Video card and power supply

About a month ago I tried upgrading my GF 4200 to a Radeon 9800, but went back to the 4200 because the 9800 was slower running NASCAR 2003. I now purchased a GF FX 5900 Ultra and I am experiencing the same thing. All settings the same, at the start of a race my 4200 gives me 40fps and the 5900 ultra gives me 29 pfs. My question is, could my power supply be the reason these cards are not performing well? The Radeon suggested a 300w and the FX 5900 Ultra suggest a 350w ps. I am currently using a 300w ps. I do not get any boot errors or reboots. I was just thinking the cards might not be getting the power to push them. Anyone have any comments on this. Thanks. Jeff

Jeff wrote in news:3ffb2196$0$77815$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> About a month ago I tried upgrading my GF 4200 to a Radeon 9800, > but went back to the 4200 because the 9800 was slower running > NASCAR 2003. I now purchased a GF FX 5900 Ultra and I am > experiencing the same thing. All settings the same, at the start > of a race my 4200 gives me 40fps and the 5900 ultra gives me 29 > pfs. My question is, could my power supply be the reason these > cards are not performing well? The Radeon suggested a 300w and > the FX 5900 Ultra suggest a 350w ps. I am currently using a 300w > ps. I do not get any boot errors or reboots. I was just thinking > the cards might not be getting the power to push them. Anyone > have any comments on this. Thanks. > > Jeff > > >

Does your CPU have enough horsepower to push bits at the video card? It's all related. You need enough CPU power, enough electricity, enough cooling, enough video rendering, enough RAM.... For what it's worth, when I had some power (electrical) problems, it was my motherboard not feeding enough power to the AGP slot. (Older motherboard not designed for the latest AGP specs, I guess.) But the symptoms were intermittent crashes, not low framerates. 'Course, a sample of 1 is hardly much of a sample. Good luck! -- Darryl

I am elated the 5900U is no faster.....after reading all you wrote before about the 9800 Pro which flies on my system and many others. Might you now agree with what was written...? All comes to he who waits has never been truer...:-p AD p.s Hope you have fun sorting it...lol "Darryl Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ngHKb.15602$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> Jeff wrote in news:3ffb2196$0$77815$[email hidden]: > > > About a month ago I tried upgrading my GF 4200 to a Radeon 9800, > > but went back to the 4200 because the 9800 was slower running > > NASCAR 2003. I now purchased a GF FX 5900 Ultra and I am > > experiencing the same thing. All settings the same, at the start > > of a race my 4200 gives me 40fps and the 5900 ultra gives me 29 > > pfs. My question is, could my power supply be the reason these > > cards are not performing well? The Radeon suggested a 300w and > > the FX 5900 Ultra suggest a 350w ps. I am currently using a 300w > > ps. I do not get any boot errors or reboots. I was just thinking > > the cards might not be getting the power to push them. Anyone > > have any comments on this. Thanks. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > Does your CPU have enough horsepower to push bits at the video card? > It's all related. You need enough CPU power, enough electricity, > enough cooling, enough video rendering, enough RAM.... > > For what it's worth, when I had some power (electrical) problems, it > was my motherboard not feeding enough power to the AGP slot. (Older > motherboard not designed for the latest AGP specs, I guess.) But the > symptoms were intermittent crashes, not low framerates. 'Course, a > sample of 1 is hardly much of a sample. > > Good luck! > -- > Darryl

Am I missing something here AD? You make it sound like I said something bad about the 9800 Pro. Which I never did because I have never had a 9800 PRO. I tried the 9800 non-pro. And I don't recall ever saying anything negative, other than it would not work in my system. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. It just seems my MB doesn't like powered video cards for whatever reason. Jeff "AD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:btfipi$e9f$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (46 lines)

