - 40 drawn ahead, 10 behind
> >2 different fps numbers, the first is start of practice session sitting
on
> >pit road, the other is last car in a full field at start of race as
engines
> >are started.

> >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> >ATI - 98fps / 47fps
> >NVidia - 113fps / 53fps

> >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> >ATI - 86fps / 45fps
> >NVidia - 91fps / 45fps

> >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> >ATI - 92fps / 37fps
> >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> >ATI - 90fps / 34fps
> >NVidia - 48fps / 32fps

> >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> >ATI - 98fps / 45fps
> >NVidia - 90fps / 38fps

> >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> >ATI - 95fps / 42fps
> >NVidia - 72fps / 35fps

> >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> >ATI - 100fps / 39fps
> >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> >ATI - 88fps / 37fps
> >NVidia - 35fps / 22fps

> >All testing on the Ti4600 was completed using the 40.71 drivers, and the
ATI
> >was using the latest 3.0 Catalyst drivers.
> >All above numbers came from uninstalling the Ti4600, and installing the
ATI
> >in the same OS (WinXP Pro w/ SP1).

> >I then reformatted and reloaded WinXP Pro, installed all service packs
and
> >updated drivers, installed DX9.0, then installed the ATI card drivers
(3.0
> >Catalyst).

> >I tested once again at the same track, same options turned on, see below:

> >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA on the ATI card.
> >102fps / 44fps

> >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.

> >At 2X FSAA 1600x1200x32, I doubled my framerates in D3D with ATI over the
> >OpenGL with NVidia when alone on the track. I gained about 25-30% frame
> >rate at the slowest points for both cards. As the resolutions come down,
or
> >as the FSAA is turned off, the difference isn't that great. Of course,
your
> >mileage may vary...

> >Time to do some more testing so I can decide if the upgrade is worth it.
> >Installing GTR2002 again now...

> >Glen Pittman

by **Glen Pittma** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:05:16

I have also just went back into the game, and tested at Atlanta both as a
test session and a Single Race w/ 42 cars.

At Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 4X FSAA and no AF
Pit Road during test session - 94 FPS (w/o FSAA 108 FPS) Max of 124 FPS
and Minimum of 82 FPS.
Pit Road during Practice of race - 87 FPS
Start of race at rear of field - 44 FPS

I will add that my FPS jumps up pretty quickly after the race gets rolling,
but these numbers are taken just as the cars start their engines. I am also
doing the short pace lap at the start, not sure how the FPS would be sitting
in the pits.

FWIW I also run my sound as "3D Sound" w/ 20 sounds played. I turned off 3D
and set sounds to 8 and picked up 3 FPS.

Glen

> Not sure which card you are saying you have, but I have VSync turned off
on
> both cards. The results tell you which selection of FSAA I was using.

> I am open to hearing what framerates everyone else gets, in fact that is
why
> I included details about which track and the graphics options, and also
when
> exactly the FPS count was recorded so that we know how it compares to
other
> peoples cards under the same circumstances. I have found Indy to be one
of
> the worse for frame rates during the start of the race from the rear,
thats
> why I chose it.

> Glen

> > Hmm. Are you running anti-alising and v-sync? Because I don't have
> > near the system you do and I get better frame rates with basically the
> > same graphics options.

> > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:37:02 -0500, "Glen Pittman"

> > >OK, Here is my story. I have just installed a 9700Pro card in place of
> my
> > >Ti4600. I decided to purchase it at Circuit City just in case I needed
> to
> > >return it. My system specs are: Asus P4PE w/ 2.66 P4 running at 3.0
> Ghz.
> > >512MB of Samsung PC2700 DDR333 memory running at 385mhz. The PCI and
AGP
> > >are fixed at the default speed. No overclocking on either video card.

> > >Nascar 2002 - All options turned on except steering wheel graphic -
>***pit
> > >view - Single Race at Indy - 42 other cars - 40 drawn ahead, 10 behind
> > >2 different fps numbers, the first is start of practice session sitting
> on
> > >pit road, the other is last car in a full field at start of race as
> engines
> > >are started.

> > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> > >ATI - 98fps / 47fps
> > >NVidia - 113fps / 53fps

> > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > >ATI - 86fps / 45fps
> > >NVidia - 91fps / 45fps

> > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> > >ATI - 92fps / 37fps
> > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > >ATI - 90fps / 34fps
> > >NVidia - 48fps / 32fps

> > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> > >ATI - 98fps / 45fps
> > >NVidia - 90fps / 38fps

> > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > >ATI - 95fps / 42fps
> > >NVidia - 72fps / 35fps

> > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> > >ATI - 100fps / 39fps
> > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > >ATI - 88fps / 37fps
> > >NVidia - 35fps / 22fps

> > >All testing on the Ti4600 was completed using the 40.71 drivers, and
the
> ATI
> > >was using the latest 3.0 Catalyst drivers.
> > >All above numbers came from uninstalling the Ti4600, and installing the
> ATI
> > >in the same OS (WinXP Pro w/ SP1).

> > >I then reformatted and reloaded WinXP Pro, installed all service packs
> and
> > >updated drivers, installed DX9.0, then installed the ATI card drivers
> (3.0
> > >Catalyst).

> > >I tested once again at the same track, same options turned on, see
below:

> > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA on the ATI card.
> > >102fps / 44fps

> > >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.

> > >At 2X FSAA 1600x1200x32, I doubled my framerates in D3D with ATI over
the
> > >OpenGL with NVidia when alone on the track. I gained about 25-30%
frame
> > >rate at the slowest points for both cards. As the resolutions come
down,
> or
> > >as the FSAA is turned off, the difference isn't that great. Of course,
> your
> > >mileage may vary...

> > >Time to do some more testing so I can decide if the upgrade is worth
it.
> > >Installing GTR2002 again now...

> > >Glen Pittman

by **Brian Oste** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:31:23

Ya, I am sure we are not comparing apples to apples... probably missed
something in your test parameters.

I have not done extensive testing, but basically this is what I get:

Dayton, start of race right after engines are started while at the
back of the field I get 60-70 fps. During the race I avg anywhere
from 45 to 70 fps.

N2002 all options on, no anti-allising no v-sync
1280x960x16 OpenGL

System:
AMD athlon 1800
GeForce 2 ultra
512 ram
XP pro

no overclocking.

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:05:16 -0500, "Glen Pittman"

>I have also just went back into the game, and tested at Atlanta both as a
>test session and a Single Race w/ 42 cars.

>At Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 4X FSAA and no AF
>Pit Road during test session - 94 FPS (w/o FSAA 108 FPS) Max of 124 FPS
>and Minimum of 82 FPS.
>Pit Road during Practice of race - 87 FPS
>Start of race at rear of field - 44 FPS

>I will add that my FPS jumps up pretty quickly after the race gets rolling,
>but these numbers are taken just as the cars start their engines. I am also
>doing the short pace lap at the start, not sure how the FPS would be sitting
>in the pits.

>FWIW I also run my sound as "3D Sound" w/ 20 sounds played. I turned off 3D
>and set sounds to 8 and picked up 3 FPS.

>Glen

>> Not sure which card you are saying you have, but I have VSync turned off
>on
>> both cards. The results tell you which selection of FSAA I was using.

>> I am open to hearing what framerates everyone else gets, in fact that is
>why
>> I included details about which track and the graphics options, and also
>when
>> exactly the FPS count was recorded so that we know how it compares to
>other
>> peoples cards under the same circumstances. I have found Indy to be one
>of
>> the worse for frame rates during the start of the race from the rear,
>thats
>> why I chose it.

>> Glen

>> > Hmm. Are you running anti-alising and v-sync? Because I don't have
>> > near the system you do and I get better frame rates with basically the
>> > same graphics options.

>> > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:37:02 -0500, "Glen Pittman"

>> > >OK, Here is my story. I have just installed a 9700Pro card in place of
>> my
>> > >Ti4600. I decided to purchase it at Circuit City just in case I needed
>> to
>> > >return it. My system specs are: Asus P4PE w/ 2.66 P4 running at 3.0
>> Ghz.
>> > >512MB of Samsung PC2700 DDR333 memory running at 385mhz. The PCI and
>AGP
>> > >are fixed at the default speed. No overclocking on either video card.

>> > >Nascar 2002 - All options turned on except steering wheel graphic -
>>***pit
>> > >view - Single Race at Indy - 42 other cars - 40 drawn ahead, 10 behind
>> > >2 different fps numbers, the first is start of practice session sitting
>> on
>> > >pit road, the other is last car in a full field at start of race as
>> engines
>> > >are started.

>> > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
>> > >ATI - 98fps / 47fps
>> > >NVidia - 113fps / 53fps

>> > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>> > >ATI - 86fps / 45fps
>> > >NVidia - 91fps / 45fps

>> > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
>> > >ATI - 92fps / 37fps
>> > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

>> > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>> > >ATI - 90fps / 34fps
>> > >NVidia - 48fps / 32fps

>> > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
>> > >ATI - 98fps / 45fps
>> > >NVidia - 90fps / 38fps

>> > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>> > >ATI - 95fps / 42fps
>> > >NVidia - 72fps / 35fps

>> > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
>> > >ATI - 100fps / 39fps
>> > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

>> > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
>> > >ATI - 88fps / 37fps
>> > >NVidia - 35fps / 22fps

>> > >All testing on the Ti4600 was completed using the 40.71 drivers, and
>the
>> ATI
>> > >was using the latest 3.0 Catalyst drivers.
>> > >All above numbers came from uninstalling the Ti4600, and installing the
>> ATI
>> > >in the same OS (WinXP Pro w/ SP1).

>> > >I then reformatted and reloaded WinXP Pro, installed all service packs
>> and
>> > >updated drivers, installed DX9.0, then installed the ATI card drivers
>> (3.0
>> > >Catalyst).

>> > >I tested once again at the same track, same options turned on, see
>below:

>> > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA on the ATI card.
>> > >102fps / 44fps

>> > >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.

>> > >At 2X FSAA 1600x1200x32, I doubled my framerates in D3D with ATI over
>the
>> > >OpenGL with NVidia when alone on the track. I gained about 25-30%
>frame
>> > >rate at the slowest points for both cards. As the resolutions come
>down,
>> or
>> > >as the FSAA is turned off, the difference isn't that great. Of course,
>> your
>> > >mileage may vary...

>> > >Time to do some more testing so I can decide if the upgrade is worth
>it.
>> > >Installing GTR2002 again now...

>> > >Glen Pittman

by **MadDAW** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:49:21

Those GF2 Ultras were/are kick ass cards. My bubby has a P4 2.4g and a GF2
Ultra and he smokes my XP1800 with a GF3.

One BIG thing to keep in mind is the GF2 will only do 1 (maybe 2) level of
AF. I'm not sure what the ATI card is capable of but I know its at least 6
levels. That's a huge difference. So if Glenn is not editing any of the Papy
red###.ini files he is running max levels. Which at those frame rates why
the hell not. :)

MadDAWG

by **Vintoo** » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 02:43:22

And what did you get with the Gforce card???? Not much of a comparison
contest when you don't include the other card.....

Vintook

> I have also just went back into the game, and tested at Atlanta both as a
> test session and a Single Race w/ 42 cars.

> At Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 4X FSAA and no AF
> Pit Road during test session - 94 FPS (w/o FSAA 108 FPS) Max of 124 FPS
> and Minimum of 82 FPS.
> Pit Road during Practice of race - 87 FPS
> Start of race at rear of field - 44 FPS

> I will add that my FPS jumps up pretty quickly after the race gets
rolling,
> but these numbers are taken just as the cars start their engines. I am
also
> doing the short pace lap at the start, not sure how the FPS would be
sitting
> in the pits.

> FWIW I also run my sound as "3D Sound" w/ 20 sounds played. I turned off
3D
> and set sounds to 8 and picked up 3 FPS.

> Glen

> > Not sure which card you are saying you have, but I have VSync turned off
> on
> > both cards. The results tell you which selection of FSAA I was using.

> > I am open to hearing what framerates everyone else gets, in fact that is
> why
> > I included details about which track and the graphics options, and also
> when
> > exactly the FPS count was recorded so that we know how it compares to
> other
> > peoples cards under the same circumstances. I have found Indy to be one
> of
> > the worse for frame rates during the start of the race from the rear,
> thats
> > why I chose it.

> > Glen

> > > Hmm. Are you running anti-alising and v-sync? Because I don't have
> > > near the system you do and I get better frame rates with basically the
> > > same graphics options.

> > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:37:02 -0500, "Glen Pittman"

> > > >OK, Here is my story. I have just installed a 9700Pro card in place
of
> > my
> > > >Ti4600. I decided to purchase it at Circuit City just in case I
needed
> > to
> > > >return it. My system specs are: Asus P4PE w/ 2.66 P4 running at 3.0
> > Ghz.
> > > >512MB of Samsung PC2700 DDR333 memory running at 385mhz. The PCI and
> AGP
> > > >are fixed at the default speed. No overclocking on either video
card.

> > > >Nascar 2002 - All options turned on except steering wheel graphic -
> >***pit
> > > >view - Single Race at Indy - 42 other cars - 40 drawn ahead, 10
behind
> > > >2 different fps numbers, the first is start of practice session
sitting
> > on
> > > >pit road, the other is last car in a full field at start of race as
> > engines
> > > >are started.

> > > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > >ATI - 98fps / 47fps
> > > >NVidia - 113fps / 53fps

> > > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > >ATI - 86fps / 45fps
> > > >NVidia - 91fps / 45fps

> > > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > >ATI - 92fps / 37fps
> > > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> > > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > >ATI - 90fps / 34fps
> > > >NVidia - 48fps / 32fps

> > > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > >ATI - 98fps / 45fps
> > > >NVidia - 90fps / 38fps

> > > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > >ATI - 95fps / 42fps
> > > >NVidia - 72fps / 35fps

> > > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > >ATI - 100fps / 39fps
> > > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> > > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > >ATI - 88fps / 37fps
> > > >NVidia - 35fps / 22fps

> > > >All testing on the Ti4600 was completed using the 40.71 drivers, and
> the
> > ATI
> > > >was using the latest 3.0 Catalyst drivers.
> > > >All above numbers came from uninstalling the Ti4600, and installing
the
> > ATI
> > > >in the same OS (WinXP Pro w/ SP1).

> > > >I then reformatted and reloaded WinXP Pro, installed all service
packs
> > and
> > > >updated drivers, installed DX9.0, then installed the ATI card drivers
> > (3.0
> > > >Catalyst).

> > > >I tested once again at the same track, same options turned on, see
> below:

> > > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA on the ATI card.
> > > >102fps / 44fps

> > > >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.

> > > >At 2X FSAA 1600x1200x32, I doubled my framerates in D3D with ATI over
> the
> > > >OpenGL with NVidia when alone on the track. I gained about 25-30%
> frame
> > > >rate at the slowest points for both cards. As the resolutions come
> down,
> > or
> > > >as the FSAA is turned off, the difference isn't that great. Of
course,
> > your
> > > >mileage may vary...

> > > >Time to do some more testing so I can decide if the upgrade is worth
> it.
> > > >Installing GTR2002 again now...

> > > >Glen Pittman

by **Glen Pittma** » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 05:37:42

Sorry, but I think I will pass on re-installing the Geforce to do 4X FSAA
comparisons...:-)

I have attempted to run 1600x1200x32 w/ $X FSAAon the Geforce before, and it
was marginal on frame rates. If I remember correctly, they were about 25FPS
at the start of a race, and about 32-36 under normal racing conditions. But
with the graphics stutter that I had when coming by the pit road entrance
(worse with the F2 screen active), I wasn't comfortable, so I never ran it
that way other than the test a while back.

Glen

> And what did you get with the Gforce card???? Not much of a comparison
> contest when you don't include the other card.....

> Vintook

> > I have also just went back into the game, and tested at Atlanta both as
a
> > test session and a Single Race w/ 42 cars.

> > At Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 4X FSAA and no AF
> > Pit Road during test session - 94 FPS (w/o FSAA 108 FPS) Max of 124
FPS
> > and Minimum of 82 FPS.
> > Pit Road during Practice of race - 87 FPS
> > Start of race at rear of field - 44 FPS

> > I will add that my FPS jumps up pretty quickly after the race gets
> rolling,
> > but these numbers are taken just as the cars start their engines. I am
> also
> > doing the short pace lap at the start, not sure how the FPS would be
> sitting
> > in the pits.

> > FWIW I also run my sound as "3D Sound" w/ 20 sounds played. I turned
off
> 3D
> > and set sounds to 8 and picked up 3 FPS.

> > Glen

> > > Not sure which card you are saying you have, but I have VSync turned
off
> > on
> > > both cards. The results tell you which selection of FSAA I was using.

