Archive / 2002 / April

vid card performance

11 posts by 6 people · 26 Apr 2002 21:18 UTC - 01 May 2002 13:36 UTC

Dave Henrie 26 Apr 2002 21:18 UTC#123492

Using a GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 210/450. Performance is good. But I saw some of the details from other users that may indicate my polygon performance is not up to snuff. here's what I get from N2002 in the rend_ogl.ini file first line says it all. What are other GF users getting for their polygon reading? dave henrie [3D Accelerator Analysis] PolyRate=186.10 TestedFullScreen=1 TextureSetSize=51058347 BitsPerPixel=16 Height=768 Width=1024 AnisotropicLevel=2 UseStencilBuffer=0 MinFilter=9987 MagFilter=9729 Renderer=GeForce3/AGP/3DNOW! Version=1.3.1 Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation

Don Schwartz Jr 26 Apr 2002 22:15 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie #123497

I have a Ti 200 running at 210/465. This is my rend.ogl: [3D Accelerator Analysis] PolyRate=393.39 TestedFullScreen=1 TextureSetSize=59146240 BitsPerPixel=16 Height=864 Width=1152 AnisotropicLevel=8 UseStencilBuffer=0 MinFilter=9987 MagFilter=9729 Renderer=GeForce3/AGP/3DNOW! Version=1.3.1 Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation The texture setsize line is tweaked. Don "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lujy8.10300$ao1.5084@rwcrnsc54... > Using a GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 210/450. Performance is good. But I > saw some of the details from other users that may indicate my polygon > performance is not up to snuff. > here's what I get from N2002 in the rend_ogl.ini file first line saysit

Quoted text (21 lines)

> all. > What are other GF users getting for their polygon reading? > dave henrie > > [3D Accelerator Analysis] > PolyRate=186.10 > TestedFullScreen=1 > TextureSetSize=51058347 > BitsPerPixel=16 > Height=768 > Width=1024 > AnisotropicLevel=2 > UseStencilBuffer=0 > MinFilter=9987 > MagFilter=9729 > Renderer=GeForce3/AGP/3DNOW! > Version=1.3.1 > Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation > > >

B Farmer 27 Apr 2002 01:23 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie #123522

GF3 ti450 (Gainward ti200) - 128meg @200/450 (stock) XP1800 256 meg [3D Accelerator Analysis] PolyRate=536.49 TestedFullScreen=1 TextureSetSize=110084096 (tweaked) BitsPerPixel=32 Height=960 Width=1280 AnisotropicLevel=1 UseStencilBuffer=0 MinFilter=9987 MagFilter=9729 Renderer=GeForce3/AGP/3DNOW! Version=1.3.1 Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation HTH, Brian "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lujy8.10300$ao1.5084@rwcrnsc54... > Using a GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 210/450. Performance isgood. But I > saw some of the details from other users that may indicate mypolygon > performance is not up to snuff. > here's what I get from N2002 in the rend_ogl.ini file firstline says it

Quoted text (22 lines)

Todd Sorensen 28 Apr 2002 17:13 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie #123211

GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 252/502 128meg: [3D Accelerator Analysis] PolyRate=1026.47 TestedFullScreen=1 TextureSetSize=83143340 BitsPerPixel=32 Height=960 Width=1280 AnisotropicLevel=0 UseStencilBuffer=0 MinFilter=9987 MagFilter=9729 Renderer=GeForce3/AGP/3DNOW! Version=1.3.1 Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lujy8.10300$ao1.5084@rwcrnsc54... > Using a GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 210/450. Performance is good. But I > saw some of the details from other users that may indicate my polygon > performance is not up to snuff. > here's what I get from N2002 in the rend_ogl.ini file first line saysit

Quoted text (21 lines)

Dave Henrie 28 Apr 2002 21:24 UTC↳ reply to Todd Sorensen #123128

"JTSBurn" > GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 252/502 128meg: > > [3D Accelerator Analysis] > PolyRate=1026.47 Holy Schmoley! Are you using any extra cooling on that??? huge increase.... dave henrie

Dave Henrie 28 Apr 2002 21:24 UTC#529199

"JTSBurn" Holy Schmoley! Are you using any extra cooling on that??? huge increase.... dave henrie

Biz 29 Apr 2002 02:41 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie #123073

