Upgrade? : Best use of $200?

I don't actually have 200 bucks Canadian. But assuming I get it in the next month I was thinking of upgrading. A lot of the F1C Mods are a little frame rate unfriendly on my computer. A7N8X Deluxe MoBo Athlon 2200+ Thourghbred GeForce Ti 4200 128MB AGP 4X 512 MB DDR 333 Mhz XP Unfortunately my A7N8X was the first type with a top FSB of 333 Mhz not 400. I've been looking at an Athlon 3000+ Barton Core CPU as my next upgrade. It's presently at $235 CDN but I expect that to fall below $200 fairly soon. I believe this will be the top end of CPU for my MotherBoard. My first question is how much of a difference will I see for sims? It runs at 2.17 GHz and my 2200+ is running at 1.8. That doesn't seem like a big advantage. I realize the FSB and the Cache are bigger but still. I wanted to go with a CPU upgrade to improve general computing as well. Not that I do anything very CPU intensive except race sims. Still more speed is always good. But then last night I was racing the Prototype "C" mod. (I've turned some of the eye candy down to get respectable FPS) Things bog down at the start but then when I was racing by my self I was trundling along merrily in the mid-50's FPS. So I thought, "Well the CPU must still be working on all the same cars it's just their not visible." So I'm beginning to think my GPU is my bottleneck. For $250 CDN I can get a 9600 XT 256 MB AGP8X (hopefully that will be going down to the $200 range in the near future too). So now I'm thinking that might be a more efficient use of the 200 bucks. And any GPU is going to be ATI. I've always owned Nvidia and been a total fanboy of their's in the past. But I gotta say these last 9 months have pissed me of no end and they have totally lost me. So what's the verdict GPU or CPU? TIA Rudeboy

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:32:46 GMT, "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote: >So what's the verdict GPU or CPU? Your GPU is the bigger bottleneck at the moment IMO. You could try and confirm that by monitoring your CPU usage while gaming to see if it gets maxxed out. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

The barton 2800+ I think is easily overclocked and very cheap. The radeon 9800 Pro 128MB is under $300 CDN. I'm sure that will drop soon, with the new gen cards coming out. Maybe another 512 of DDR would help? I know a lot of the recent games are really liking at least 1GB of ram.. -- Mike Beauchamp http://www.therevox.com - custom electro-theremins and stuff. http://www.mikebeauchamp.com - mike's personal site. "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:idUhc.213025$oR5.210430@pd7tw3no... > I don't actually have 200 bucks Canadian. But assuming I get it in the next > month I was thinking of upgrading. A lot of the F1C Mods are a little frame > rate unfriendly on my computer. > > A7N8X Deluxe MoBo > Athlon 2200+ Thourghbred > GeForce Ti 4200 128MB AGP 4X > 512 MB DDR 333 Mhz > XP > > Unfortunately my A7N8X was the first type with a top FSB of 333 Mhz not 400. > I've been looking at an Athlon 3000+ Barton Core CPU as my next upgrade. > It's presently at $235 CDN but I expect that to fall below $200 fairly soon. > I believe this will be the top end of CPU for my MotherBoard. > My first question is how much of a difference will I see for sims? > It runs at 2.17 GHz and my 2200+ is running at 1.8. That doesn't seem like > a big advantage. I realize the FSB and the Cache are bigger but still. > > I wanted to go with a CPU upgrade to improve general computing as well. Not > that I do anything very CPU intensive except race sims. Still more speed is > always good. But then last night I was racing the Prototype "C" mod. (I've > turned some of the eye candy down to get respectable FPS) Things bog down > at the start but then when I was racing by my self I was trundling along > merrily in the mid-50's FPS. So I thought, "Well the CPU must still be > working on all the same cars it's just their not visible." So I'm beginning > to think my GPU is my bottleneck. For $250 CDN I can get a 9600 XT 256 MB > AGP8X (hopefully that will be going down to the $200 range in the near > future too). So now I'm thinking that might be a more efficient use of the > 200 bucks. And any GPU is going to be ATI. I've always owned Nvidia and > been a total fanboy of their's in the past. But I gotta say these last 9 > months have pissed me of no end and they have totally lost me. > > So what's the verdict GPU or CPU? > > TIA > > Rudeboy > > >

