New video card performance increase?

I am thinking about a G4 ti 4600 or G3 ti 200. My current specs are as follows: MSI K7N420 motherboard (onboard 5:1 sound/gf2mx) 256 ddr AMD XP 1500 windows XP I run N2002 with 43 cars, no aa, world detail 50%, high detail cars, opengl, 1024x768, 16 bit color. At the start of the race I get 35 fps and during the race it can get as high as 50 fps. I would like to run with some aa or the quincunx or whatever they call it. So With aa on and world detail set to high what kind of fps should I expect? I would like the game to look a little cleaner, but If the performance increase is not there I won't make the purchase. Thanks in advance. Sondog

"Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:X9nm8.11584$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I am thinking about a G4 ti 4600 or G3 ti 200. My current specs are as > follows: > > MSI K7N420 motherboard (onboard 5:1 sound/gf2mx) > 256 ddr > AMD XP 1500 > windows XP > > I run N2002 with 43 cars, no aa, world detail 50%, high detail cars,

opengl, > 1024x768, 16 bit color. At the start of the race I get 35 fps and during > the race it can get as high as 50 fps. I would like to run with some aaor > the quincunx or whatever they call it. So With aa on and world detail set > to high what kind of fps should I expect? > I would like the game to look a little cleaner, but If the performance > increase is not there I won't make the purchase. Thanks in advance. I just ordered the Gainward GF4 ti 4400. This model has a guaranteed overclock mode and should clock just as fast as a stock 4600. I run about the same settings as yourself on the following system. AMD 1.33 GHz 784 MB PC133 ram 64 MB Geforce2 Pro SB Audigy Windows XP I am planning on doing a before and after comparison with performance numbers and screenshots as soon as I get the card. Which should be early next week. I'll post a link then. Kyle

Have you over clocked your video card? If not get a tweak program like NVmax and crank it up. That is a free increase. Second I go for more CPU if your mobo will handle it. A XP2000 is around $250 last time I checked so it would be cheaper than a video card. Also IMO you better off running a higher res than using FSAA. That is assuming you have a monitor that goes higher than 1024 x 768. The way it was explained to me was that at 2x FSAA your basicly taking a 2048x1536 image and resampling it down to 1024x768. So why not just run in 1280x960? From my testing you'll get better performance than 1024 with 2xFSAA. If your trying to get rid of the jaggies in the distance they just don't seem to go away. I have ran all the way up to 1940 and they are still there, so it must be something with the geforce card or the Papy graphic engine. At this point in time I don't see a GF4 card giving you a increase equal to its price oover a GF3ti200. I have a buddy with a GF3Ti200 card and he gets better frame rates than my GF3! MadDAWG

Be very cautious over-clocking anything with Windows XP. It is very "touchy" to anything out of the expected for hardware, and could result in a lot more headaches. -- Chris H. "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:X9nm8.11584$[email hidden]... > I am thinking about a G4 ti 4600 or G3 ti 200. My current specs are as > follows: > > MSI K7N420 motherboard (onboard 5:1 sound/gf2mx) > 256 ddr > AMD XP 1500 > windows XP > > I run N2002 with 43 cars, no aa, world detail 50%, high detail cars, opengl, > 1024x768, 16 bit color. At the start of the race I get 35 fps and during > the race it can get as high as 50 fps. I would like to run with some aa or > the quincunx or whatever they call it. So With aa on and world detail set > to high what kind of fps should I expect? > I would like the game to look a little cleaner, but If the performance > increase is not there I won't make the purchase. Thanks in advance. > > Sondog > > >

I bought a new Gainward GF3 ti450(ti200) 128 meg Golden Sample(oc'd) last week to replace a GF2 ti450 64 meg (not Golden Sample) which I put in my gf's computer. So far, I haven't gotten the results I expected, & am a little disappointed with it. Soyo Dragon+ XP1800+ 256 Mushkin DDR W98se Det 27.50 3DMark2001SE (default benchmark - 1024 x 768 x 32 no aa) went from 4800-4850(GF2) to 7350-7400(GF3). Thats the good news. N2002 (1024 x 768 x 16 no aa) Starting on backstretch at rear of grid at Daytona Full field All settings maxed except wheel off, skidmarks off, ansio off, aids off ex clutch 42 front, 10 in mirror sounds = 10 OpenGL GF2 35-36fps GF3 37-38fps :( D3D GF2 28-29fps GF3 35-36fps I don't know what this means, but it seems to indicate that the processor is more important to performance in N2002(opengl) than the vid card. The improvement in Direct 3d is there, tho not what you would expect going by the 3DMark results. The quality is also improved in opengl, & is probably related to the extra memory on the vid card. Also, 2xaa & Quincunx aa don't hurt the fps nearly as much as b4. I'll admit that I had more time to tweak the GF2, & am still trying to tweak the GF3, but haven't seen any real improvement yet. I saw a post here a week or so ago that reported that the new GF4 cards also didn't give the big increase in fps expected in N2002, tho 3DMark scores were signifigantly higher. Maybe we need a new benchmark for video cards... Papy? HTH, Brian

