rec.autos.simulators

by **TireSpin4** » Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:13:25

Hi there, I am currently running a 4x AGP GF2 card on a board that only
supports 2x AGP, am I correct in assuming that I would only get 1/2 the
possible frame rates in NR2002? Please Advise.

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

by **Morgan Boo** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:20:08

No Tirespin,that is not quite correct ;-)

As you know AGP was only designed to offer the necessary bandwidth and
latency to perform texture mapping directly from your system memory.

The multiples (x1,x2,x4) influence both bandwidth and data transfer rate.

So for example if you have a bus frequency of 100Mhz,your AGP x2 bandwidth
will be 200mhz and AGP x4 will be 400Mhz but of course this isn't the only
factor towards frame rate.

AGP doubled the data transfer rate of PCI and subsequently AGP x2 doubled
that and so on.

So although it has an influence it will certainly not be half as much due to
just that factor being half.

Morgan Boof

by **TireSpin4** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 07:13:47

Thank you for the explanation. It's just that I am considering doing a MB &
Chip upgrade and I know that the board I have currently only has 2x AGP
support. My card is capable of 4x and I wanted to know if I would see a good
deal of difference between them. I was trying out the new Nascar 2002 demo
and I noticed I was only getting 25-30 FPS and was not sure if my video card
alone made the difference. The system I have is a P-2 400 MHZ with 512 Meg
Ram, and a 32 Meg G-Force-2 4 x AGP video card. I am contemplating going to
a P-4 1.9 Gig 4X AGP system. I should expect to see a great improvement over
what I am currently running. Thanks for your insight, it's appreciated.

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

by **Biz** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 07:29:02

My recommendation would be to do your upgraqde, and see. Currently I don't beleive your video card
is the performance bottleneck in your system, it may well be after the upgrade. I don't know
whether you are referring to an MX200 card or some other GF2 card you have not made that clear.

--
Biz

"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash

> Thank you for the explanation. It's just that I am considering doing a MB &
> Chip upgrade and I know that the board I have currently only has 2x AGP
> support. My card is capable of 4x and I wanted to know if I would see a good
> deal of difference between them. I was trying out the new Nascar 2002 demo
> and I noticed I was only getting 25-30 FPS and was not sure if my video card
> alone made the difference. The system I have is a P-2 400 MHZ with 512 Meg
> Ram, and a 32 Meg G-Force-2 4 x AGP video card. I am contemplating going to
> a P-4 1.9 Gig 4X AGP system. I should expect to see a great improvement over
> what I am currently running. Thanks for your insight, it's appreciated.

> --
> " Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> > No Tirespin,that is not quite correct ;-)

> > As you know AGP was only designed to offer the necessary bandwidth and
> > latency to perform texture mapping directly from your system memory.

> > The multiples (x1,x2,x4) influence both bandwidth and data transfer rate.

> > So for example if you have a bus frequency of 100Mhz,your AGP x2 bandwidth
> > will be 200mhz and AGP x4 will be 400Mhz but of course this isn't the only
> > factor towards frame rate.

> > AGP doubled the data transfer rate of PCI and subsequently AGP x2 doubled
> > that and so on.

> > So although it has an influence it will certainly not be half as much due
> to
> > just that factor being half.

> > Morgan Boof

by **Will DeRiver** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 14:32:06

In your current system, no, 2xAGP won't be the limiting factor.
--
- Will DeRivera
- GPL Rank 103.93
- http://www.numic.net
- http://www.luxt.com
- Hi, I'm a sig virus.
- Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world.

by **TireSpin4** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 22:51:08

You are correct I was not very clear on that matter. Here is the card I have
it's an Asus AGP-V7700 Deluxe Geforce2 GTS with 32 megs of Ram. The card
seems to perform well considering the age and speed of the computer. I want
to ensure that I can handle most of the upcoming racing release's. Thanks
for your comments on this.