In article <[email hidden]>, spamtrap@localhost (Andrew) wrote: > Your GPU is the bigger bottleneck at the moment IMO IMO too, though with sims it's always tempting to stick to the "CPU, CPU, CPU" mantra. FWIW I had a 128Mb GF4 4200 in this box before adding a 9800se AIW, mainly for the AIW part (and the chance it'd softmod to a 9800Pro successfully... it didn't). It benchmarks roughly in the same neck of the wood as a 9600Pro (not quite up with the XT), but isn't actually much faster than the GF4 it replaced... except with FSAA/aniso engaged, where it pulls ahead very nicely in speed & quality. Now for me fsaa & aniso make a big difference to the experience, especially in sims. But for raw speed a step up to a 9800Pro is what's called for, and that would stretch the budget a bit far even though the gap is narrowing nicely. For overall use I might be tempted to suggest another 512Mb of RAM, I certainly wouldn't want to go back to 512 now I've got used to the extra elbow room. But in gaming terms that probably more use reloading FPS levels, or in flight sims where huge maps with plenty of textures can be an issue. Another option is to get a new motherboard instead (ABit NF7 or similar) and push the existing CPU as hard as it'll go. But that could be money down the drain... though there'd might be room in the budget for a motherboard *and* mobile Barton 2500 (which seems to be the current overclocking favourite). It's a tricky one really. The best advice with that fairly useful rig might be to hang on and keep saving unless there's something he really wants to run better right now. Andrew McP

If you're racing with lots of AI cars then the CPU will be the bottleneck. Otherwise the GPU will be unless you're running in 640x480 ;-) Buying a Radeon 9600XT would allow you to run at about 1280x960 at the same speed as your Ti4200 in 800x600. Not sure if it'd really be worht it though...

> >>So what's the verdict GPU or CPU? > >Your GPU is the bigger bottleneck at the moment IMO. You could try and >confirm that by monitoring your CPU usage while gaming to see if it >gets maxxed out. How do you check CPU usage if you're not running win2k or some such? Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East

Rudeboy wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I don't actually have 200 bucks Canadian. But assuming I get it in the next > month I was thinking of upgrading. A lot of the F1C Mods are a little frame > rate unfriendly on my computer. > > A7N8X Deluxe MoBo > Athlon 2200+ Thourghbred > GeForce Ti 4200 128MB AGP 4X > 512 MB DDR 333 Mhz > XP > > Unfortunately my A7N8X was the first type with a top FSB of 333 Mhz not 400.

If you decide on a CPU boost, the hot chip for your MB would be a mobile Barton: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-401&depa=0 It will OC like crazy. Native FSB is 133/266FSB; simply crank up the mobo to 166/333 and enjoy an all-but-guaranteed 2.25 GHz. (My early A7N8X can run the FSB at 180/360 before going non-linear.) If you run out of FSB headroom, the chip also happens to be multiplier unlocked. See: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=271103 for complete details. -Greg

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > How do you check CPU usage if you're not running win2k or some such? I think (memory might be playing tricks) the system monitor in Win98 has an option for displaying CPU use. Then it'd be a matter of setting it going, driving for a few minutes, then quitting & see what it recorded during that time. Andrew McP

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > spamtrap@localhost (Andrew) wrote: > > > Your GPU is the bigger bottleneck at the moment IMO > > IMO too, though with sims it's always tempting to stick to the "CPU, CPU, > CPU" mantra. FWIW I had a 128Mb GF4 4200 in this box before adding a > 9800se AIW, mainly for the AIW part (and the chance it'd softmod to a > 9800Pro successfully... it didn't). It benchmarks roughly in the same neck > of the wood as a 9600Pro (not quite up with the XT), but isn't actually > much faster than the GF4 it replaced... except with FSAA/aniso engaged, > where it pulls ahead very nicely in speed & quality. >