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I am thinking about a G4 ti 4600 or G3 ti 200. My current specs are as > follows: > > MSI K7N420 motherboard (onboard 5:1 sound/gf2mx) > 256 ddr > AMD XP 1500 > windows XP > > I run N2002 with 43 cars, no aa, world detail 50%, high detail cars,

opengl, > 1024x768, 16 bit color. At the start of the race I get 35 fps and during > the race it can get as high as 50 fps. I would like to run with some aaor

Quoted text (8 lines)

> the quincunx or whatever they call it. So With aa on and world detail set > to high what kind of fps should I expect? > I would like the game to look a little cleaner, but If the performance > increase is not there I won't make the purchase. Thanks in advance. > > Sondog > >

"B Farmer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:B83n8.100551$702.21870@sccrnsc02... > I bought a new Gainward GF3 ti450(ti200) 128 meg Golden Sample(oc'd) last > week to replace a GF2 ti450 64 meg (not Golden Sample) which I put in my > gf's computer. > > So far, I haven't gotten the results I expected, & am a littledisappointed

Quoted text (25 lines)

> with it. > Soyo Dragon+ > XP1800+ > 256 Mushkin DDR > W98se > Det 27.50 > > 3DMark2001SE (default benchmark - 1024 x 768 x 32 no aa) went from > 4800-4850(GF2) to 7350-7400(GF3). Thats the good news. > > N2002 (1024 x 768 x 16 no aa) > Starting on backstretch at rear of grid at Daytona > Full field > All settings maxed except wheel off, skidmarks off, ansio off, aids off ex > clutch > 42 front, 10 in mirror > sounds = 10 > OpenGL > GF2 35-36fps > GF3 37-38fps :( > D3D > GF2 28-29fps > GF3 35-36fps > > I don't know what this means, but it seems to indicate that the processor

is > more important to performance in N2002(opengl) than the vid card. The > improvement in Direct 3d is there, tho not what you would expect going by > the 3DMark results. The quality is also improved in opengl, & is probably > related to the extra memory on the vid card. Also, 2xaa & Quincunx aadon't > hurt the fps nearly as much as b4. I'll admit that I had more time totweak > the GF2, & am still trying to tweak the GF3, but haven't seen any real > improvement yet. > > I saw a post here a week or so ago that reported that the new GF4 cardsalso > didn't give the big increase in fps expected in N2002, tho 3DMark scores > were signifigantly higher. N2002 like practically all sims(racing, flight, etc.) is very processor limited. Physics and AI are very processor intensive. Can you increase the resolution without impacting performance? Your D3D improvements I would guess are do to better drivers. I should be receiving my new Gainward GF4 4400 on Monday(It is at the Fedex terminal at the airport right now). This will be an upgrade from a GF2 for me. I only expect modest fps gains, but I do expect to be able to bump up the resolution from the 1024x768 that I currently run at or use some form of AA. Kyle

"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VC4n8.163352$[email hidden]... > > "B Farmer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:B83n8.100551$702.21870@sccrnsc02... > > I bought a new Gainward GF3 ti450(ti200) 128 meg Golden Sample(oc'd)last

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > week to replace a GF2 ti450 64 meg (not Golden Sample) which I put in my > > gf's computer. > > > > So far, I haven't gotten the results I expected, & am a little > disappointed > > with it. > > Soyo Dragon+ > > XP1800+ > > 256 Mushkin DDR > > W98se > > Det 27.50 > > > > 3DMark2001SE (default benchmark - 1024 x 768 x 32 no aa) went from > > 4800-4850(GF2) to 7350-7400(GF3). Thats the good news. > > > > N2002 (1024 x 768 x 16 no aa) > > Starting on backstretch at rear of grid at Daytona > > Full field > > All settings maxed except wheel off, skidmarks off, ansio off, aids off

ex

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > clutch > > 42 front, 10 in mirror > > sounds = 10 > > OpenGL > > GF2 35-36fps > > GF3 37-38fps :( > > D3D > > GF2 28-29fps > > GF3 35-36fps > > > > I don't know what this means, but it seems to indicate that the

processor > is > > more important to performance in N2002(opengl) than the vid card. The > > improvement in Direct 3d is there, tho not what you would expect goingby > > the 3DMark results. The quality is also improved in opengl, & isprobably