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

don't beleive your video card
upgrade. I don't know
not made that clear.

> --
> Biz

> "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
> alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
> the....." - Ash

> > Thank you for the explanation. It's just that I am considering doing a
MB &
> > Chip upgrade and I know that the board I have currently only has 2x AGP
> > support. My card is capable of 4x and I wanted to know if I would see a
good
> > deal of difference between them. I was trying out the new Nascar 2002
demo
> > and I noticed I was only getting 25-30 FPS and was not sure if my video
card
> > alone made the difference. The system I have is a P-2 400 MHZ with 512
Meg
> > Ram, and a 32 Meg G-Force-2 4 x AGP video card. I am contemplating going
to
> > a P-4 1.9 Gig 4X AGP system. I should expect to see a great improvement
over
> > what I am currently running. Thanks for your insight, it's appreciated.

> > --
> > " Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> > > No Tirespin,that is not quite correct ;-)

> > > As you know AGP was only designed to offer the necessary bandwidth and
> > > latency to perform texture mapping directly from your system memory.

> > > The multiples (x1,x2,x4) influence both bandwidth and data transfer
rate.

> > > So for example if you have a bus frequency of 100Mhz,your AGP x2
bandwidth
> > > will be 200mhz and AGP x4 will be 400Mhz but of course this isn't the
only
> > > factor towards frame rate.

> > > AGP doubled the data transfer rate of PCI and subsequently AGP x2
doubled
> > > that and so on.

> > > So although it has an influence it will certainly not be half as much
due
> > to
> > > just that factor being half.

> > > Morgan Boof

by **TireSpin4** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 22:54:03

What would you expect to be causing the poor frame rate performance? Any
Idea's?

Thanks

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> > Thank you for the explanation. It's just that I am considering doing a
MB
> &
> > Chip upgrade and I know that the board I have currently only has 2x AGP
> > support. My card is capable of 4x and I wanted to know if I would see a
> good
> > deal of difference between them. I was trying out the new Nascar 2002
demo
> > and I noticed I was only getting 25-30 FPS and was not sure if my video
> card
> > alone made the difference. The system I have is a P-2 400 MHZ with 512
Meg
> > Ram, and a 32 Meg G-Force-2 4 x AGP video card. I am contemplating going
> to
> > a P-4 1.9 Gig 4X AGP system. I should expect to see a great improvement
> over
> > what I am currently running. Thanks for your insight, it's appreciated.

> In your current system, no, 2xAGP won't be the limiting factor.
> --
> - Will DeRivera
> - GPL Rank 103.93
> - http://www.numic.net
> - http://www.luxt.com
> - Hi, I'm a sig virus.
> - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world.

by **Peter** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:23:31

CPU is bottleneck. AGP 1,2,or 4x does not make any difference in the real
world - it is much slower than having a decent amount of RAM on the video
card in the first place.
If AGP 4x was fast enough, we'd be seeing Geforce 2/3's with 4Mb ram.
Geforce 4's when released will have 64Mb/128Mb.

Have you tried different resolutions.If frame rate stays nearly the same if
you lower the resolution then you are CPU limited. Try running 16bit not 32
bit if haven't already.

--
Peter H

GPL sucks...you in

by **Steve Garrot** » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:30:47

CPU a P2-400 is just not what it used to be.

SLG

>What would you expect to be causing the poor frame rate performance? Any
>Idea's?

>Thanks

>--
>" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

>> > Thank you for the explanation. It's just that I am considering doing a
>MB
>> &
>> > Chip upgrade and I know that the board I have currently only has 2x AGP
>> > support. My card is capable of 4x and I wanted to know if I would see a
>> good
>> > deal of difference between them. I was trying out the new Nascar 2002
>demo
>> > and I noticed I was only getting 25-30 FPS and was not sure if my video
>> card
>> > alone made the difference. The system I have is a P-2 400 MHZ with 512
>Meg
>> > Ram, and a 32 Meg G-Force-2 4 x AGP video card. I am contemplating going
>> to
>> > a P-4 1.9 Gig 4X AGP system. I should expect to see a great improvement
>> over
>> > what I am currently running. Thanks for your insight, it's appreciated.