> I am elated the 5900U is no faster.....after reading all you wrote before > about the 9800 Pro which flies on my system and many others. > > Might you now agree with what was written...? > > All comes to he who waits has never been truer...:-p > > AD > > p.s Hope you have fun sorting it...lol > "Darryl Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ngHKb.15602$[email hidden]... > > Jeff wrote in news:3ffb2196$0$77815$[email hidden]: > > > > > About a month ago I tried upgrading my GF 4200 to a Radeon 9800, > > > but went back to the 4200 because the 9800 was slower running > > > NASCAR 2003. I now purchased a GF FX 5900 Ultra and I am > > > experiencing the same thing. All settings the same, at the start > > > of a race my 4200 gives me 40fps and the 5900 ultra gives me 29 > > > pfs. My question is, could my power supply be the reason these > > > cards are not performing well? The Radeon suggested a 300w and > > > the FX 5900 Ultra suggest a 350w ps. I am currently using a 300w > > > ps. I do not get any boot errors or reboots. I was just thinking > > > the cards might not be getting the power to push them. Anyone > > > have any comments on this. Thanks. > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does your CPU have enough horsepower to push bits at the video card? > > It's all related. You need enough CPU power, enough electricity, > > enough cooling, enough video rendering, enough RAM.... > > > > For what it's worth, when I had some power (electrical) problems, it > > was my motherboard not feeding enough power to the AGP slot. (Older > > motherboard not designed for the latest AGP specs, I guess.) But the > > symptoms were intermittent crashes, not low framerates. 'Course, a > > sample of 1 is hardly much of a sample. > > > > Good luck! > > -- > > Darryl > >

Jeff... Depending on which GF4200 you had (there's a wide range within that GPU), the upgrade to a 9800 (non pro, non XT) might not been much of a jump in video card features/speed or resources. Also, motherboards, drivers, settings, power supplies, AGP port voltage and CPU capability....all effect video card performance and the mobo/power supply importance triples with the new video cards. Are you really sure you are comparing FPS at "apples to apples" with regard to all of this? My guess is, you have something set different than you had it with the GF4200....but you are possibly not aware of it and that is accounting for the performance drop you are experiencing. You will need to provide all information as to settings and hardware, before anyone here can be of much help to you. My suggestion is you find one of the good video card "guru" sites (like Guru3D) and go read up on their boards for a few hours and get you "basics" up to snuff. Regarding drivers: The Radeon 9800 shipped with the 3.8's......they were "rushed" out the door and way under performed. Everyone is using the 3.10's on their Radeons. My 3dM03 score jumped from low 5,000's to low 9,000's just with the driver change to the 3.10's (from the CD installed 3.8's on a 9800XT without "turbocharged" turned on). Regarding power supply: This is an issue that has been taken lightly, because it was not such a big deal....UP UNTIL NOW! Not all power supplies are created equal. You need to check the rating on your PW300 and make sure it is at least 12amps on the (+12) circuit. 15amps would be better....but 12amps is a must. If you must buy a new pw-supply.....get at least a PW500......power consumption is going up....not down....on our computer gaming hardware! Regarding Radeon 9800 power supply connection: You are supposed to make sure your video card and hard drive (primary hard drive, the one that contains your C drive if you have multiple hard drives in your computer) share the same power connection! This is critical on a 9800XT, so much so that they provided a "harness" just to use for making this connection. A few people, with spare power connections bi-passed using this harness (think it was more of a convenience item rather than a "requirement").....and end up not only with a slow video card, but also with having to reinstall their operating system! Seems the "shutdown" of the video card and HD need to be coordinated or the ops-sys (WinXP has the biggest problem with this) can't save the operating system files to the hard drive fast enough. After just a few shutdowns....your registry is hosed and you have to reinstall because the back ups are all hosed too! Just some "food for thought." Hope it's helpful. Regards, Tom PS: Antec makes the best power supplies, IMHO.

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3ffb51b0$0$12234$[email hidden]: > It just seems my MB doesn't like powered video cards for whatever > reason. > > Jeff I highly doubt that power supply may be the cause, but here're few random thoughts... Nvidia supports OpenGL better (unless it has changed recently) and Papy games are faster in OpenGL. Might it be that difference in OpenGL drivers negate the difference between GF4200 and Radeon (if you're running in OpenGL of course)? Still it doesn't explain the difference between 4200 and 5900. Have you tried to reconfigure 3d card from the game (I think it does some benchmarking with some purpose)? Alex.

Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec 550w power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no change. All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same as when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break. The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully compatible with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with N2003. It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001 se Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200. But when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set the af to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have the latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various BIOS tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade the motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all now. amd 2400+ xp os onboard sound 512 ddr "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fEJKb.761981$Tr4.2172712@attbi_s03...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Jeff... > > Depending on which GF4200 you had (there's a wide range within that GPU), > the upgrade to a 9800 (non pro, non XT) might not been much of a jump in > video card features/speed or resources. > > Also, motherboards, drivers, settings, power supplies, AGP port voltage

and > CPU capability....all effect video card performance and the mobo/power > supply importance triples with the new video cards. Are you really sureyou

Quoted text (7 lines)

> are comparing FPS at "apples to apples" with regard to all of this? > > My guess is, you have something set different than you had it with the > GF4200....but you are possibly not aware of it and that is accounting for > the performance drop you are experiencing. > > You will need to provide all information as to settings and hardware,

before > anyone here can be of much help to you. My suggestion is you find one of > the good video card "guru" sites (like Guru3D) and go read up on their > boards for a few hours and get you "basics" up to snuff. > > Regarding drivers: The Radeon 9800 shipped with the 3.8's......they were > "rushed" out the door and way under performed. Everyone is using the3.10's > on their Radeons. My 3dM03 score jumped from low 5,000's to low 9,000's > just with the driver change to the 3.10's (from the CD installed 3.8's ona > 9800XT without "turbocharged" turned on). > > Regarding power supply: This is an issue that has been taken lightly, > because it was not such a big deal....UP UNTIL NOW! Not all powersupplies > are created equal. You need to check the rating on your PW300 and makesure

Quoted text (11 lines)

> it is at least 12amps on the (+12) circuit. 15amps would be better....but > 12amps is a must. If you must buy a new pw-supply.....get at least a > PW500......power consumption is going up....not down....on our computer > gaming hardware! > > Regarding Radeon 9800 power supply connection: You are supposed to make > sure your video card and hard drive (primary hard drive, the one that > contains your C drive if you have multiple hard drives in your computer) > share the same power connection! This is critical on a 9800XT, so much so > that they provided a "harness" just to use for making this connection. A > few people, with spare power connections bi-passed using this harness

(think > it was more of a convenience item rather than a "requirement").....and end > up not only with a slow video card, but also with having to reinstalltheir > operating system! Seems the "shutdown" of the video card and HD need tobe > coordinated or the ops-sys (WinXP has the biggest problem with this) can't > save the operating system files to the hard drive fast enough. After justa

Quoted text (12 lines)

> few shutdowns....your registry is hosed and you have to reinstall because > the back ups are all hosed too! > > Just some "food for thought." Hope it's helpful. > > Regards, > > Tom > > PS: Antec makes the best power supplies, IMHO. > >

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3ffb856f$0$77800$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec 550w > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no change. > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same as > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break. > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully compatible > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with N2003. > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001 se > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200. But > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set the af > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have the > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various BIOS > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade the > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all now. > > amd 2400+ > xp os > onboard sound > 512 ddr >

The general impression I have gotten about the Nforce1 motherboards is that they are slow. Especially compared to a Nforce2 mb. Also you have onboard sound, and while they have made great strides in that area...I just have never felt comfortable using onboard sound. Call me Han Solo...."I've been all over the galaxy, but I have never seen an onboard sound setup I like. Gimmie a good Sound Card anyday." And finally...with all the videocard switching you've done, there is a good chance you have lots of nvidia driver fragments hiding on your system. Do a complete scrubbing of your old drivers before installing the ATI drivers. Most 3d sites have utilities that will help you with that. Good luck. dave henrie

Jeff.....until you have completed the boring part of graphic card upgrading thoroughly i dont think you can compare like for like. My routine at this point in your shoes would be this :- - Add/Remove Programs and Uninstall any Nvidia drivers from the 5900 install. - While there look for any Ati entries(idiotproof procedure ;) - Download Driver Cleaner and run it for all Ati options and all Nvidia options - Device Manager and remove whatever is in Display Adaptor if anything is left. - Reboot with Nvidia drivers downloaded and ready to use. - After the pc finishes and you are back at desktop with 5900 installed,goto Advanced Properties and set everything to highest performance in Direct 3d and OpenGL and make sure Vsync is always off in Open GL settings. - Open Nascar 2003 and do the 3d config with 1280 x 1024 x 32 for example and use OpenGL first. - Go into game graphic options and switch off a few items that are not needed,some shandows and reflections,drawing distance at 70% is ample etc etc. - Then do the fsp readings. - Then do the same with Direct3d - Then move graphic card properties to highest quality and see the difference - Use Fraps as well as the Papy fps counter NOW - Buy a cheap �10/$14 5.1 soundcard and install - Check fps again. I have two systems running Nascar 2003 my 9700 Pro one and my GF4ti4800se one.The OpenGL GF4 one is always in the 90's for fps alone on the track and gets as high as 150 at times.The Direct3d 9700 Pro also does the same fps....this shows the OpenGL advantage is massive....so i expect your 5900 card to be flying in OpenGL with performance settings and vsync off. AD "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote innews:3ffb856f$0$77800$[email hidden]: > > > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec550w > > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with nochange. > > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact sameas > > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's > > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a > > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break. > > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fullycompatible > > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps withN2003. > > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001se > > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200.But > > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set theaf > > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the > > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I havethe > > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried variousBIOS > > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgradethe > > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it allnow.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > amd 2400+ > > xp os > > onboard sound > > 512 ddr > > > The general impression I have gotten about the Nforce1 motherboards is

