Nascar frame rate

I keep seeing all this talk of P90's with 16 mb of RAM and Super duper video cards not being able to run NASCAR at an acceptable rate in SVGA. I have just recently run the demo on a DX2/66 with 8 mb RAM in VGA with no cars on the track (demo has none) and I have all textures etc on. And I have no concerns over the speed! Unfortunately no one can compare screen updates without seeing the others PC running. If I bought my own PC (I've hijacked my dads) what spec would I honestly need to run NASCAR in SVGA? NASCAR looks a bit ***in VGA, would SVGA be possible on a 66 mhz PC? How about if I bought a DX2/66 then later dumped in a 100Mhz processor? -- Steve Hood

That's cuz they can't do it. VGA works oK - not great but ok. On my DX2-66 I start getting choppy when there are a lot of cars around, I can't see very far ahead if the cars are clustered. It doesn't help that I don't drive these very well. It also doesn't help that I insist on turning car texture on, but otherwise I can't tell who's who out there. Still, even with it off, it's not that much better. And you want SVGA so you can see everything clearly. From my perspective, I think you need at ELAST a 120mhz Pentium. I say this because I have a P90 and a P100 and we're not even close. Probably more like the 167MHz one that's still a year away. My Zeos P90 runs SVGA at Martinsville at about TWO frames per second if I turn the details on, and you need at least 12-15 to race sensibly. If I turn off most of the details I can run it at round 7 FPS in SVGA. The Gateway P100 is not visibly different (as one would expect for a 11% differential). Not even close. My home machine (the one where nobody complains if I race) is a DX2-66 and SVGA is a joke. The only way I can run SVGA on my 486 is to turn off ALL details (ALL of them) and run by myself. What fun is that? Nope. You still have 33MHz memory bandwidth, and a 100MHz DX4 isn't going to match up with even a 100MHz Pentium, which can't do the job either. -- Brian Wong Product Marketing Engineering

typed... I tried it on a buddy's P60 with PCI 64 bit graphics. it worked just fine in SVGA mode. Granted, all the detail levels weren't on. What everyone's problem appears to be is that they can't run SVGA and ALL Graphics Details. Frankly, I wouldn't think you would have a problem running SVGA with any Pentium machine, just not all the graphic details on. With no other cars on the track, there isn't much demand on your processor. Buy a Pentium motherboard with PCI bus, grab a PCI compatible video card and graphics accelerator, I'd say 16 megs O' Ram wouldn't hurt. Any speed Pentium would work, but obviously a P90 will allow you to run at faster speeds with more details on (leave them in auto mode, set your minimum frame rate for something like 25-27 frames, and your max at 30. Also, the number of opponents make a difference too, memory and speed wise. No, SVGA on a 2x-66 is DOGMEAT. I know, that's what I run. I have to run it in VGA, which is *acceptable* but knowing that SVGA is available for when I *do* get a Pentium motherboard upgrade, it'll work out for me, is very nice!

To run Nascar in SVGA at any sort of playable frame rate you'll need a Pentium- 'nuff said. Besides, within six months you'll be able to get a nice P% system for the same price you'd pay for a DX2/66 now. On a DX4/100 you can run with a full field, many cars drawn ahead, and nearly all graphics on in VGA with 15 fps. I have seen Nascar run on a Packard Bell P60 in SVGA with acceptable results on most tracks, with some graphics on (car textures, objects- no textures, wall textures, skids/paint, six cars drawn ahead, 19 opponents) with pretty good results at most tracks. Sears Point, Wilkesboro, and C***te are IMHO the toughest to get a decent frame rate. Keep in mind that P. Bell has a reputation for producing the slowest machines on the market- i.e. a Dell P60 is a much faster machine. My two cents worth. I, personally, will continue to run in VGA on my DX2/66 until I can afford at least a P100, probably this winter. Jeff B. -- "The trouble with giving advice is that everyone wants to repay you..."

>I have just recently run the demo on a DX2/66 with 8 mb RAM in VGA with >no cars on the track (demo has none) and I have all textures etc on. >And I have no concerns over the speed! >NASCAR looks a bit ***in VGA, would SVGA be possible on a 66 mhz PC? >How about if I bought a DX2/66 then later dumped in a 100Mhz processor? Other cars on the track makes a BIG difference! I doubt you will want to race with all the details on a dx2/66. SVGA on a dx2/66 with NO detail is possible but is still very choppy. I am running a dx4/100 and won't race in SVGA. SVGA is smooth while practicing with no other cars and no details but with other cars and details on it is unacceptable (I want at least 18-20 fps for racing). SVGA is nice to drool over. The game is more fun when the frame rate is smoothest possible (which means using VGA). If you want SVGA get at least a p100.