>> In your current system, no, 2xAGP won't be the limiting factor.
>> --
>> - Will DeRivera
>> - GPL Rank 103.93
>> - http://www.numic.net
>> - http://www.luxt.com
>> - Hi, I'm a sig virus.
>> - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world.

(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
due to too many English classes/teachers)

by **Alni** » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 09:53:43

Here is a link on results from 3DMark2000 and 2001 benchmark, I've
performed a few months ago on my old system at AGP x1 and x2 at differents
screen depths.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/danoba/testagp.zip

I've used BIOS settings to change AGP rate and checked each time that the
good AGP rate was active with wcpuid. I rebooted between each test or after
a screen depth change.
Each test has run 2 times and I kept the best result in file.
As you will see, There is no difference at all at 16bpp but just a few
points in 32bpp.

My old system :
Abit BX-133

256Mo PC133
Geforce 256 SE 32Mo SDR (110/143) AGP x1 x2 x4 capable.
Win98SE - DX 8.0a-nVidia 21.83WHQL
3Dmark2000 rev1.1

other elements had not any effects on the results

by **TireSpin4** » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 11:22:14

I believe you are correct, that's what I think the problem is as well. I
thought I would ask to see if anybody had any idea's on what it might be. I
have not tried different resolutions but I will now and advise of the frame
rates. Thanks for the advice.

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> CPU is bottleneck. AGP 1,2,or 4x does not make any difference in the real
> world - it is much slower than having a decent amount of RAM on the video
> card in the first place.
> If AGP 4x was fast enough, we'd be seeing Geforce 2/3's with 4Mb ram.
> Geforce 4's when released will have 64Mb/128Mb.

> Have you tried different resolutions.If frame rate stays nearly the same
if
> you lower the resolution then you are CPU limited. Try running 16bit not
32
> bit if haven't already.

> --
> Peter H

> GPL sucks...you in

> > What would you expect to be causing the poor frame rate performance? Any
> > Idea's?

> > Thanks

by **TireSpin4** » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 11:24:17

You are right as well, you work with what you got and right now it's time to
get something new. I think I would see the difference in a P-4 1.9 GHZ
system. That's where I will be heading from here. Thanks for your insight.

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> CPU a P2-400 is just not what it used to be.

> SLG

> >What would you expect to be causing the poor frame rate performance? Any
> >Idea's?

> >Thanks

> >--
> >" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> >> > Thank you for the explanation. It's just that I am considering doing
a
> >MB
> >> &
> >> > Chip upgrade and I know that the board I have currently only has 2x
AGP
> >> > support. My card is capable of 4x and I wanted to know if I would see
a
> >> good
> >> > deal of difference between them. I was trying out the new Nascar 2002
> >demo
> >> > and I noticed I was only getting 25-30 FPS and was not sure if my
video
> >> card
> >> > alone made the difference. The system I have is a P-2 400 MHZ with
512
> >Meg
> >> > Ram, and a 32 Meg G-Force-2 4 x AGP video card. I am contemplating
going
> >> to
> >> > a P-4 1.9 Gig 4X AGP system. I should expect to see a great
improvement
> >> over
> >> > what I am currently running. Thanks for your insight, it's
appreciated.

> >> In your current system, no, 2xAGP won't be the limiting factor.
> >> --
> >> - Will DeRivera
> >> - GPL Rank 103.93
> >> - http://www.numic.net
> >> - http://www.luxt.com
> >> - Hi, I'm a sig virus.
> >> - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world.