that they > are slow. Especially compared to a Nforce2 mb. Also you have onboardsound, and > while they have made great strides in that area...I just have never feltcomfortable > using onboard sound. Call me Han Solo...."I've been all over the galaxy,but I have > never seen an onboard sound setup I like. Gimmie a good Sound Cardanyday." > And finally...with all the videocard switching you've done, there is agood chance > you have lots of nvidia driver fragments hiding on your system. Do acomplete > scrubbing of your old drivers before installing the ATI drivers. Most 3dsites have > utilities that will help you with that. Good luck. > dave henrie

Thanks, Ill do as you suggested. Jeff "AD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:btgu9g$c65$[email hidden]... > Jeff.....until you have completed the boring part of graphic cardupgrading

Quoted text (13 lines)

> thoroughly i dont think you can compare like for like. > > My routine at this point in your shoes would be this :- > > - Add/Remove Programs and Uninstall any Nvidia drivers from the 5900 > install. > - While there look for any Ati entries(idiotproof procedure ;) > - Download Driver Cleaner and run it for all Ati options and all Nvidia > options > - Device Manager and remove whatever is in Display Adaptor if anything is > left. > - Reboot with Nvidia drivers downloaded and ready to use. > - After the pc finishes and you are back at desktop with 5900

installed,goto

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Advanced Properties and set everything to highest performance in Direct 3d > and OpenGL and make sure Vsync is always off in Open GL settings. > - Open Nascar 2003 and do the 3d config with 1280 x 1024 x 32 for example > and use OpenGL first. > - Go into game graphic options and switch off a few items that are not > needed,some shandows and reflections,drawing distance at 70% is ample etc > etc. > - Then do the fsp readings. > - Then do the same with Direct3d > - Then move graphic card properties to highest quality and see the > difference > - Use Fraps as well as the Papy fps counter > > NOW > > - Buy a cheap �10/$14 5.1 soundcard and install > - Check fps again. > > I have two systems running Nascar 2003 my 9700 Pro one and my GF4ti4800se > one.The OpenGL GF4 one is always in the 90's for fps alone on the track

and

Quoted text (11 lines)

> gets as high as 150 at times.The Direct3d 9700 Pro also does the same > fps....this shows the OpenGL advantage is massive....so i expect your 5900 > card to be flying in OpenGL with performance settings and vsync off. > > AD > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:3ffb856f$0$77800$[email hidden]: > > > > > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a

Antec

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 550w > > > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no > change. > > > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same > as > > > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's > > > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is

a > > > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took abreak. > > > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully > compatible > > > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with > N2003. > > > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In3Dmark2001 > se > > > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the4200. > But > > > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can setthe > af > > > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit fromthe

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have > the > > > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various > BIOS > > > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade > the > > > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all > now. > > > > > > amd 2400+ > > > xp os > > > onboard sound > > > 512 ddr > > > > > The general impression I have gotten about the Nforce1 motherboards

is > that they > > are slow. Especially compared to a Nforce2 mb. Also you have onboard > sound, and > > while they have made great strides in that area...I just have never felt > comfortable > > using onboard sound. Call me Han Solo...."I've been all over thegalaxy,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> but I have > > never seen an onboard sound setup I like. Gimmie a good Sound Card > anyday." > > And finally...with all the videocard switching you've done, there is a > good chance > > you have lots of nvidia driver fragments hiding on your system. Do a > complete > > scrubbing of your old drivers before installing the ATI drivers. Most