> > > I am open to hearing what framerates everyone else gets, in fact that
is
> > why
> > > I included details about which track and the graphics options, and
also
> > when
> > > exactly the FPS count was recorded so that we know how it compares to
> > other
> > > peoples cards under the same circumstances. I have found Indy to be
one
> > of
> > > the worse for frame rates during the start of the race from the rear,
> > thats
> > > why I chose it.

> > > Glen

> > > > Hmm. Are you running anti-alising and v-sync? Because I don't have
> > > > near the system you do and I get better frame rates with basically
the

> > > > same graphics options.

> > > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:37:02 -0500, "Glen Pittman"

> > > > >OK, Here is my story. I have just installed a 9700Pro card in
place
> of
> > > my
> > > > >Ti4600. I decided to purchase it at Circuit City just in case I
> needed
> > > to
> > > > >return it. My system specs are: Asus P4PE w/ 2.66 P4 running at
3.0
> > > Ghz.
> > > > >512MB of Samsung PC2700 DDR333 memory running at 385mhz. The PCI
and
> > AGP
> > > > >are fixed at the default speed. No overclocking on either video
> card.

> > > > >Nascar 2002 - All options turned on except steering wheel graphic -
> > >***pit
> > > > >view - Single Race at Indy - 42 other cars - 40 drawn ahead, 10
> behind
> > > > >2 different fps numbers, the first is start of practice session
> sitting
> > > on
> > > > >pit road, the other is last car in a full field at start of race as
> > > engines
> > > > >are started.

> > > > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > > >ATI - 98fps / 47fps
> > > > >NVidia - 113fps / 53fps

> > > > >OpenGL 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > > >ATI - 86fps / 45fps
> > > > >NVidia - 91fps / 45fps

> > > > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > > >ATI - 92fps / 37fps
> > > > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> > > > >OpenGL 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > > >ATI - 90fps / 34fps
> > > > >NVidia - 48fps / 32fps

> > > > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > > >ATI - 98fps / 45fps
> > > > >NVidia - 90fps / 38fps

> > > > >Direct3D 1280x960x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > > >ATI - 95fps / 42fps
> > > > >NVidia - 72fps / 35fps

> > > > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ no FSAA
> > > > >ATI - 100fps / 39fps
> > > > >NVidia - 90fps / 36fps

> > > > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA (Quincux on NVidia)
> > > > >ATI - 88fps / 37fps
> > > > >NVidia - 35fps / 22fps

> > > > >All testing on the Ti4600 was completed using the 40.71 drivers,
and
> > the
> > > ATI
> > > > >was using the latest 3.0 Catalyst drivers.
> > > > >All above numbers came from uninstalling the Ti4600, and installing
> the
> > > ATI
> > > > >in the same OS (WinXP Pro w/ SP1).

> > > > >I then reformatted and reloaded WinXP Pro, installed all service
> packs
> > > and
> > > > >updated drivers, installed DX9.0, then installed the ATI card
drivers
> > > (3.0
> > > > >Catalyst).

> > > > >I tested once again at the same track, same options turned on, see
> > below:

> > > > >Direct3D 1600x1200x32 w/ 2X FSAA on the ATI card.
> > > > >102fps / 44fps

> > > > >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.

> > > > >At 2X FSAA 1600x1200x32, I doubled my framerates in D3D with ATI
over
> > the
> > > > >OpenGL with NVidia when alone on the track. I gained about 25-30%
> > frame
> > > > >rate at the slowest points for both cards. As the resolutions come
> > down,
> > > or
> > > > >as the FSAA is turned off, the difference isn't that great. Of
> course,
> > > your
> > > > >mileage may vary...

> > > > >Time to do some more testing so I can decide if the upgrade is
worth
> > it.
> > > > >Installing GTR2002 again now...

> > > > >Glen Pittman

by **Brian Oste** » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:10:06

One thing to keep in mind is that the CPU makes a HUGE difference. I
went out and bought my GF2 trying to increase my frame rates,
installed it in my P3 933 and I did not get ANY frame rate improvement
with N2002 at the same detail levels. I was able to up the resolution
but was still getting crappy frame rates and could not increase things
like draw ahead distance, cars in front and behind, etc. I then
upgraded the mb and cpu and saw a HUGE increase in frame rates.
Bottom line is that the best graphics card in the world wont fix a cpu
bottleneck. CPU matters.

Brian Oster

rec.autos.simulators

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...

Ti4600 to a 9700Pro, my story...