Win2k upgrade - what's up?

Hi all My old system was a PII 350 (running at 392), 128MB, Creative TNT and Win98SE. This system wasn't great for F1-2000 and other games I play, but it used to run GPL at an approximately constant 35/36 FPS once on track (using Direct3D). I recently upgraded the motherboard to a Gigabyte GA-7ZXR Ver 2.2 and CPU to a Duron 900 (which is currently running stably at 1008). I also upgraded to Win2k (and installed SP1) in the hopes of greater software stability, etc. I have a LWFF and installed the 3.65 Win2k driver. I also installed the Detonator3 Nvidia drivers (the file was W2K-650.zip). I have installed DirectX 8.0a. However, GPL now runs at an apparent maximum FPS of about 30 (also in D3D). I tried Sports Car GT which also seemed maybe a little choppy (although I didn't examine it thoroughly). I know I need a new graphics card soon (should happen in the next month), but I am rather certain that this system should be capable of a bit more in GPL. I wouldn't like some underlying problem to be disguised by a faster graphics card. Should I try OpenGL, or is there something else I should look at? Another thing - the monitor refresh rate in GPL is now 60Hz (ugggh!) regardless of what I do to the Windows desktop. In Win98, I used to go to the resolution of the game concerned, set it to the correct colour depth and then adjust the refresh rate. This setting would then be applied to any game (regardless of the current desktop) that used that particular resolution and colour depth. This doesn't seem to be happening with Win2k. Any ideas? Thanks for reading this rather long post, and thanks for any suggestions! Ryan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Faster-than-light travel is indeed possible, though research into economical methods has been systematically supressed by headlamp manufacturers and their agents in the Congress. --Todd Zwillich

Download a prog nvreffixsetup that changes the 60hz refresh rate in D3D. All should be better after. Ryan Mitchley a �crit dans le message <3b023568$0$364@proctor>... >Hi all > >My old system was a PII 350 (running at 392), 128MB, Creative TNT and >Win98SE. This system wasn't great for F1-2000 and other games I play, butit >used to run GPL at an approximately constant 35/36 FPS once on track (using >Direct3D). > >I recently upgraded the motherboard to a Gigabyte GA-7ZXR Ver 2.2 and CPUto >a Duron 900 (which is currently running stably at 1008). I also upgraded to >Win2k (and installed SP1) in the hopes of greater software stability, etc.I

Quoted text (18 lines)

>have a LWFF and installed the 3.65 Win2k driver. I also installed the >Detonator3 Nvidia drivers (the file was W2K-650.zip). I have installed >DirectX 8.0a. > >However, GPL now runs at an apparent maximum FPS of about 30 (also in D3D). >I tried Sports Car GT which also seemed maybe a little choppy (although I >didn't examine it thoroughly). > >I know I need a new graphics card soon (should happen in the next month), >but I am rather certain that this system should be capable of a bit more in >GPL. I wouldn't like some underlying problem to be disguised by a faster >graphics card. > >Should I try OpenGL, or is there something else I should look at? > >Another thing - the monitor refresh rate in GPL is now 60Hz (ugggh!) >regardless of what I do to the Windows desktop. In Win98, I used to go to >the resolution of the game concerned, set it to the correct colour depth

and >then adjust the refresh rate. This setting would then be applied to anygame >(regardless of the current desktop) that used that particular resolutionand

Quoted text (9 lines)

>colour depth. This doesn't seem to be happening with Win2k. Any ideas? > >Thanks for reading this rather long post, and thanks for any suggestions! > >Ryan > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Faster-than-light travel is indeed possible, though research into

economical

Quoted text (7 lines)

>methods has been systematically supressed by headlamp manufacturers >and their agents in the Congress. > --Todd Zwillich > > > >

First of all, the Duron sucks. Second, how much memory do you have? Win2k needs at least 128MB, just for starters. Third, do you have the latest OS upgrades (there are many beyond SP1). Ryan Mitchley wrote:

Quoted text (41 lines)