3d > sites have > > utilities that will help you with that. Good luck. > > dave henrie > >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote innews:3ffb856f$0$77800$[email hidden]: > > > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec550w > > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with nochange. > > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact sameas > > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's > > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a > > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break. > > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fullycompatible > > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps withN2003. > > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001se > > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200.But > > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set theaf > > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the > > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I havethe > > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried variousBIOS > > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgradethe > > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it allnow.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > amd 2400+ > > xp os > > onboard sound > > 512 ddr > > > The general impression I have gotten about the Nforce1 motherboards is

that they > are slow. Especially compared to a Nforce2 mb. Also you have onboardsound, and > while they have made great strides in that area...I just have never feltcomfortable > using onboard sound. Call me Han Solo...."I've been all over the galaxy,but I have > never seen an onboard sound setup I like. Gimmie a good Sound Cardanyday." I used to be the exact same way myself Dave. But I have been using a couple of systems lately that I built-up from Asus A7N8X Deluxe boards with the nVidia Chipset and on-board sound and I gotta tell ya, I have a ton less issues (performance, conflicts, etc) than I ever did with a Soundblaster (Basic 16 through Audigy2 MP3) and the sound is great. Of course I don't run 3D or surround sound even though it is supported, I save all those bells and whistles for my TV entertainment system, so maybe I don't tax a sound device in a computer like most gamers. > And finally...with all the videocard switching you've done, there is agood chance > you have lots of nvidia driver fragments hiding on your system. Do acomplete > scrubbing of your old drivers before installing the ATI drivers. Most 3dsites have > utilities that will help you with that. Good luck. > dave henrie

k7n420 pro ?????????????????? Um, could be that 4X AGP slot? Save yourself some reading. :) "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ffb856f$0$77800$[email hidden]... > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec550w > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with nochange. > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same as > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break. > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fullycompatible > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps withN2003. > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001 se > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200.But > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set theaf > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have the > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried variousBIOS

Quoted text (8 lines)

> tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade the > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all now. > > amd 2400+ > xp os > onboard sound > 512 ddr >

Jeff... This is good advice from AD. The only think I would add to it is whenever I change from one video card manufacturer to a new one (in other words, I'm not just upgrading an existing same-manufacturer driver set), I also take the added step(s) of uninstalling all programs that are "video" related.....including all movie players and their codec's (like WMP and all DIVx players, etc.). After I have my new video card installed, updated drivers.....and CONFIRMED its running properly.....then I reinstall the peripheral video programs back again. This might be over-kill....but I've read more than once in some of the video card forums where this has saved someone's ass! By the way, the mobo forums are not the best place to find out information about your mobo....as related to.....video cards and 3D gaming issues. That should be better done at the "video/gaming/3D forums like GURU3D or the OmegaCorner forums. Obviously, everybody who has a video card.....has a mobo of some kind. Yet, not everyone who has a mobo....has a high-tech, gaming video card! Get it? Don't get frustrated, this is all a pain in the ass.....for all of us! Regards, Tom PS: Your Antec 550w is a great power supply.......you can at least rest assured you are not having a "power supply" issue on your mobo/video card. PSS: Your BIOS settings on your mobo are "critical" to getting full performance from you video card, especially in regard to 3D gaming performance. A. Make sure you have the latest BIOS version installed and the latest "northbridge chip" drivers installed.....AND, don't do this if you don't know what you are doing....get help with it first! B. Ask others who have your mobo what their settings are in the BIOS and what "issues" they have found/tweaked to make their rigs perform! Example: On my current rig, with an ASUS A7N8X Deluxe mobo.....if I were to set my BIOS to "optimized defaults"......my gaming/video card performance drops more than 50%! It's a huge difference!

Alright figured it out. It's always the simple things. Uninstalled all video drivers, and instead of installing the latest 53.03 I used the Omega 45.23. This brought my frame rate up to 42 fps at start of a race, just like the 4200. BUT, I am able to turn on all graphics to max and have 4af/8aa and NEVER drop below 42fps. Much unlike the 4200. Once the race begins this number skyrockets. Thanks for all the help. I have also tested the card with F1C(which for some reason using the 53.03 and the ettc mod caused flashing), Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty and others and it seems to work great. My final question is I had taken the power supply out and tested the afore mentioned on my 300w power supply, I wouldn't mind saving some money, $120, and return the 550w power supply. Think I'll be ok with the 300w? Thanks again guys. Jeff "Byron John Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> k7n420 pro ?????????????????? > > Um, could be that 4X AGP slot? Save yourself some reading. :) > > "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3ffb856f$0$77800$[email hidden]... > > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec > 550w > > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no > change. > > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same

as

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's > > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a > > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break. > > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully > compatible > > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with > N2003. > > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001

se > > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200. > But > > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set the > af > > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the > > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I havethe > > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various > BIOS > > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgradethe > > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it allnow.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > amd 2400+ > > xp os > > onboard sound > > 512 ddr > > > >