So for FPS I'd have to go to the 9800 series XT or Pro to see a noticable difference? > For overall use I might be tempted to suggest another 512Mb of RAM, I > certainly wouldn't want to go back to 512 now I've got used to the extra > elbow room. But in gaming terms that probably more use reloading FPS > levels, or in flight sims where huge maps with plenty of textures can be > an issue. Well I'd thought obout bumping it up to a Gig. Also because I have one Bank of 512MB so I'm not really using the Dual Channel capacity of my MoBo. But when I raised this in a Racesim forum everyone said that 512MB is more than enough for Sims and Mods right now. When you say "I've got used to the extra elbow room." what do you mean? How does it improve things?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Another option is to get a new motherboard instead (ABit NF7 or similar) > and push the existing CPU as hard as it'll go. But that could be money > down the drain... though there'd might be room in the budget for a > motherboard *and* mobile Barton 2500 (which seems to be the current > overclocking favourite). >

Ya someone else suggested that. I've never OC'd before but I've looked into it. The consensus is the 2200+ does not really OC well so I never bothered. A Mobile Barton 2500 runs around $140.00 CDN so it would be a $100 saving. I'm just leery of OC'ing. I used to always try to push things, beta drivers etc., etc., And I found my self tweaking way more than racing so I said to hell with this and I've run pretty standard since then. I might try this but I'd like to hear any input from as to how easy this is and how stable. > It's a tricky one really. The best advice with that fairly useful rig > might be to hang on and keep saving unless there's something he really > wants to run better right now. > > Andrew McP Ya it seems the next cycle for both is just around the corner I might hang on. All though the saving part is the hard part. Thanks

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Your GPU is the bigger bottleneck at the moment IMO. You could try and > confirm that by monitoring your CPU usage while gaming to see if it > gets maxxed out. > -- > Andrew. How do you check CPU usage while gaming? Is there a utility or a trace? Or do you mean just use Windows Task Manager in XP? I did that last night. I didn't have much time but ran a few laps of JGTC and 1997 Mods for F1C and the CPU usage graph was maxed out the whole time when I was running. Does that indicate a CPU bottleneck? Thanks Rudeboy

"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Maybe another 512 of DDR would help? I know a lot of the recent games are > really liking at least 1GB of ram.. > > -- > Mike Beauchamp What games? I'm only really using F1C & Mods, NR2003 & Mods and GPL. Did you mean any of those? And there doesn't seem to be any games on the horizon except GTR. Do Mods take up more than RAM? I was thinking of popping for more RAM but on a Racesim Forum everyone said 512 is more than enough for today's Race Sims and Mods. Thanks Rudeboy

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:25:11 GMT, "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote: >How do you check CPU usage while gaming? Is there a utility or a trace? Or >do you mean just use Windows Task Manager in XP? Yes. > I did that last night. I >didn't have much time but ran a few laps of JGTC and 1997 Mods for F1C and >the CPU usage graph was maxed out the whole time when I was running. Does >that indicate a CPU bottleneck? Quite possibly. Another way is to decrease and increase the resolution you play a game at at see how the framerate is affected. If you run at 640x480 then the CPU is the limiting factor. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

He gets a longer replay :) "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Clbic.238576$Ig.30702@pd7tw2no... > Well I'd thought obout bumping it up to a Gig. Also because I have oneBank > of 512MB so I'm not really using the Dual Channel capacity of my MoBo.But > when I raised this in a Racesim forum everyone said that 512MB is morethan > enough for Sims and Mods right now. When you say "I've got used to the > extra elbow room." what do you mean? How does it improve things? > >

In article <m0cic.40251$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Mitch_A) wrote: > He gets a longer replay :) I never get long replays, because I'm never in races for long enough to tax the buffer ;-) Andrew McP