> Hi all > > My old system was a PII 350 (running at 392), 128MB, Creative TNT and > Win98SE. This system wasn't great for F1-2000 and other games I play, but it > used to run GPL at an approximately constant 35/36 FPS once on track (using > Direct3D). > > I recently upgraded the motherboard to a Gigabyte GA-7ZXR Ver 2.2 and CPU to > a Duron 900 (which is currently running stably at 1008). I also upgraded to > Win2k (and installed SP1) in the hopes of greater software stability, etc. I > have a LWFF and installed the 3.65 Win2k driver. I also installed the > Detonator3 Nvidia drivers (the file was W2K-650.zip). I have installed > DirectX 8.0a. > > However, GPL now runs at an apparent maximum FPS of about 30 (also in D3D). > I tried Sports Car GT which also seemed maybe a little choppy (although I > didn't examine it thoroughly). > > I know I need a new graphics card soon (should happen in the next month), > but I am rather certain that this system should be capable of a bit more in > GPL. I wouldn't like some underlying problem to be disguised by a faster > graphics card. > > Should I try OpenGL, or is there something else I should look at? > > Another thing - the monitor refresh rate in GPL is now 60Hz (ugggh!) > regardless of what I do to the Windows desktop. In Win98, I used to go to > the resolution of the game concerned, set it to the correct colour depth and > then adjust the refresh rate. This setting would then be applied to any game > (regardless of the current desktop) that used that particular resolution and > colour depth. This doesn't seem to be happening with Win2k. Any ideas? > > Thanks for reading this rather long post, and thanks for any suggestions! > > Ryan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Faster-than-light travel is indeed possible, though research into economical > methods has been systematically supressed by headlamp manufacturers > and their agents in the Congress. > --Todd Zwillich

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3b023568$0$364@proctor...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I recently upgraded the motherboard to a Gigabyte GA-7ZXR Ver 2.2 and CPU to > a Duron 900 (which is currently running stably at 1008). I also upgraded to > Win2k (and installed SP1) in the hopes of greater software stability, etc. I > have a LWFF and installed the 3.65 Win2k driver. I also installed the > Detonator3 Nvidia drivers (the file was W2K-650.zip). I have installed > DirectX 8.0a.

Have you installed the VIA chipset drivers? If you don't, then AGP won't be fully operational, so things will slow down somewhat... Have you installed the two critical hotfixes for AMD CPUs and VIA AGP? Alternatively... install Service Pack *2*, as this makes other things better too. Service Pack 2 *is* available from Microsoft's web site, but it's not advertised! :-) -- Richard. (speaking personally)

"Bryon Lape" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > First of all, the Duron sucks. Hmm, not really. Certainly not in price/performance ratio. They're generally about 10% slower and 40% cheaper than the Thunderbirds with the same clock rate. OK, there's some cache missing compared to the Thunderbirds, and the Durons will miss out on the 266 MHZ FSB, but they're not at all bad, especially for gaming. Ridiculously overclockable, and blow the Celerons out of the water. Unless you can explain to me why GPL is particularly cache-intensive, I find it hard to point a finger at the Duron CPU. > Second, how much memory do you have? Win2k needs at least 128MB, just for > starters. Have 128MB, and will be upgrading soon. Anyway, this is a constant FPS problem. The machine's not thrashing or paging memory around excessively. Do you want to bet on the FPS increase I'll get with an increase in memory? > Third, do you have the latest OS upgrades (there are many beyond SP1). I have SP1 plus all of those listed on the Windows Update site. I have yet to install SP2 mentioned by another poster. Which updates would be likely to cause a drop in FPS?