Yep. i'm running 3 x 7200rpm HDDs ,2 x CD drives, Radeon 9700, 512DDR AMDXp2400 on Abit NF7-S on a 235 Watter. YMMV. -- Pete H GPL, NR2003, LFS suck .... you in "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ffc8d3c$0$88852$[email hidden]... > Alright figured it out. It's always the simple things. Uninstalled all > video drivers, and instead of installing the latest 53.03 I used the Omega > 45.23. This brought my frame rate up to 42 fps at start of a race, just > like the 4200. BUT, I am able to turn on all graphics to max and have > 4af/8aa and NEVER drop below 42fps. Much unlike the 4200. Once the race > begins this number skyrockets. Thanks for all the help. I have also tested > the card with F1C(which for some reason using the 53.03 and the ettc mod > caused flashing), Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty and others and it seems to > work great. My final question is I had taken the power supply out and > tested the afore mentioned on my 300w power supply, I wouldn't mind saving > some money, $120, and return the 550w power supply. Think I'll be ok with > the 300w? Thanks again guys. > > Jeff > > "Byron John Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > k7n420 pro ?????????????????? > > > > Um, could be that 4X AGP slot? Save yourself some reading. :) > > > > "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3ffb856f$0$77800$[email hidden]... > > > Thanks for the info Tom. I just got back from Microcenter with a Antec > > 550w > > > power supply. Plugged it up and checked benchmarks and game with no > > change. > > > All settings in the Nvidia panel and games settings are the exact same > as > > > when the GF 4200 128 mb 4/8 agp card was plugged in. I went the MSI's > > > website to read up on the motherboard. I have a k7n420 pro, which is a > > > NForce 1 motherboard. I made it through 32 pages before I took a break. > > > The only thing I can figure is that this motherboard is not fully > > compatible > > > with powered video cards. The 9800 and 5900 both peak at 29fps with > > N2003. > > > It will play the games just not at their full potential. In 3Dmark2001 > se > > > Iget 12,000 and Aquamark 28,000 with the 5900, well ahead of the 4200. > > But > > > when I play n2003 it does not perform as well as the 4200. I can set the > > af > > > to 4x and the aa to 8x with the 5900 and take noperformance hit from the > > > 29fps. Of course I take a huge hit if I do that to the 4200. I have > the > > > latest drivers for the card and the motherboard. I have tried various > > BIOS > > > tweaks all to no avail. Guess I'll just wait a year or so and upgrade > the > > > motherboard and video card then. There is no real NEED to do it all > now. > > > > > > amd 2400+ > > > xp os > > > onboard sound > > > 512 ddr > > > > > > > > >

In article <fEJKb.761981$Tr4.2172712@attbi_s03>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Regarding Radeon 9800 power supply connection: You are supposed to make >sure your video card and hard drive (primary hard drive, the one that >contains your C drive if you have multiple hard drives in your computer) >share the same power connection! This is critical on a 9800XT, so much so >that they provided a "harness" just to use for making this connection. A >few people, with spare power connections bi-passed using this harness (think >it was more of a convenience item rather than a "requirement").....and end >up not only with a slow video card, but also with having to reinstall their >operating system! Seems the "shutdown" of the video card and HD need to be >coordinated or the ops-sys (WinXP has the biggest problem with this) can't >save the operating system files to the hard drive fast enough. After just a >few shutdowns....your registry is hosed and you have to reinstall because >the back ups are all hosed too!

Is that power supply suggestion written in the manual that way(to tie the video to HD)? Otherwise, why would someone who already HAS extra power connectors even think it was necessary? Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <cZ_Kb.760084$HS4.6002158@attbi_s01>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>PSS: Your BIOS settings on your mobo are "critical" to getting full >performance from you video card, especially in regard to 3D gaming >performance. A. Make sure you have the latest BIOS version installed and >the latest "northbridge chip" drivers installed.....AND, don't do this if >you don't know what you are doing....get help with it first! B. Ask others >who have your mobo what their settings are in the BIOS and what "issues" >they have found/tweaked to make their rigs perform! > >Example: On my current rig, with an ASUS A7N8X Deluxe mobo.....if I were to >set my BIOS to "optimized defaults"......my gaming/video card performance >drops more than 50%! It's a huge difference!