[3D Accelerator Analysis] PolyRate=927.22 TestedFullScreen=1 TextureSetSize=56129026 BitsPerPixel=16 Height=768 Width=1024 AnisotropicLevel=2 UseStencilBuffer=0 MinFilter=9987 MagFilter=9729 Renderer=GeForce2 MX/AGP/SSE Version=1.3.0 Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation This is on a GF2 MX 400 BTW 64MB AGP card, not overclocked. Why are all of you except JTSBurn getting such low poly rates? At first I thought I wouldn't say anything assuming lower poly rates were in some weird way better... -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lujy8.10300$ao1.5084@rwcrnsc54... > Using a GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 210/450. Performance is good. But I > saw some of the details from other users that may indicate my polygon > performance is not up to snuff. > here's what I get from N2002 in the rend_ogl.ini file first line says it > all. > What are other GF users getting for their polygon reading? > dave henrie > > [3D Accelerator Analysis] > PolyRate=186.10 > TestedFullScreen=1 > TextureSetSize=51058347 > BitsPerPixel=16 > Height=768 > Width=1024 > AnisotropicLevel=2 > UseStencilBuffer=0 > MinFilter=9987 > MagFilter=9729 > Renderer=GeForce3/AGP/3DNOW! > Version=1.3.1 > Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation > > >

Todd Sorensen 29 Apr 2002 11:53 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie #122998

I have a Gainward card - one of the "Golden Sample" cards. These are very overclockable. For cooling I have one of those dual fan card coolers. It sort of lays over all the cards. The box is set up well to ventilate out the back which also helps. Todd "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bMZy8.72219$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "JTSBurn" > > GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 252/502 128meg: > > > > [3D Accelerator Analysis] > > PolyRate=1026.47 > Holy Schmoley! Are you using any extra cooling on that??? huge > increase.... > dave henrie > >

Todd Sorensen 29 Apr 2002 11:55 UTC↳ reply to Biz #122999

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kp2z8.52054$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> [3D Accelerator Analysis] > PolyRate=927.22 > TestedFullScreen=1 > TextureSetSize=56129026 > BitsPerPixel=16 > Height=768 > Width=1024 > AnisotropicLevel=2 > UseStencilBuffer=0 > MinFilter=9987 > MagFilter=9729 > Renderer=GeForce2 MX/AGP/SSE > Version=1.3.0 > Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation > > > This is on a GF2 MX 400 BTW 64MB AGP card, not overclocked. Why are all

of you except JTSBurn > getting such low poly rates? At first I thought I wouldn't say anythingassuming lower poly rates > were in some weird way better... I was wondering that myself. My system is not that great - only an Athlon 1000 with a GF3 card. Kind of antiquated by todays standards ;-)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:lujy8.10300$ao1.5084@rwcrnsc54... > > Using a GF3 ti 200 overclocked to 210/450. Performance is good. ButI > > saw some of the details from other users that may indicate my polygon > > performance is not up to snuff. > > here's what I get from N2002 in the rend_ogl.ini file first line saysit

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > all. > > What are other GF users getting for their polygon reading? > > dave henrie > > > > [3D Accelerator Analysis] > > PolyRate=186.10 > > TestedFullScreen=1 > > TextureSetSize=51058347 > > BitsPerPixel=16 > > Height=768 > > Width=1024 > > AnisotropicLevel=2 > > UseStencilBuffer=0 > > MinFilter=9987 > > MagFilter=9729 > > Renderer=GeForce3/AGP/3DNOW! > > Version=1.3.1 > > Vendor=NVIDIA Corporation > > > > > > > >

Dave Henrie 29 Apr 2002 13:09 UTC↳ reply to Todd Sorensen #123011

"JTSBurn"

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > [3D Accelerator Analysis] > > PolyRate=927.22 > > > > This is on a GF2 MX 400 BTW 64MB AGP card, not overclocked. Why are all > of you except JTSBurn > > getting such low poly rates? At first I thought I wouldn't say anything > assuming lower poly rates > > were in some weird way better... > > > I was wondering that myself. My system is not that great - only an Athlon > 1000 with a GF3 card. Kind of antiquated by todays standards ;-) > > > > Biz

Yup that is why I started this thread...Something seems to be not right...I get high fps, in the 80's alone and usually in the 40's in a pack with some dippage from time to time, but man...I'm 50% less than the next closest and only a fraction of the highest reported. dave henrie

Rafe McAuliffe 01 May 2002 13:36 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie #122668

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:09:55 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >"JTSBurn" >> > [3D Accelerator Analysis] >> > PolyRate=927.22 >> > >> > This is on a GF2 MX 400 BTW 64MB AGP card, not overclocked. Why are all >> of you except JTSBurn >> > getting such low poly rates? At first I thought I wouldn't say anything >> assuming lower poly rates >> > were in some weird way better... >> >> >> I was wondering that myself. My system is not that great - only an Athlon >> 1000 with a GF3 card. Kind of antiquated by todays standards ;-) >> >> >> > Biz > Yup that is why I started this thread...Something seems to be not >right...I get high fps, in the 80's alone and usually in the 40's in a pack >with some dippage from time to time, but man...I'm 50% less than the next >closest and only a fraction of the highest reported. >dave henrie

Sounds like a driver issue, somethings not right. DX, via drivers, GF3 drivers, etc, somethings not right. Rafe Mc >