Thanks for the reply. "Richard Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9dtnff$kjs$[email hidden]... > > Have you installed the VIA chipset drivers? If you don't, then AGP > won't be fully operational, so things will slow down somewhat... I installed the VIA drivers that came with the motherboard, although I've just downloaded the latest drivers from the VIA site and I'll give them a try. > Have you installed the two critical hotfixes for AMD CPUs and VIA AGP? > Alternatively... install Service Pack *2*, as this makes other things > better too. > > Service Pack 2 *is* available from Microsoft's web site, but it's not > advertised! :-) These may be what I'm looking for. Thanks again! Ryan

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3b023568$0$364@proctor... <snip> > However, GPL now runs at an apparent maximum FPS of about 30 (also inD3D). > I tried Sports Car GT which also seemed maybe a little choppy (although I > didn't examine it thoroughly). <more snippage> > Another thing - the monitor refresh rate in GPL is now 60Hz (ugggh!) > regardless of what I do to the Windows desktop. In Win98, I used to go to > the resolution of the game concerned, set it to the correct colour depthand > then adjust the refresh rate. This setting would then be applied to anygame > (regardless of the current desktop) that used that particular resolutionand > colour depth. This doesn't seem to be happening with Win2k. Any ideas? These two may well be linked! If your refresh rate is fixed at 60Hz, and you have vsync enabled for your graphics card, then the only "allowable" frame rates will be 15fps, 30fps, 60fps etc. So 1) Try downloading the nvreffixsetup program suggested by Arnaud Francois 2) Disable vsnc on the TNT I doubt that SP2 will help (in this respect at least). Ian

"Ian Riches" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9du377$24v7$[email hidden]... > "Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3b023568$0$364@proctor... > > Another thing - the monitor refresh rate in GPL is now 60Hz (ugggh!) > > regardless of what I do to the Windows desktop. > These two may well be linked! Aha! I'm with you. I see that to access the refresh rate sync in Direct3D, a "CoolBits" key has to be added to the registry (for the NVIDIA reference drivers). I'll try this and get back to the group. Thanks! Ryan

On Wed, 16 May 2001 11:09:34 GMT, Bryon Lape <[email hidden]> wrote: >First of all, the Duron sucks. And where did you get that misinformation from? Please provide proof. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

"Ian Riches" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9du377$24v7$[email hidden]... > > If your refresh rate is fixed at 60Hz, and you have vsync enabled for your > graphics card, then the only "allowable" frame rates will be 15fps, 30fps, > 60fps etc. This was exactly the problem. Disabling vsync worked, but I got rather ugly flashes every now and then. I suppose this was due to frames being dropped or repeated in the asynchronous system. This happened both at 85Hz and 72Hz (chosen for obvious reasons). Setting the vsync to "on" and the refresh rate to 85Hz seems to produce the best results. When I upgrade my video card I'll see if I can get better results with the vsync off. Thanks to all for the advice (other than Mr Lape who seems to have a calling to PC sales!). Ryan

lol.....Duron sucks, what utter crap, maybe the 70-90fps in Nascar 4 I have with a Duron 800 is me dreaming then? Ash "Bryon Lape" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... | First of all, the Duron sucks. |

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3b03a393$0$363@proctor... > "Ian Riches" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9du377$24v7$[email hidden]... > > > > If your refresh rate is fixed at 60Hz, and you have vsync enabled foryour > > graphics card, then the only "allowable" frame rates will be 15fps,30fps, > > 60fps etc. > > This was exactly the problem. Disabling vsync worked, but I got ratherugly > flashes every now and then. I suppose this was due to frames being dropped > or repeated in the asynchronous system. This happened both at 85Hz and72Hz > (chosen for obvious reasons). > > Setting the vsync to "on" and the refresh rate to 85Hz seems to producethe > best results. > > When I upgrade my video card I'll see if I can get better results with the > vsync off. > > Thanks to all for the advice (other than Mr Lape who seems to have acalling > to PC sales!). > > Ryan Glad it worked - and thanks for giving the feedback - it's useful to know what solved problems in the end. Ian

In article <[email hidden]>, Bryon Lape <[email hidden]> writes: >First of all, the Duron sucks. > Why? Do you have any other statements to back up your opinion, or are you just spewing? Gawd, I *hate* when people do this... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +25.37...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Hate to ask but what in the "H" is a "Duron"? Bryon Lape wrote: | | >First of all, the Duron sucks.