Anyone here have a Gigabyte GA-7ZX mobo? Probably not, but it was worth a shot...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (alexti) writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I highly doubt that power supply may be the cause, but here're >few random thoughts... Nvidia supports OpenGL better (unless it has >changed recently) and Papy games are faster in OpenGL. Might it be >that difference in OpenGL drivers negate the difference between GF4200 >and Radeon (if you're running in OpenGL of course)? Still it doesn't >explain the difference between 4200 and 5900. Have you tried to >reconfigure 3d card from the game (I think it does some benchmarking >with some purpose)?

I just checked something out of curiousity. Running N2003 D3D at 1024x768, I went to the pits in practice(PWF Kyalami). I set the draw distance to 10% last week per David's suggestion. From the cockpit view, I get 35 fps. Clicked to start a race at the back of the grid, and got 21 fps. Reset the graphics to use OGL, didn't change anything else. In the pits, 24 fps. On the grid, 12 fps. Presumably, N2003 would be new enough that it wouldn't need a patch like in GPL(which I never even KNEW about until last week). So tell me, how is OGL faster? My tests show it as 9-11 fps SLOWER, with no other changes. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (alexti) writes: > >>I highly doubt that power supply may be the cause, but here're >>few random thoughts... Nvidia supports OpenGL better (unless it has >>changed recently) and Papy games are faster in OpenGL. Might it be >>that difference in OpenGL drivers negate the difference between GF4200 >>and Radeon (if you're running in OpenGL of course)? Still it doesn't >>explain the difference between 4200 and 5900. Have you tried to >>reconfigure 3d card from the game (I think it does some benchmarking >>with some purpose)? > > I just checked something out of curiousity. Running N2003 D3D at > 1024x768, I went to the pits in practice(PWF Kyalami). I set the draw > distance to 10% last week per David's suggestion. From the cockpit > view, I get 35 fps. Clicked to start a race at the back of the grid, > and got 21 fps. Reset the graphics to use OGL, didn't change anything > else. In the pits, 24 fps. On the grid, 12 fps. Presumably, N2003 > would be new enough that it wouldn't need a patch like in GPL(which I > never even KNEW about until last week). So tell me, how is OGL faster? > My tests show it as 9-11 fps SLOWER, with no other changes. > > > Eldred

Do you have Nvidia card with good drivers? I don't have any OGL patch, but I was testing with drawing distance at 80% (also 1024x768). I'm getting 50fps alone and around 35 at the back of the grid (GF2MX here). Also, in the OpenGL driver panel there's a bunch of settings. I have no clue what they mean and I have everything set to default (whatever the driver installs). Another possibility is that you have AA or AF set. Alex.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (alexti) writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> else. In the pits, 24 fps. On the grid, 12 fps. Presumably, N2003 >> would be new enough that it wouldn't need a patch like in GPL(which I >> never even KNEW about until last week). So tell me, how is OGL faster? >> My tests show it as 9-11 fps SLOWER, with no other changes. >> >> >> Eldred >Do you have Nvidia card with good drivers? I don't have any OGL patch, but >I was testing with drawing distance at 80% (also 1024x768). I'm getting >50fps alone and around 35 at the back of the grid (GF2MX here). Also, in >the OpenGL driver panel there's a bunch of settings. I have no clue what >they mean and I have everything set to default (whatever the driver >installs). Another possibility is that you have AA or AF set.

No AA definitely. I don't *think* I have AF - what *is* that? I also don't have an OpenGL specific control panel. In the driver list I see D3D and OGL(both .4523), so they're both loaded. Just no way I see to change anything specific to OGL... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > No AA definitely. I don't *think* I have AF - what *is* that?Anisotropic filtering > I also > don't have an OpenGL specific control panel. In the driver list I see > D3D and OGL(both .4523), so they're both loaded. Just no way I see to > change anything specific to OGL...I have "Additional properties" button in the screen where it lists drivers and that's where I can change OGL settings Alex.

