It might help GPL which is stuck at 36fps but the games that run faster
suffer a bit. Not unplayable but second fiddle to a CRT.
It might help GPL which is stuck at 36fps but the games that run faster
suffer a bit. Not unplayable but second fiddle to a CRT.
> It might help GPL which is stuck at 36fps but the games that run faster
> suffer a bit. Not unplayable but second fiddle to a CRT.
My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro
version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play
Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22
fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never
drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the
twenties somewhere.
The kicker (and what I don't understand) is this: I get this same
performance (within 3 fps) when I run at 800x600 or at 1600x1200. I
also get this same performance whether I have my Catalyst driver
settings at the minimum (max performance) or at the maximum (max
quality - which by the was is at 4X AA and 8X Anis. Filtering). This
seems very strange to me.
The only way for me to adjust my fps, is to adjust the in game
options. For example, I can increase framerate by reducing the number
of cars I see ahead.
This is driving me crazy! Why is my framerate not changing when I
change the resolution and driver settings?! Should I return my card?
Do I have a faulty card? HELP!
SkykingUSA
> My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro
> version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play
> Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22
> fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never
> drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the
> twenties somewhere.
> The kicker (and what I don't understand) is this: I get this same
> performance (within 3 fps) when I run at 800x600 or at 1600x1200. I
> also get this same performance whether I have my Catalyst driver
> settings at the minimum (max performance) or at the maximum (max
> quality - which by the was is at 4X AA and 8X Anis. Filtering). This
> seems very strange to me.
> The only way for me to adjust my fps, is to adjust the in game
> options. For example, I can increase framerate by reducing the number
> of cars I see ahead.
> This is driving me crazy! Why is my framerate not changing when I
> change the resolution and driver settings?! Should I return my card?
> Do I have a faulty card? HELP!
> SkykingUSA
>>At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better or frame
>>rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at
>>1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it
>>runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are capable of
>>that.
Gerry
I thought we were speaking of racing titles. Obviously, flight sims are a
different story. Still, with MSFS 2004, I get a steady 36-40 fps, running
at 1280x1024x32. I even tried dipping down to 1024x768x32, and my fps did
not drastically change.
I doubt things would be different with a CRT monitor. Some games, for sure,
take more horsepower, and running in higher resolutions, such as
1280x1024x32 (LCD), is not a good idea if you want smooth gameplay.
Alanb
Thanks for your response, I am going nuts here!
SkykingUSA
What sort of RAM are you using?
Andrew.
Thanks for the reply.
SkykingUSA
> > My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro
> > version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play
> > Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22
> > fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never
> > drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the
> > twenties somewhere.
> > The kicker (and what I don't understand) is this: I get this same
> > performance (within 3 fps) when I run at 800x600 or at 1600x1200. I
> > also get this same performance whether I have my Catalyst driver
> > settings at the minimum (max performance) or at the maximum (max
> > quality - which by the was is at 4X AA and 8X Anis. Filtering). This
> > seems very strange to me.
> > The only way for me to adjust my fps, is to adjust the in game
> > options. For example, I can increase framerate by reducing the number
> > of cars I see ahead.
> > This is driving me crazy! Why is my framerate not changing when I
> > change the resolution and driver settings?! Should I return my card?
> > Do I have a faulty card? HELP!
> > SkykingUSA
Thanks for the reply, I will do some more testing.
SkykingUSA
> >My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro
> >version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play
> >Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22
> >fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never
> >drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the
> >twenties somewhere.
> What sort of RAM are you using?
> Andrew.
Andrew.
> > Holy shit.
> > -Larry
> Yep, the Great British ripoff.
> You wanna see how much tax we pay on fuel !! Actually, you probably don't.
> --
> Ian P
> <email invalid due to spammers>
But, I guess it also depends on what social services are provided.
-Larry
> > My God, VAT is 17.5 %?
> 24% where I am...
> Jone
> Norway (or No Way!)
-Larry
> >>I HAVE used LCD's for *** and Pixel Response Rate most certainly IS a
> >>consideration.
> > Yes, it's a consideration. But all the decent LCD's out now are fast
> > enough for *** and shouldn't be discounted because the response
> > time is 20ms. Any LCD with <30ms is adequate.
> <50 is adequate.
-Larry
> > IMHO, Backlight failures and repairs are the dirty-little-secret of the
> LCD
> > industry. If you are under warranty, you are fine. If you are out of
> > warranty, you are truly screwed. Don't think you can replace a $20
light
> > bulb. You SHOULD be able to, but they won't do it. No, they will
charge
> > you for an ENTIRE panel assembly and it's a rip-off.
> It's not a light bulb is it? Isn't it some kind of light emitting sheet
that
> covers the whole screen and needs 100 or so Volts to light up?
> Would it be a technically easy task to replace them instead of replacing
the
> whole screen?
> --
> Jone Tytlandsvik
> http://tytlandsvik.no
I'm sure there are some esoteric designs out there that are different, but
most are flourescent bulbs. The two wires connect to what's called the
"Inverter Board", which controls the brightness.
-Larry
> >It's not a light bulb is it? Isn't it some kind of light emitting sheet
that
> >covers the whole screen and needs 100 or so Volts to light up?
> >Would it be a technically easy task to replace them instead of replacing
the
> >whole screen?
> No, it's a flourescent bulb that backlights the screen.