In article <Clbic.238576$Ig.30702@pd7tw2no>, [email hidden] (Rudeboy) wrote: > So for FPS I'd have to go to the 9800 series XT or Pro to > see a noticable difference? I don't have F1C, so I'm not going to make any promises. But the 4200 isn't such a bad card when it comes to throwing pixels onto the screen at 1024x768. The 9800se does it with more style and a little more speed across the board on a 768Mb/1800MHz AMD box, but I was unimpressed generally by the uplift. I just think that for about 1.5x the money (in the UK anyway) you can get a much better bang for buck with the 9800Pro. It's a matter of looking at the extra money and the relative benchmarks available in other games and deciding what's best for you. http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html > I have one Bank of 512MB so I'm not really using > the Dual Channel capacity of my MoBo Don't lose any sleep about dual channel on an AMD setup. When I moved to a dual channel board I benchmarked extensively in single/dual mode and the best result I got was a 7% FPS improvement for dual. The average was more like 5% and often a big fat 0%. The extra memory will not help most games/sims run noticeably quicker, but it does mean that switching back & forth between game & menus, reloading tracks or levels etc is much quicker in general, as much more is kept in memory rather than on the HD. As I say, it's about comfort rather than performance, hence the elbow room thing (as in having more elbow room on your desk instead of it being cluttered with stuff). In that sense it's perhaps not money well spent unless you do thinks like editing home movies on your box. > I might try this but I'd like to hear any input from > as to how easy this is and how stable. As you say, it's easy to spend more time tweaking than driving, but that's computers for you. If you want a simple life the XBox is over there ;-) > All though the saving part is the hard part. I always say that saving for something is a great way of finding out how much you really want it. Often there are a lot better things to spend your money on, it's just easy to forget that when your FPS dip and you spin off the track (well, that's my excuse ;-) All in all I think you have a fairly well balanced system. A 9600Pro/XT would give you access to dx9 and some more fps (especially with fsaa) but it's not a big enough step up generally IMO unless you really need access to dx9 features now. A 9800Pro would be much more noticeable in graphics-limited situations, and very handy if you're into gaming in general, but bear in mind that it might require a new power supply if you're unlucky (same for the 9600XT probably). But if you made that upgrade step, then managed a CPU/motherboard upgrade in six months or so have a pretty capable machine... for a year or so anyway :-) Andrew McP

Those games should be fine, But I was talking about games like Far Cry mainly.. and obviously any other future games.. -- Mike Beauchamp http://www.therevox.com - custom electro-theremins and stuff. http://www.mikebeauchamp.com - mike's personal site. "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zzbic.238656$Ig.73497@pd7tw2no... > > "Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Maybe another 512 of DDR would help? I know a lot of the recent games are > > really liking at least 1GB of ram.. > > > > -- > > Mike Beauchamp > > What games? I'm only really using F1C & Mods, NR2003 & Mods and GPL. Did > you mean any of those? And there doesn't seem to be any games on the horizon > except GTR. > Do Mods take up more than RAM? > I was thinking of popping for more RAM but on a Racesim Forum everyone said > 512 is more than enough for today's Race Sims and Mods. > > Thanks > > Rudeboy > >

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> In article <Clbic.238576$Ig.30702@pd7tw2no>, [email hidden] (Rudeboy) > wrote: > > > So for FPS I'd have to go to the 9800 series XT or Pro to > > see a noticable difference? > > I don't have F1C, so I'm not going to make any promises. But the 4200 > isn't such a bad card when it comes to throwing pixels onto the screen at > 1024x768. The 9800se does it with more style and a little more speed > across the board on a 768Mb/1800MHz AMD box, but I was unimpressed > generally by the uplift. I just think that for about 1.5x the money (in > the UK anyway) you can get a much better bang for buck with the 9800Pro. > It's a matter of looking at the extra money and the relative benchmarks > available in other games and deciding what's best for you. > > http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html >