Yeah, I don't get this one at all. I use a spare tap on my 9800 Pro and all seems fine. -Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> In article <fEJKb.761981$Tr4.2172712@attbi_s03>, "Tom Pabst" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Regarding Radeon 9800 power supply connection: You are supposed to make > >sure your video card and hard drive (primary hard drive, the one that > >contains your C drive if you have multiple hard drives in your computer) > >share the same power connection! This is critical on a 9800XT, so much

so > >that they provided a "harness" just to use for making this connection. A > >few people, with spare power connections bi-passed using this harness(think > >it was more of a convenience item rather than a "requirement").....andend > >up not only with a slow video card, but also with having to reinstalltheir > >operating system! Seems the "shutdown" of the video card and HD need tobe > >coordinated or the ops-sys (WinXP has the biggest problem with this)can't > >save the operating system files to the hard drive fast enough. Afterjust a > >few shutdowns....your registry is hosed and you have to reinstall because > >the back ups are all hosed too! > > Is that power supply suggestion written in the manual that way(to tie thevideo > to HD)? Otherwise, why would someone who already HAS extra powerconnectors

Quoted text (14 lines)

> even think it was necessary? > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > Member > Screamers Racing League > IICC League > GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 > ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 > Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress > N2k3 rank:in progress > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (alexti) writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> No AA definitely. I don't *think* I have AF - what *is* that? >Anisotropic filtering >> I also >> don't have an OpenGL specific control panel. In the driver list I see >> D3D and OGL(both .4523), so they're both loaded. Just no way I see to >> change anything specific to OGL... >I have "Additional properties" button in the screen where it lists drivers >and that's where I can change OGL settings >

Hmm...I don't have that. I can go to control panel>display>settings and click on the advanced button. If I then click on the GeForce 4 tab there's a little window that pops out on the left. Performance and Quality settings has a line for D3D and OGL. D3D has these options: Enable fog table emulation(currently checked) Display logo when running D3D applications(not checked) Mipmap detail level(best image quality) PCI texture memory size(47MB) OGL has these options: Disable support for enhanced CPU(not checked) Enable conformant OGL(not checked) Default color depth(use desktop color depth) Buffer flipping(auto select) Vertical sync(on by default) On the Performance line itself: Image settings(slider bar on quality) Anti aliasing(slider on application) Anisotropic filtering(slider on application) Texture Sharpening(not checked) Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:28:30 -0600, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> The general impression I have gotten about the Nforce1 motherboards is that they >are slow. Especially compared to a Nforce2 mb. Also you have onboard sound, and >while they have made great strides in that area...I just have never felt comfortable >using onboard sound. Call me Han Solo...."I've been all over the galaxy, but I have >never seen an onboard sound setup I like. Gimmie a good Sound Card anyday." > And finally...with all the videocard switching you've done, there is a good chance >you have lots of nvidia driver fragments hiding on your system. Do a complete >scrubbing of your old drivers before installing the ATI drivers. Most 3d sites have >utilities that will help you with that. Good luck. >dave henrie

I just did some system jockeying after upgrading my main machine. One of my AMD machines went from a SBLive Value to built in NVidia audio and gained 7fps. I suppose some of this could be attributable to the motherboard, but both were high quality boards (old one was a CUSL2, new one a A7N8XE-Deluxe. I read that the SBLives had relatively high resource use, and I think that helps to confirm it. While in the midst of the upgrade, which involved buying some new parts and bumping other stuff down to other machines I also took a few minutes to test the differences between the GeForce Ti4200 and the Radeon 9800 Pro in my 1.9ghz Athlon (the Pro was purchased for 3ghz machine, but I wanted to see how much of a difference it made in the 1.9). All I did to get the card working was uninstall the NVidia drivers from Add/Remove Software and delete the NVidia registry entries using Regedit. Upgrade went very smooth. For anyone curious about the speed of the 9800 Pro in a lesser machine, I jotted down some 3DMark 2003 numbers... AMD 1.9ghz/Ti4200 scored 1312. Same machine with/128meg 9800 Pro scored 4989. AMD 3ghz/128meg 9800 Pro scored 5244. The 9800 Pro works pretty well in lesser spec machines. Tim

Tim O <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> For anyone curious about the speed of the 9800 Pro in a lesser > machine, I jotted down some 3DMark 2003 numbers... > AMD 1.9ghz/Ti4200 scored 1312. > Same machine with/128meg 9800 Pro scored 4989. > AMD 3ghz/128meg 9800 Pro scored 5244. > > The 9800 Pro works pretty well in lesser spec machines. > > Tim >

3dmark is a good indicator of video speed, but other factors such as memory speed, system bus, age of the motherboard, and drivers for most of these, can also hinder or enhance overall performance. A cleanly setup year old system can often outperform a new box if the newer has not been properly sorted...even if it is a generation ahead in cpu and video. dave henrie