N4 - Frame Rate - Where's the bottle neck

I have the following system specs: PIII 933 256 RAM PC133 Geforce II Ultra (Latest drivers from nVidia) MS Sidewinder FF wheel SB Live Win98 (DirectX 7, maybe 8???) Running N4 using OpenGL 1024x768x16 Most graphics options on, but not everything on. Most of the time the frame rate is very acceptable (40-50 fps) even when I have 10 to 15 cars in front of me. However if I am at the back of the field frame rate can drop to around 17-21 fps. I figured it was the graphics card obviously, which kinda of bothered me since the Geforce II Ultra is a pretty high end card and I have gone through all of the normal tweaking to get the best frame rate for the card. However, if I record the same section where I get around 20 fps and replay it (cockpit camera - same view as used in the race) I get 50-60 fps. Does this mean my bottle neck is the CPU since it is has to do more calculations during the race as opposed to replay? Should this be my next upgrade? Are there other places I should look? Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

I only have a GeForce 256 32Mb card and a PIII650@911Mhz. I use the same resolution but draw 35 cars ahead and 3 behind. I get around 32-85fps depending on where I'm at and how much smoke and etc is being drawn. It seems to average around 48fps. Are you turning world detail all the way up? "Brian Oster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> I have the following system specs: > > PIII 933 > 256 RAM PC133 > Geforce II Ultra (Latest drivers from nVidia) > MS Sidewinder FF wheel > SB Live > Win98 (DirectX 7, maybe 8???) > > Running N4 using OpenGL 1024x768x16 > Most graphics options on, but not everything on. > > Most of the time the frame rate is very acceptable (40-50 fps) even > when I have 10 to 15 cars in front of me. However if I am at the back > of the field frame rate can drop to around 17-21 fps. I figured it > was the graphics card obviously, which kinda of bothered me since the > Geforce II Ultra is a pretty high end card and I have gone through all > of the normal tweaking to get the best frame rate for the card. > However, if I record the same section where I get around 20 fps and > replay it (cockpit camera - same view as used in the race) I get 50-60 > fps. Does this mean my bottle neck is the CPU since it is has to do > more calculations during the race as opposed to replay? Should this > be my next upgrade? Are there other places I should look? > > > > > Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

I think your CPU is the bottleneck. My .... :) ... Athalon 1.3GHz, 256 DDR, Dx8a with a V5 at 800x600 2xFSAA gets 30-70fps with everything maxed except mirrors at 25%. I would like a GF2 however. Jason. Brian Oster wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > I have the following system specs: > > PIII 933 > 256 RAM PC133 > Geforce II Ultra (Latest drivers from nVidia) > MS Sidewinder FF wheel > SB Live > Win98 (DirectX 7, maybe 8???) > > Running N4 using OpenGL 1024x768x16 > Most graphics options on, but not everything on. > > Most of the time the frame rate is very acceptable (40-50 fps) even > when I have 10 to 15 cars in front of me. However if I am at the back > of the field frame rate can drop to around 17-21 fps. I figured it > was the graphics card obviously, which kinda of bothered me since the > Geforce II Ultra is a pretty high end card and I have gone through all > of the normal tweaking to get the best frame rate for the card. > However, if I record the same section where I get around 20 fps and > replay it (cockpit camera - same view as used in the race) I get 50-60 > fps. Does this mean my bottle neck is the CPU since it is has to do > more calculations during the race as opposed to replay? Should this > be my next upgrade? Are there other places I should look? > > Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

-- Jason Monds http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (N4, GPL, Fun Run Sims) http://www.racersdomain.com - Race hosting. (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

John Hilsman wrote: > > check the main graphic detail slider (can't remember the name of it), > you might want to try turning it down to around 60% or so - a little > in either direction can have a major impact. That's the World Detail slider. It'll have a definite impact on your framerates. Like the poster says, turn it down to a little over halfway & check it out. Then adjust to suit. -- Fester