Quoted text (18 lines)

>From: "Patrick L. Dotson" <pldotson> >Subject: Re: Nascar frame rate >Date: 16 Aug 1995 12:51:57 GMT >>I have just recently run the demo on a DX2/66 with 8 mb RAM in VGA with >>no cars on the track (demo has none) and I have all textures etc on. >>And I have no concerns over the speed! >>NASCAR looks a bit ***in VGA, would SVGA be possible on a 66 mhz PC? >>How about if I bought a DX2/66 then later dumped in a 100Mhz processor? >Other cars on the track makes a BIG difference! I doubt you will want >to race with all the details on a dx2/66. SVGA on a dx2/66 with NO detail >is possible but is still very choppy. >I am running a dx4/100 and won't race in SVGA. SVGA is smooth while >practicing with no other cars and no details but with other cars and details >on it is unacceptable (I want at least 18-20 fps for racing). >SVGA is nice to drool over. The game is more fun when the frame rate is >smoothest possible (which means using VGA). If you want SVGA get at least >a p100.

what kind of videocontroller do you have?? And how fast is your ram? I get smooth 20-25 fps with all detail except for road texture on and 39 cars on track...on a 486dx4. No kidding. I have noticed the videocontroller to make a BIG difference......

> To run Nascar in SVGA at any sort of playable frame rate >you'll need a Pentium- 'nuff said. I dissagree... I have seen NASCAR on a DX4/100 (AMD) and it ran fine and with very good detail.. and no framing problems.. 66.6 fps Thank you.. finally someone agrees that bus arch. makes a difference! At your own risk,... I have changed my bus speed on my DX2/66 from 33 to 40... This (if your BIOS and motherboard has the ability) makes the bus/bios think that you have a DX2/80.. In a nut shell I am over-driving my CPU.. Which is not recomended in most circles but CPU's (486 flavor) are cheap so what the hay! I origanally got 47.7 fps via 3Dbench and now get 55.5 by over driving the CPU.. The whole magic on how to get NASCAR to run better is to get the fps rate higher.. P100 and a awesome video card is most certaintly the answer to getting the fps (sorry "Frames Per Second") higher.. AMD has released there DX4/120 and I hear that it is awesome.. And I bet I can get in the range of 68-70 fps if I were to install one on my motherboard.. Please don't flame me about overdriving my CPU! I don't recomend it to anyone! I am only telling you what I did to try to get the fps rate higher so that I could play NASCAR at a SVGA acceptable rate.. Higher fps is the only mystery that can solve the dreaded NASCAR SVGA delemma.. A well built motherboard and a faster CPU coupled with a awesome graphics adapter is the key! ....doug send all: flames > /dev/null

I have to laugh when I hear everyone complaining about the SVGA frame rate. I thoroughly enjoy NASCAR with SVGA, all options turned off except car detail and skidding. Believe it or not I'm running on a 25MHz computer with a 512K video card. It's so nice to be satisfied and not have to spend $4000 for a Pentium based computer! I do have a question though. Many people on this group talk about overclocking their CPU's. Is this advisable or dangerous? If CPU's can safely run at twice their documented speed, why wouldn't the manufacturers simply market it as a faster CPU? Your input would be appreciated. I'd like to know more about it before I try it myself.

Quoted text (30 lines)

>>From: "Patrick L. Dotson" <pldotson> >>Subject: Re: Nascar frame rate >>Date: 16 Aug 1995 12:51:57 GMT >>>I have just recently run the demo on a DX2/66 with 8 mb RAM in VGA with >>>no cars on the track (demo has none) and I have all textures etc on. >>>And I have no concerns over the speed! >>>NASCAR looks a bit ***in VGA, would SVGA be possible on a 66 mhz PC? >>>How about if I bought a DX2/66 then later dumped in a 100Mhz processor? >>Other cars on the track makes a BIG difference! I doubt you will want >>to race with all the details on a dx2/66. SVGA on a dx2/66 with NO detail >>is possible but is still very choppy. >>I am running a dx4/100 and won't race in SVGA. SVGA is smooth while >>practicing with no other cars and no details but with other cars and details >>on it is unacceptable (I want at least 18-20 fps for racing). >>SVGA is nice to drool over. The game is more fun when the frame rate is >>smoothest possible (which means using VGA). If you want SVGA get at least >>a p100. >what kind of videocontroller do you have?? And how fast is your ram? >I get smooth 20-25 fps with all detail except for road texture on and 39 cars >on track...on a 486dx4. No kidding. I have noticed the videocontroller to make >a BIG difference......

I am confused, do you mean 20-25 fps in VGA or SVGA. I can't believe you mean SVGA because people complain of fast pentiums (120mhz+) not running that well. If you mean VGA then yes, I get similar performance without track texture (but thats not "all details" is it? :) The original post asked about running with all details on (all details includes track texture) on a dx2/66. This will not work very well at all.

GA->I do have a question though. Many people on this group talk about ->overclocking their CPU's. Is this advisable or dangerous? If CPU's ->can safely run at twice their documented speed, why wouldn't the ->manufacturers simply market it as a faster CPU? The most common mistake I've seen people make (usually those that aren't familiar with computers) is that they base the performance directly from the CPU. If you increase your CPU's perfomance, either by upgrading with something like a DX2 or overclocking it, you may be disappointed to learn that maybe your video card can't keep up, and it slows the system down.