Thannks for the info. FutureShop has a proper ATI 9800 Pro on sale tomorow for $299.00 CDN. Think I might pull the trigger. Thanks for the chart it gives my Ti4200 51.4 FPS and the 9800 Pro 107.6 on Unreal. 51.6 is right around where my F1C is on a good day so I'm hoping to break 100. Of course if my CPU is the bottleneck I'll know for sure.Still as you say then I'll already have a servicable VidCard when I upgrade. ;-)

The thing that will give you the biggest NOTICEABLE performance improvement will be a 9800 pro. Get one ,even if it's a little more than you really want to spend. You won't be dissapointed. "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:idUhc.213025$oR5.210430@pd7tw3no... > I don't actually have 200 bucks Canadian. But assuming I get it in thenext > month I was thinking of upgrading. A lot of the F1C Mods are a littleframe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> rate unfriendly on my computer. > > A7N8X Deluxe MoBo > Athlon 2200+ Thourghbred > GeForce Ti 4200 128MB AGP 4X > 512 MB DDR 333 Mhz > XP > > Unfortunately my A7N8X was the first type with a top FSB of 333 Mhz not

400. > I've been looking at an Athlon 3000+ Barton Core CPU as my next upgrade. > It's presently at $235 CDN but I expect that to fall below $200 fairlysoon. > I believe this will be the top end of CPU for my MotherBoard. > My first question is how much of a difference will I see for sims? > It runs at 2.17 GHz and my 2200+ is running at 1.8. That doesn't seemlike > a big advantage. I realize the FSB and the Cache are bigger but still. > > I wanted to go with a CPU upgrade to improve general computing as well.Not > that I do anything very CPU intensive except race sims. Still more speedis > always good. But then last night I was racing the Prototype "C" mod.(I've > turned some of the eye candy down to get respectable FPS) Things bog down > at the start but then when I was racing by my self I was trundling along > merrily in the mid-50's FPS. So I thought, "Well the CPU must still be > working on all the same cars it's just their not visible." So I'mbeginning

Quoted text (15 lines)

> to think my GPU is my bottleneck. For $250 CDN I can get a 9600 XT 256 MB > AGP8X (hopefully that will be going down to the $200 range in the near > future too). So now I'm thinking that might be a more efficient use of the > 200 bucks. And any GPU is going to be ATI. I've always owned Nvidia and > been a total fanboy of their's in the past. But I gotta say these last 9 > months have pissed me of no end and they have totally lost me. > > So what's the verdict GPU or CPU? > > TIA > > Rudeboy > > >

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > Thannks for the info. FutureShop has a proper ATI 9800 Pro on sale tomorow > for $299.00 CDN. Think I might pull the trigger. > > Thanks for the chart it gives my Ti4200 51.4 FPS and the 9800 Pro 107.6 on > Unreal. > > 51.6 is right around where my F1C is on a good day so I'm hoping to break > 100. Of course if my CPU is the bottleneck I'll know for sure.Still as you > say then I'll already have a servicable VidCard when I upgrade. ;-) > >

First returns very disappointing. JGTC Mod still in low 20's at start. Mosler still in low teens. Just using the drivers that came in the box. I'll try tweaking things and see if I can get an improvement (any ideas from anyone would be appreciated). If that doesn't work I'll assume its a CPU bottleneck. I'll have to assume that or I'll have wasted 300 bucks.

"Doug Hook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:o8zic.21637$_L6.1398672@attbi_s53... > The thing that will give you the biggest NOTICEABLE performanceimprovement > will be a 9800 pro. Get one ,even if it's a little more than you reallywant > to spend. You won't be dissapointed. >I am disappointed. See above post. Might be drivers/settings issue. Or a bottleneck at the CPU. Any advice on set up would be greatly appreciated.