Try these hints from Tom Pabst before you look to upgrade. ******GeForce 2 (MX, GTS, ULTRA) Tweaks and Settings for N4****** Desktop Color: Set to 16-bit color for N4 and all games. DirectX: Make sure you are using a DX 8.0 compatible driver (Nvidia Ref drivers versions 7.0 or higher) For N4: Run OpenGL (not D3D) in "XXXX"x16 (you must use a screen res compatible with your CPU speed and ram). Monitor: Make sure you have downloaded the latest drivers for your monitor...DO NOT USE "Plug and Play" Monitor drivers! Set your refresh rate at the highest setting you are allowed for your monitor at the specific screen res you want to run N4 at. Advanced Settings Tab For OpenGL: In The Scroll Down Box: Enable Buffer Region Extension (checked) Allow the dual planes extension to us local video memory (checked) Use fast linear-mipmap-linear filtering (checked) ****all others are unchecked**** Default Color Depth for Textures: Always Use 16 bpp Buffer Flipping Mode: Use page flip Vertical sync: Always off Full Scene Antialiasing Method: Always off Use up to [62] MB of system memory for textures in PCI mode Mother Board BIOS Settings: Video BIOS Shadow = "Disabled" Video BIOS Cache = "Disabled" Palette Snoop = "Disabled" AGP Turbo (or x4) = "Enabled" (if your mobo supports it....disabled or 2x or 1x if it does not) PnP Aware OS = "Yes" AGP Aperture Size = 128 mb (only if you have 128 mb or more...which you should) Resources Controlled by = "Auto" Assign IRQ to VGA = "Yes" "Brian Oster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> I have the following system specs: > > PIII 933 > 256 RAM PC133 > Geforce II Ultra (Latest drivers from nVidia) > MS Sidewinder FF wheel > SB Live > Win98 (DirectX 7, maybe 8???) > > Running N4 using OpenGL 1024x768x16 > Most graphics options on, but not everything on. > > Most of the time the frame rate is very acceptable (40-50 fps) even > when I have 10 to 15 cars in front of me. However if I am at the back > of the field frame rate can drop to around 17-21 fps. I figured it > was the graphics card obviously, which kinda of bothered me since the > Geforce II Ultra is a pretty high end card and I have gone through all > of the normal tweaking to get the best frame rate for the card. > However, if I record the same section where I get around 20 fps and > replay it (cockpit camera - same view as used in the race) I get 50-60 > fps. Does this mean my bottle neck is the CPU since it is has to do > more calculations during the race as opposed to replay? Should this > be my next upgrade? Are there other places I should look? > > > > > Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

Sounds like a processor bottleneck. If you're racing offline, the cpu has to do the thinking for all of those cars ahead of and behind you. The world detail level is the first thing you should change. "Brian Oster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> I have the following system specs: > > PIII 933 > 256 RAM PC133 > Geforce II Ultra (Latest drivers from nVidia) > MS Sidewinder FF wheel > SB Live > Win98 (DirectX 7, maybe 8???) > > Running N4 using OpenGL 1024x768x16 > Most graphics options on, but not everything on. > > Most of the time the frame rate is very acceptable (40-50 fps) even > when I have 10 to 15 cars in front of me. However if I am at the back > of the field frame rate can drop to around 17-21 fps. I figured it > was the graphics card obviously, which kinda of bothered me since the > Geforce II Ultra is a pretty high end card and I have gone through all > of the normal tweaking to get the best frame rate for the card. > However, if I record the same section where I get around 20 fps and > replay it (cockpit camera - same view as used in the race) I get 50-60 > fps. Does this mean my bottle neck is the CPU since it is has to do > more calculations during the race as opposed to replay? Should this > be my next upgrade? Are there other places I should look? > > > > > Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

>"David T." <[email hidden]> wrote > Which motherboard chipset do you have via or intel? I have a similarsetup > as you and get over 100 FPS at times. I am actually running 1600x1200x16 > and get a steady 40-50. The mirror eats up FPS. Toggle with M and N keyto > have only the mirror with low graphics on. Also, can you OC you CPU any? Please, don't do that again. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Does Graphics detail like world detail eat up cpu cycles? The reason I ask is the fact that I get great frame rates in replay when, technically, the work that the Geforce is doing is the same as in the race, but the load on the CPU is much less. Right now, I have world detail set at about 70% I believe. I draw 60% ahead, show all cars ahead and 4 behind. I show some objects for world detail and have car detail set on the highest. I have all ready gone through the tweaks posted by Les Marton (very excellent guide by the way). I moved up from a TNT2 Ultra and was hoping to get much better fps. The only real advantage I have found is that I can run OpenGL (which looks much better) and I can turn up graphics options much higher, but at a certain point, turning down graphic options yields very small fps increases. I keep my system pretty clean so very little is running in the background. My wheel is a USB wheel. I will try upgrading to DX 8a if I dont have it and see if that makes a difference. On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:34:38 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>John Hilsman wrote: >> >> check the main graphic detail slider (can't remember the name of it), >> you might want to try turning it down to around 60% or so - a little >> in either direction can have a major impact. > > >That's the World Detail slider. It'll have a definite impact on your >framerates. Like the poster says, turn it down to a little over halfway >& check it out. Then adjust to suit. > >-- > >Fester

Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

Brian Oster wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Does Graphics detail like world detail eat up cpu cycles? The reason > I ask is the fact that I get great frame rates in replay when, > technically, the work that the Geforce is doing is the same as in the > race, but the load on the CPU is much less. Right now, I have world > detail set at about 70% I believe. I draw 60% ahead, show all cars > ahead and 4 behind. I show some objects for world detail and have car > detail set on the highest.