> (All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
> and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
> due to too many English classes/teachers)

by **TireSpin4** » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 11:26:59

Thanks for the link, I will look into this and see where I stand. As I had
said in earlier posts, I will be purchasing a new system shortly and should
see the difference with performance then. Thanks for your help.

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> Here is a link on results from 3DMark2000 and 2001 benchmark, I've
> performed a few months ago on my old system at AGP x1 and x2 at differents
> screen depths.
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/danoba/testagp.zip

> I've used BIOS settings to change AGP rate and checked each time that the
> good AGP rate was active with wcpuid. I rebooted between each test or
after
> a screen depth change.
> Each test has run 2 times and I kept the best result in file.
> As you will see, There is no difference at all at 16bpp but just a few
> points in 32bpp.

> My old system :
> Abit BX-133

> 256Mo PC133
> Geforce 256 SE 32Mo SDR (110/143) AGP x1 x2 x4 capable.
> Win98SE - DX 8.0a-nVidia 21.83WHQL
> 3Dmark2000 rev1.1

> other elements had not any effects on the results

> > Hi there, I am currently running a 4x AGP GF2 card on a board that only
> > supports 2x AGP, am I correct in assuming that I would only get 1/2 the
> > possible frame rates in NR2002? Please Advise.

> > --
> > " Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

by **TireSpin4** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 01:38:22

Well I changed my resolution and got better frame rates. I noticed that I
was getting 50-65 FPS (640x480 16M) when I shut off some of the graphics
like the stands and the higher detail objects. I guess it just boils down to
not enough horsepower and to many bottlenecks to drive the graphics? I do
have one further question though. This will probably sound stupid but, I
guess your Ram speed can only run as fast as your motherboard bus speed?
Example: If I have a board that has 133 mhz bus and I have Rambus ram (800
mhz) does the ram's performance drop down to the speed of the bus on the
board? As you can tell I don't know a lot about these matters. Replies are
appreciated. Thanks in advance.

--
" Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> Thanks for the link, I will look into this and see where I stand. As I had
> said in earlier posts, I will be purchasing a new system shortly and
should
> see the difference with performance then. Thanks for your help.

> --
> " Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

> > Here is a link on results from 3DMark2000 and 2001 benchmark, I've
> > performed a few months ago on my old system at AGP x1 and x2 at
differents
> > screen depths.
> > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/danoba/testagp.zip

> > I've used BIOS settings to change AGP rate and checked each time that
the
> > good AGP rate was active with wcpuid. I rebooted between each test or
> after
> > a screen depth change.
> > Each test has run 2 times and I kept the best result in file.
> > As you will see, There is no difference at all at 16bpp but just a few
> > points in 32bpp.

> > My old system :
> > Abit BX-133

> > 256Mo PC133
> > Geforce 256 SE 32Mo SDR (110/143) AGP x1 x2 x4 capable.
> > Win98SE - DX 8.0a-nVidia 21.83WHQL
> > 3Dmark2000 rev1.1

> > other elements had not any effects on the results

> > > Hi there, I am currently running a 4x AGP GF2 card on a board that
only
> > > supports 2x AGP, am I correct in assuming that I would only get 1/2
the
> > > possible frame rates in NR2002? Please Advise.

> > > --
> > > " Give Me Two Right Sides Only."

by **Morgan Boo** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 04:24:57

I tried to sort of help you out earlier in this thread but now....JEEZ you
are having a laugh aren't you..?

133Mhz bus speed and 800Mhz ram...LOL

You fooled me first time...well done.

But now....either you are getting that new PC you mentioned or you are not.

The most obvious thing to me is that you have a very inadequate
CPU,everything else is fine.

In your shoes i would replace mobo and cpu for a low price and settle for
around 1.2 to 1.4 Ghz.

Morgan Boof

p.s What question is next....? Maybe one of the old ones..."I heard PC's run
better the cooler they are,if i ran an extension cable to my fridge...blah
blah blah.."

rec.autos.simulators

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.

GF2 Framerates.