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > related to the extra memory on the vid card. Also, 2xaa & Quincunx aa > don't > > hurt the fps nearly as much as b4. I'll admit that I had more time to > tweak > > the GF2, & am still trying to tweak the GF3, but haven't seen any real > > improvement yet. > > > > I saw a post here a week or so ago that reported that the new GF4 cards > also > > didn't give the big increase in fps expected in N2002, tho 3DMark scores > > were signifigantly higher. > > N2002 like practically all sims(racing, flight, etc.) is very processor > limited. Physics and AI are very processor intensive. Can you increase the > resolution without impacting performance? Your D3D improvements I would > guess are do to better drivers. I should be receiving my new Gainward GF4 > 4400 on Monday(It is at the Fedex terminal at the airport right now). This > will be an upgrade from a GF2 for me. I only expect modest fps gains, but

I > do expect to be able to bump up the resolution from the 1024x768 that I > currently run at or use some form of AA. > > Kyle Kyle, yes I can bump the res up to 1280 x 1024 x 32 w/ only a modest hit (1-2 fps), & when going from 16 bit to 32 bit there was also a very modest hit. Again, this may be due more to the extra 64 megs than to the chip. I actually run it at the higher res (the #s above were for comparison) & turn down some eye candy to get playable fps while offline (love those 43 car fields), but can run it maxed while online. No AI to deal with does increase fps drastically, so I agree that N2002 is more processor dependent, esp while offline. 1280x1024x32 w/quincunx is awesome :) Brian

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:25:44 -0500, "Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote: >N2002 like practically all sims(racing, flight, etc.) is very processor >limited. Physics and AI are very processor intensive. Can you increase the >resolution without impacting performance? I don't think the AI nor the physics is sucking down most juice. Both the AI and the physics ran just fine on my Cel450. And that load is constant regardless of resolution or graphics setting or hardware. If the physics and the AI gulped 90% processor time on my Cel450 leaving 10% for everything else it should be about 15-20% on my Athlon XP 1.47GHz(It's about 5-6 times faster in most other CPU mesurements). But I don't think AI/Phys. gobbels down 90% of my CPU-time on the Celeron because it would be totally unplayable. It's most probably has more to do with the graphics just like GPL. One thing we have to look at also, is that games may(or may not) be T&L limited now since T&L support is getting more and more proliferant.

"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VC4n8.163352$[email hidden]... > I should be receiving my new Gainward GF4 > 4400 on Monday(It is at the Fedex terminal at the airport right now). This > will be an upgrade from a GF2 for me. I only expect modest fps gains, butI > do expect to be able to bump up the resolution from the 1024x768 that I > currently run at or use some form of AA. The nightmare that is my new Gainward GF4 4400! I uninstalled my old Geforce 2 Pro drivers. Selected VGA adapter. Shut down. Installed GF4 4400. Selected WinXP drivers on the CD. When the driver installation is complete I get an error saying there was a problem with the installation and cannot find specified file(specific file name is not mentioned). I end up with the 4400 in my device manager but it is disabled since there are no drivers installed. This happens both with the drivers on the CD and with the newer drivers on the website. So guess who has a montrous headache and hasn't got to race any N2002 today. Kyle

"Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<X9nm8.11584$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I am thinking about a G4 ti 4600 or G3 ti 200. My current specs are as > follows: > > MSI K7N420 motherboard (onboard 5:1 sound/gf2mx) > 256 ddr > AMD XP 1500 > windows XP

I'm getting a 33% performance increase with a GeForce 4 Ti4400 over a GeForce 3 Ti200 (both PNY - as a bonus the Ti4400 comes with 3-d glasses, which aren't mentioned on the box). I can't compare my scores to the normal 3dmark2001 scores since I run the test at 1280x1024x16, but my score went from 5000 with a Ge3 Ti200 to 8000 with a Ge4 Ti4400. I prefer playing games at 1280x1024x16, and I'm seeing nearly a 10fps increase in Nascar 2002 from the back of a 43 car field at Atlanta with full details except antistropic filtering and draw ahead/behind set to 50%, and ridiculous framerates elsewhere (OpenGL at 1280x1024x16 regularly hits 130fps when driving solo). The best part is, I'm also running quincunx FSAA now which has seriously eased the headaches I get when playing N2002 and GPL for more than 30 minutes since the swimming edges are nearly gone. And I'm doing all this at around 25-33% faster than a Ge3 Ti200 with the same drivers, same configuration, and FSAA turned off. This is on a 1.4gHz Athlon Thunderbird on a KT7A MBoard with 256mb PC133 RAM and a Turtle Beach A3DStream (with the hardware acceleration disabled...lousy drivers). I'm using the Detonator drivers that shipped with the card (27.44?) since the latest win9x ones from nvidia's website cause direct3D to crash within 15 seconds of rendering a scene (even 3dMark2001 crashes after the first test), even on a completely fresh install of Windoze. Seems the GeF Ti200 is still listing at $200, I'd recommend paying the extra $100 and getting the GeF 4 Ti4400 instead. Assuming it doesn't cause a problem with your onboard video, I would expect a 200-300% performance increase over a GeForce 2mx. Jason