"Rudeboy"

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> > First returns very disappointing. JGTC Mod still in low 20's at > start. > Mosler still in low teens. Just using the drivers that came in the > box. I'll try tweaking things and see if I can get an improvement (any > ideas from anyone would be appreciated). If that doesn't work I'll > assume its a CPU bottleneck. I'll have to assume that or I'll have > wasted 300 bucks. > >

What did your 3dconfig numbers change from? That is the real measure of the video card. Now keep in mind, an entire system does the work, not just the cpu or video. You may have to change some options, you may have to try different screen resolutions. I have found my 9800 non pro gives me the same or better numbers at 12x10 than 10x7. I'd make sure you have the options turned off, at least to start with, so no FSAA, no anistrophic and no vsync. Dig into your drivers properties, move the mip map sliders away from the good picture side to the faster framerate side. Make a change...go play..evaluate...make another change. It's almost just like setting up a car. Another way to compare framerates is to just practice as one car and note the fps. If playing with a full field destroys the fps, then the cpu is hurting you. Remember to experiment with 3dconfig. Try to get your best numbers there first. And there are several tricks to get some improvement inside the game. Turn off the HUD(the #2 key) that's about 20fps. Turn off the mirrors, another 20fps.

>>How do you check CPU usage while gaming? Is there a utility or a trace? Or >>do you mean just use Windows Task Manager in XP? > >Yes No way to check it in win98? Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> How do you check CPU usage if you're not running win2k or some such? > >I think (memory might be playing tricks) the system monitor in Win98 has >an option for displaying CPU use. Then it'd be a matter of setting it >going, driving for a few minutes, then quitting & see what it recorded >during that time. > >Andrew McP >

Wow - I just checked, and I didn't even have that *installed*... I'll see what it gives me. Thanks. Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Rudeboy" > >> > > First returns very disappointing. JGTC Mod still in low 20's at > > start. > > Mosler still in low teens. Just using the drivers that came in the > > box. I'll try tweaking things and see if I can get an improvement (any > > ideas from anyone would be appreciated). If that doesn't work I'll > > assume its a CPU bottleneck. I'll have to assume that or I'll have > > wasted 300 bucks. > > > > > What did your 3dconfig numbers change from? That is the real measure

of > the video card. Now keep in mind, an entire system does the work, notjust > the cpu or video. You may have to change some options, you may have totry > different screen resolutions. I have found my 9800 non pro gives me the > same or better numbers at 12x10 than 10x7. > I'd make sure you have the options turned off, at least to start with, > so no FSAA, no anistrophic and no vsync. Dig into your driversproperties,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> move the mip map sliders away from the good picture side to the faster > framerate side. Make a change...go play..evaluate...make another change. > It's almost just like setting up a car. > Another way to compare framerates is to just practice as one car and > note the fps. If playing with a full field destroys the fps, then the cpu > is hurting you. Remember to experiment with 3dconfig. Try to get your > best numbers there first. And there are several tricks to get some > improvement inside the game. Turn off the HUD(the #2 key) that's about > 20fps. Turn off the mirrors, another 20fps. >

I crancked up the anistropic and the FSAA first thing. I've never had HUD on. The Trinumber in 3DConfig is 40 million same as the Ti4200 but with FSAA, Anistropic and Vsync turned on. I could turn them off but that's what I thought I was paying the 300 bucks for. Ditto the mirrors. I like mitrrors but could sacrifice them in a FPS pinch but again I could have done that with the Ti4200.

"Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:g5Eic.233315$Pk3.48847@pd7tw1no:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> "Rudeboy" >> >> >> > > I crancked up the anistropic and the FSAA first thing. I've never had > HUD on. The Trinumber in 3DConfig is 40 million same as the Ti4200 > but with FSAA, Anistropic and Vsync turned on. I could turn them off > but that's what I thought I was paying the 300 bucks for. Ditto the > mirrors. I like mitrrors but could sacrifice them in a FPS pinch but > again I could have done that with the Ti4200. > > > >

At 12x10x16 I get 50 to 51 million triangles with a non pro 9800. Play around with it some, you should be able to find some more. And newer drivers couldn't hurt either. dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:g5Eic.233315$Pk3.48847@pd7tw1no: > > > At 12x10x16 I get 50 to 51 million triangles with a non pro 9800. > Play around with it some, you should be able to find some more. And newer > drivers couldn't hurt either. > > dave henrie

I turned FSAA and Ani down to 2 X and Vsync off and got up to 3dConfig number of 57 Tri. The catalyst version is 3.4 I think I've found part of the problem. In the SMARTGART tabin Display Panal the AGP was at 4X and Fast Write is off. When I change it to 8x and Fast Write On says I have to restart. When it reboots the AGP is at 8X but the Fast Write is back to off. Tried changing and rebooting three times still no dice. The 57 Tri number above was with the 8X activated. Any ideas? Could I have old NVIDIA drivers or VGA drivers in my Registry gumming things up?