Hate to ask but what in the "H" is a "Duron"? | | >First of all, the Duron sucks.

Yes. And opinion it is not. It does suck less than the Intel Celery. EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, Bryon Lape <[email hidden]> > writes: > > >First of all, the Duron sucks. > > > > Why? Do you have any other statements to back up your opinion, or are you just > spewing? Gawd, I *hate* when people do this... > > Eldred > -- > Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > F1 hcp. +25.37...F2 +151.26... > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Hey now, my Celery sucks pretty good. :) -- Don Burnette D Burnette in N4 Some people do nothing wrong. The problem is, they do nothing. And THAT is wrong. "Bryon Lape" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes. And opinion it is not. It does suck less than the Intel Celery. > > EldredP wrote: > > > In article <[email hidden]>, Bryon Lape <[email hidden]> > > writes: > > > > >First of all, the Duron sucks. > > > > > > > Why? Do you have any other statements to back up your opinion, or are you just > > spewing? Gawd, I *hate* when people do this... > > > > Eldred > > -- > > Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 > > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > F1 hcp. +25.37...F2 +151.26... > > > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > > with experience... > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply. >

A POS CPU made my AMD to kill the Intel Celery. It is cheap, but is way under powered when compared to AMD's excellent Athlon and Thunderbird. "Thom j." wrote: > Hate to ask but what in the "H" is a "Duron"? > > Bryon Lape wrote: > | > | >First of all, the Duron sucks.

"O" ok thank you.. "Bryon Lape" wrote: | A POS CPU made my AMD to kill the Intel Celery. It is cheap, but is way | under powered when compared to AMD's excellent Athlon and Thunderbird. | | "Thom j." wrote: | > Hate to ask but what in the "H" is a "Duron"?

"Bryon Lape" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes. Do you want to mention them for the non-telepathic amongst us? > And opinion it is not. OK. Let's talk facts. You think the Thunderbird "does not suck" (I'm following your penchant for technical language, naturally). I've already mentioned that a Duron is roughly 10% slower and 40% cheaper than a Thunderbird of the same clock rating (this is based on local price lists and the most common benchbarks. I can dredge up details if you want.) In what way does that "suck"? More importantly, now that I have got to grips with my installation issues, my Duron runs every application and game that I want (including current games) well, and it has done so without breaking the bank. Sure, if I wanted every game running at 1600x1200 at 60fps or I were doing gene research or something I probably wouldn't choose a Duron. But in my case (and many others) the Duron is the best tool for the job, at the best price. So, again, how does that "suck"? I think you're going to have to define "suck" a little better for us poor idiots hanging out in this newsgroup . . . I don't know what they charge in your country, but find the price of a Duron 900, add the price of a motherboard (I have a Gigabyte GA-7ZXR Rev 2.2) and then please tell me what I should rather have spent my money on. I'll be very interested to hear your advice. Ryan BTW: You should really start a hardware review site. Here I spend my time reading long multi-page articles from Tom's Hardware, AnandTech, etc., when all I really need is a simple "sucks" or "does not suck" recommendation. Silly me.

In article <[email hidden]>, Bryon Lape <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Yes. And opinion it is not. It does suck less than the Intel Celery. > >EldredP wrote: > >> In article <[email hidden]>, Bryon Lape ><[email hidden]> >> writes: >> >> >First of all, the Duron sucks. >> > >> >> Why? Do you have any other statements to back up your opinion, or are you >just >> spewing? Gawd, I *hate* when people do this...

And, you STILL haven't given any reasons for your statement. Hell, I could say that the P4 sucks! Does that automatically make it true? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +25.37...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

If you say it, Eldred, that's good enough for me ;-) -- Colin ICQ 25485061 Fast Food Racing: http://www.gamensurf.co.uk/fastfood/ "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > And, you STILL haven't given any reasons for your statement. Hell, I could say > that the P4 sucks! Does that automatically make it true? > > Eldred