Well, I'll give you my specs, settings & observations in the hope you can glean some help from it all. :-) First the specs: PIII850 @ 910 256MB PC133 Elsa Gladiac GeForce2 GTS 7.68 drivers w/2x2 FSAA DX8a SBLive! MSFF USB Here's all my video settings: Open GL-800x600 16bit Car Detail=High World Detail=~55-60% (perhaps closer to 55) Draw Distance=40%, in mirrors=25% Opponents drawn ahead=20 in mirror=3 (I only race online, don't need a lot drawn ahead. Besides, if you run near the top... :-p) Mirror objects=medium, trackside obj=all Animated pit crew ON Steering Wheel OFF Lightmaps, Reflections & Shadows all ON Specular highlights OFF Debris, Dirt, Dust, Smoke,Sparks & Skid marks all ON What I generally notice is a frame rate of between 35-55, usually in the 45-50 range. I really don't notice that much slowdown due to smoke from wrecks ahead & I confirmed it when I checked my frame rates in replay mode with an online race I was in last night at Daytona Night (Top THAT sentence run-on, DH!). TV1 cam was giving 50-55 fps, going to cockpit view sliced it to 45-50. During a nasty wreck that happened in front of me, it never dropped below 30fps. So, for as similar (and different) as our systems are you should be getting much better framerate than you are out of your existing equipment. The 2 big settings differences I've noted between us is the # of cars drawn ahead & the World Detail slider. Play with these & maybe the Draw Ahead as well & you should notice a marked improvement. Damn... this post reminds me of Tom Pabst... -- Fester

The quickest way to improve framerates in n4 no matter what cpu or vid card you have is....to.....play online... you should see a near 10 fps increase at most tracks. dave henrie "Brian Oster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> I have the following system specs: > > PIII 933 > 256 RAM PC133 > Geforce II Ultra (Latest drivers from nVidia) > MS Sidewinder FF wheel > SB Live > Win98 (DirectX 7, maybe 8???) > > Running N4 using OpenGL 1024x768x16 > Most graphics options on, but not everything on. > > Most of the time the frame rate is very acceptable (40-50 fps) even > when I have 10 to 15 cars in front of me. However if I am at the back > of the field frame rate can drop to around 17-21 fps. I figured it > was the graphics card obviously, which kinda of bothered me since the > Geforce II Ultra is a pretty high end card and I have gone through all > of the normal tweaking to get the best frame rate for the card. > However, if I record the same section where I get around 20 fps and > replay it (cockpit camera - same view as used in the race) I get 50-60 > fps. Does this mean my bottle neck is the CPU since it is has to do > more calculations during the race as opposed to replay? Should this > be my next upgrade? Are there other places I should look? > > > > > Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

I'd agree with you about your CPU being the bottle neck there, as the CPU load will rise greatly with more cars in front. You're pretty much right about the Geforce doing the same work in both cases, but CPU load is much lower when you're viewing the replay, because there are no AI and physics calculations to be done. I can't really comment from my system, because it's very different, but you could always try overclocking it a bit and see how you go. And obviously try the graphics tweaks mentioned, see how they work out. Rafe Mc On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 18:56:17 GMT, [email hidden] (Brian Oster) wrote:

Quoted text (38 lines)

>Does Graphics detail like world detail eat up cpu cycles? The reason >I ask is the fact that I get great frame rates in replay when, >technically, the work that the Geforce is doing is the same as in the >race, but the load on the CPU is much less. Right now, I have world >detail set at about 70% I believe. I draw 60% ahead, show all cars >ahead and 4 behind. I show some objects for world detail and have car >detail set on the highest. > >I have all ready gone through the tweaks posted by Les Marton (very >excellent guide by the way). I moved up from a TNT2 Ultra and was >hoping to get much better fps. The only real advantage I have found >is that I can run OpenGL (which looks much better) and I can turn up >graphics options much higher, but at a certain point, turning down >graphic options yields very small fps increases. > >I keep my system pretty clean so very little is running in the >background. My wheel is a USB wheel. I will try upgrading to DX 8a >if I dont have it and see if that makes a difference. > >On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:34:38 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>John Hilsman wrote: >>> >>> check the main graphic detail slider (can't remember the name of it), >>> you might want to try turning it down to around 60% or so - a little >>> in either direction can have a major impact. >> >> >>That's the World Detail slider. It'll have a definite impact on your >>framerates. Like the poster says, turn it down to a little over halfway >>& check it out. Then adjust to suit. >> >>-- >> >>Fester > >Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply.