Did you do a complete clean uninstall of nvidia drivers (including cleaning out all registry leftovers of nvidia crap) before installing ati drivers? Sometimes a format -windows reinstall is a good thing- when was the last time you did one? "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZFBic.232226$Pk3.50586@pd7tw1no...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Doug Hook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:o8zic.21637$_L6.1398672@attbi_s53... > > The thing that will give you the biggest NOTICEABLE performance > improvement > > will be a 9800 pro. Get one ,even if it's a little more than you really > want > > to spend. You won't be dissapointed. > > > I am disappointed. See above post. > Might be drivers/settings issue. Or a bottleneck at the CPU. > Any advice on set up would be greatly appreciated. > >

"Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:dyEic.249837$Ig.160685@pd7tw2no:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I turned FSAA and Ani down to 2 X and Vsync off and got up to 3dConfig > number of 57 Tri. > > The catalyst version is 3.4 > > I think I've found part of the problem. In the SMARTGART tabin Display > Panal the AGP was at 4X and Fast Write is off. When I change it to 8x > and Fast Write On says I have to restart. When it reboots the AGP is > at 8X but the Fast Write is back to off. Tried changing and rebooting > three times still no dice. The 57 Tri number above was with the 8X > activated. > > Any ideas? Could I have old NVIDIA drivers or VGA drivers in my > Registry gumming things up? > > >

That always is a possiblility. But having Nvidiot drivers still onboard would probably cause lockups instead of just low performance. But there are some steps you can take. There used to be utilities that would dig out the old nvidia drivers. One that I remember was Detonator Destroyer. I don't think that worked with Windows XP tho. You might want to search for an nvida/ati site like<I think it was called> guru3d. Then look for a program that erases old drivers. Next use your find button in the start menu to search for any files that begin with nv*.* and erase them all. Finally IF YOU ARE BRAVE, back up your registry and search thru it for any mention of nvidia and erase those. You probably have to enable your fast write in the system bios before windows boots. I've always had it off, so I don't think that is a biggie. An older motherboard also won't get full benefit of the video card, but it sounds like you have an 8xAGP capable board so it should be ok. Finally how many background programs do you have running. There are other utils like enditall2 that can shut down many background processes. The fewer things the cpu has to take care of, the better. dave henrie

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > Wow - I just checked, and I didn't even have that *installed*... No, it's not installed by default. I helpfully forgot to mention that :-) Andrew McP

In article <ZFBic.232226$Pk3.50586@pd7tw1no>, [email hidden] (Rudeboy) wrote: > I am disappointed First thing I'd do is run some benchmarks like 3dmark2001/3 to check whether your numbers compare well with similar machines on Futuremark's database. Then at least you'll know if you're in the right ball park generally. To ease your disappointment I also suggest taking a look at some of the techdemos available on the ATI site. No help in F1C, but great for showing off what you bought. My favourite's the musical one... Pipe Dream. Andrew McP

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Dave Henrie) wrote: > but it sounds like you have an 8xAGP capable > board so it should be ok. Remember the x8/x4/x2 thing is only really useful when transferring large amounts of data to & from the vid card. Under normal conditions (as I understand it) much of the data a vid card needs all the time (textures etc) will be loaded to the card's memory at the start of a drive, with relatively small amounts being churned back & forth on a frame by frame basis. I'm sure it makes *some* difference in real world use, but I've never seen any benchmarks comparing various AGP speeds. One would imagine you'd see these a lot if it was so important. Andrew McP