I meant to send to Brians email... you don't have to be such a terd. Learn some people skills. David "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aon17.31377$[email hidden]... > >"David T." <[email hidden]> wrote > > Which motherboard chipset do you have via or intel? I have a similar > setup > > as you and get over 100 FPS at times. I am actually running1600x1200x16 > > and get a steady 40-50. The mirror eats up FPS. Toggle with M and N key > to > > have only the mirror with low graphics on. Also, can you OC you CPUany?

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > Please, don't do that again. > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > >

>"David T." <[email hidden]> wrote >you don't have to be such a terd. Gee "Please don't do that again." is such a harsh statement? Cmon now, don't be a terd yourself. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Dave, And that increased online fps is due primarily to the absence, in most cases, of the AI, no? Alan

I would think you are correct. Therefore the graphics are not the slowdown but calculating the posisitons to place the graphcis etc may be it... always get as MUCH cpu as you can afford. dave henrie "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1zM17.18053$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Dave, > > And that increased online fps is due primarily to the absence, in most > cases, of the AI, no? > > Alan > >

Yes, N4 is very CPU dependant. Back when I was running an Athlon 800 and GeForce 256 DDR, I was torn between a processor upgrade and a video card upgrade. I went with the video card upgrade for two reasons. I felt the GeForce 256 DDR was out of steam, and to upgrade the processor I would also have to buy a new motherboard (I had a slot-a). So I bought a Hercules GeForce II GTS Pro card. I saw a _reasonable_ increase in N4 performance. About 10fps. I was running around 40fps max. A month or so later, I decided what the hell. Might as well do the whole thing. So, I upgraded the Motherboard to an ASUS A7V133, and put in an Athlon 1.2Ghz DDR processor. My N4 fps jumped from 40fps max to 75+ fps, tickling 80fps from time to time. I run ALL graphics levels at 100%, 32 cars ahead, and I think 16 cars behind. Of course, I'm affected by on-screen stuff as much as anyone else, especially smoke. Smoke is THE big frame rate killer... -Larry "Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> I'd agree with you about your CPU being the bottle neck there, as the > CPU load will rise greatly with more cars in front. You're pretty much > right about the Geforce doing the same work in both cases, but CPU > load is much lower when you're viewing the replay, because there are > no AI and physics calculations to be done. > > I can't really comment from my system, because it's very different, > but you could always try overclocking it a bit and see how you go. And > obviously try the graphics tweaks mentioned, see how they work out. > > Rafe Mc > > > On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 18:56:17 GMT, [email hidden] (Brian > Oster) wrote: > > >Does Graphics detail like world detail eat up cpu cycles? The reason > >I ask is the fact that I get great frame rates in replay when, > >technically, the work that the Geforce is doing is the same as in the > >race, but the load on the CPU is much less. Right now, I have world > >detail set at about 70% I believe. I draw 60% ahead, show all cars > >ahead and 4 behind. I show some objects for world detail and have car > >detail set on the highest. > > > >I have all ready gone through the tweaks posted by Les Marton (very > >excellent guide by the way). I moved up from a TNT2 Ultra and was > >hoping to get much better fps. The only real advantage I have found > >is that I can run OpenGL (which looks much better) and I can turn up > >graphics options much higher, but at a certain point, turning down > >graphic options yields very small fps increases. > > > >I keep my system pretty clean so very little is running in the > >background. My wheel is a USB wheel. I will try upgrading to DX 8a > >if I dont have it and see if that makes a difference. > > > >On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:34:38 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> > >wrote: > > > >>John Hilsman wrote: > >>> > >>> check the main graphic detail slider (can't remember the name of it), > >>> you might want to try turning it down to around 60% or so - a little > >>> in either direction can have a major impact. > >> > >> > >>That's the World Detail slider. It'll have a definite impact on your > >>framerates. Like the poster says, turn it down to a little over halfway > >>& check it out. Then adjust to suit. > >> > >>-- > >> > >>Fester > > > >Brian Oster Remove NOSPAM from my email to reply. >