Quoted text (8 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > >> Wow - I just checked, and I didn't even have that *installed*... > >No, it's not installed by default. I helpfully forgot to mention that :-) > >Andrew McP

I tried running N2k3 while running monitor logging. Many times it was pegged at 100%. Just lovely. Last night I had times where processor usage was over 60% even though nothing was running. Task manager only showed explorer and systray. Using EndItAll, I saw about 7 things running. What *needs* to be running? Many of the processes were 'locked'... Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > Using EndItAll, I saw about 7 things running I haven't used Enditall for ages, but I seem to remember only needing two or three things running by the time it had cleared out all the really unnecessary stuff. I think I used a google search to try and identify all the processes and whether they might be redundant before I got aggressive with Enditall. > Last night I had times where processor usage was > over 60% even though nothing was running. If the average while doing "nothing" is more than about five percent (no mouse movement, no nothing) then something is definitely wrong in my experience... unless you're running a climate modelling "screensaver" or something similar in the background like me. Andrew McP

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >I haven't used Enditall for ages, but I seem to remember only needing two >or three things running by the time it had cleared out all the >really unnecessary stuff. I think I used a google search to try and >identify all the processes and whether they might be redundant before I >got aggressive with Enditall. >

I let it close everything it could, and it ended up with about 4 things running. No effect on processor use, though.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Last night I had times where processor usage was >> over 60% even though nothing was running. > >If the average while doing "nothing" is more than about five percent (no >mouse movement, no nothing) then something is definitely wrong in my >experience... unless you're running a climate modelling "screensaver" or >something similar in the background like me. >

This thing is just haunted, or something. I must have pissed off someone in a previous life. No viruses, no spyware, nothing else running - it still only runs at about 50% of the performance everyone *says* I should have. Fresh install of windows had no effect either. I guess I'm just screwed until I can get another system, and I don't know when I'll be able to justify the expense. Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East

One more thing to ponder RudeBoy... My soundcard was one hell of a bottle neck for GFX not that long ago. I accidently upgraded the souncard (onboard sis chipset, not sure of the sound card ATM, something AC97 Audio Codec) but when I got done, the frames were in half in NR2003. luckily (I had another problem with a diskdrive) and had to format and start over and things went great next time? I also noticed something JUST this weekend... I got DSL, and because the computer which used to be in a pretty remote location, I used to always shut it off whenever I was not on it, but now that I got moved into my "home office" next to the living room, I been leaving it on 24 hrs. Last night I noticed my frames seemed to be slower... (there is a neat app that shows *ALL* tasks even ones that taskmon doesnt show, called Process Explorer at http://www.sysinternals.com/) Anywho, that frames were crap, usually above 45 at the worst ever all gfx on, but last night it was dipping into 30's. I didn't see anything new IMHO, so I shut down to eat, come back refired up, and was back to normal? so maybe my box is getting hotter than optimal, & that it was before? OR some task takes it upon itself to be mucking around after X amoutn of time? Dunno Im still looking into this. My machine isnt that beefy, 4x agp max, 512 ram, 2.5 ghz intel, on older 533(max) buss system. (ECS P4S5adx board) in a cheapo case... I'm contemplating a case-Top fan now... Ive done a lot that Blackviper's site suggested about killing a bunch of crap in XP... and like I said, for about 4 hours a night (never scrensaves during this time usually) it runs awesome, but after many hours of being on, PFFFT it is sux'n. Andrew MacPherson wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (Dave Henrie) wrote: > >> but it sounds like you have an 8xAGP capable >> board so it should be ok. > > Remember the x8/x4/x2 thing is only really useful when transferring > large amounts of data to & from the vid card. Under normal conditions > (as I understand it) much of the data a vid card needs all the time > (textures etc) will be loaded to the card's memory at the start of a > drive, with relatively small amounts being churned back & forth on a > frame by frame basis. > > I'm sure it makes *some* difference in real world use, but I've never > seen any benchmarks comparing various AGP speeds. One would imagine > you'd see these a lot if it was so important. > > Andrew McP