9800 problem

I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199. I uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vga drivers prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and then installed the latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarked using 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With the Omega drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low. I then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in game settings alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fps with the GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. I know this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and reading information on different sites, it should be much faster. In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in the middle or on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x. I turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with no difference. I then thought maybe it was the Omega drivers, so I downloaded the cat 3.9. No changes except my benchmark dropped into the 11500 range. I even changed the power connector thinking it might have something to do with it. This is very disappointing. I was really looking forward to this card. According to Tom's Hardware it should roughly be twice as fast as my gf4200. This is my second attempt with ATI, when I was replacing my gf3 I tried a 9500 pro. It also was slower than my gf3. I am willing to try a few more things, but quite honestly I'm not sure what else there is to do. I tried running Detonator RIP but I just get some error message, I think because I had already uninstalled the drivers. About a week ago I loaded the latest MB drivers, so my system is up to date. I'm not sure that would be it anyway, my system works fine with the 4200. I could really use some help with this one. I know my way around the pc pretty well, I'm just not familiar with ATI. Thanks for reading. P.S. I am also going to post this in the ATI group. MSI NForce 1 Motherboard 512 mb ram wd 40 gb hd onboard 5.1 sound XP 2400+ Windows XP Home

> MSI NForce 1 Motherboard This is a bit questionable, an old design. Still. Have you installed the latest nvidia drivers? Also, you say the AGP speed was set to 1x by smartgart? Very suspicious, as it would seem to indicate some problem running at full-speed. The first thing I would do is raise the AGP voltage in bios one or two notches to 1.7v. This often solves these sorts of problems. rms

"Sondog"

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > P.S. I am also going to post this in the ATI group. > > MSI NForce 1 Motherboard > 512 mb ram > wd 40 gb hd > onboard 5.1 sound > XP 2400+ > Windows XP Home >

The Nforce1 boards were known as slow mb's weren't they? I think what you are seeing is the speed of the vidcard not maxing out because your resolution is not high enough... The ATI cards are not much faster than the nvidia cards at medium to low resolutions..they begin to separate when you start adding screen size and special features... so the ATI cards aren't so much faster as they don't slow down as much. If you compared the two cards at higher screen rez's you'd probably see more difference. Plus there is a good chance you have lots of old nvidia driver files still on your system. Check out some of the driver cleaner programs that are out there. ANd next...try disabling that onboard sound and compare them again... Good luck... dave henrie

I don't know about slow, my buddy just built a 2400+ on the NForce 2 chipset, same gf 4200, same ram, and he gets about 4 fps better than me running identical in game setup. I play my games at 1024x768. My MB is 2 years old. Reading the different benchmarks at 1024x768, I thought the 9800 would be much faster. But it's actually slower. Very strange. Thanks for the reply. Jeff "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Sondog" > > > > P.S. I am also going to post this in the ATI group. > > > > MSI NForce 1 Motherboard > > 512 mb ram > > wd 40 gb hd > > onboard 5.1 sound > > XP 2400+ > > Windows XP Home > > > > The Nforce1 boards were known as slow mb's weren't they? I think what

you > are seeing is the speed of the vidcard not maxing out because yourresolution > is not high enough... > The ATI cards are not much faster than the nvidia cards at medium to lowresolutions..they begin to separate when you start adding screen size and special features... > so the ATI cards aren't so much faster as they don't slow down as much. > If you compared the two cards at higher screen rez's you'd probably seemore > difference. Plus there is a good chance you have lots of old nvidiadriver files still > on your system. Check out some of the driver cleaner programs that areout there. > ANd next...try disabling that onboard sound and compare them again... > Good luck... > dave henrie

> I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to > replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199. I > uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vga drivers > prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and then installedthe > latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarked using > 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With the Omega > drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low. I > then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in gamesettings > alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fps withthe > GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. Iknow > this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and reading informationon > different sites, it should be much faster. > In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in the middleor > on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x. I > turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with nodifference. Were you running AA and AF on the Nvidia card? With the ATI cards, you still see a hit in FPS with AA and AF on, but it's not nearly as large as it is on the Nvidia cards (pre-FX at least). My guess is you weren't using either before. Try setting and AA and AF to Application Preference and see what happens. Alan

"Alan Le" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JnUAb.67040$[email hidden]... > > I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to > > replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199. I > > uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vgadrivers > > prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and then installed > the > > latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarked using > > 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With the Omega > > drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low.I

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in game > settings > > alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fps with > the > > GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. I > know > > this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and reading information > on > > different sites, it should be much faster. > > In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in the middle > or > > on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x.

I > > turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with no > difference. > > Were you running AA and AF on the Nvidia card? With the ATI cards, you > still see a hit in FPS with AA and AF on, but it's not nearly as large asit > is on the Nvidia cards (pre-FX at least). My guess is you weren't using > either before. Try setting and AA and AF to Application Preference andsee > what happens. > > Alan > > I went from a GF4400 to a 9800 Pro and, in some sims (e.g. N2003) the frame rates actually went down a bit but the image quality improved a lot. In the GF you can turn off AA and AF completely where as in the 9800 I don't know how to do it (I can just set it to the minimum). I would risk saying that "application controlled" AA and AF does no always work as expected. Nevertheless it is very much worth the change because the new look is much better! JG

"Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fd3f106$0$20887$[email hidden]... > I don't know about slow, my buddy just built a 2400+ on the NForce 2 > chipset, same gf 4200, same ram, and he gets about 4 fps better than me > running identical in game setup. I play my games at 1024x768. My MB is 2 > years old. Reading the different benchmarks at 1024x768, I thought the9800 > would be much faster. But it's actually slower. Very strange. Thanksfor > the reply. > > Jeff From the systems I have seen there is a pretty big differance between a Nforce1 and Nforce2. MadDAWG

Yes I was running quincunx aa and anio off with the nvidia card. I had these off and then tried them on with the ati card. No difference. Someone in the ati group suggested a fresh install of the os. I refuse to go that far. Jeff an Le" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JnUAb.67040$[email hidden]... > > I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to > > replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199. I > > uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vgadrivers > > prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and then installed > the > > latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarked using > > 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With the Omega > > drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low.I

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in game > settings > > alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fps with > the > > GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. I > know > > this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and reading information > on > > different sites, it should be much faster. > > In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in the middle > or > > on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x.

I > > turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with no > difference. > > Were you running AA and AF on the Nvidia card? With the ATI cards, you > still see a hit in FPS with AA and AF on, but it's not nearly as large asit > is on the Nvidia cards (pre-FX at least). My guess is you weren't using > either before. Try setting and AA and AF to Application Preference andsee > what happens. > > Alan > >

> Someone in the ati group suggested a fresh install of the os. I refuseto go that > far. > > Jeff That is actually not that "far". With any major hardware change in a system geared for performance there is nothing better than starting fresh. True it can be a PITA if you have a lot of stuff to back up. Thats why my old game machine is now my email reader and file server. :) Also I partiton my harddrives with a second partiton around 5 gig. Whenever I get new drivers, game patches, etc I save them there as well. Then when it comes time for a fresh install I don't need to download anything and can get a game box back up and running pretty quick. MadDAWG

Is you motherboard AGP 8x? EL "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fd3e5eb$0$62224$[email hidden]... > I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to > replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199. I > uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vga drivers > prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and then installedthe > latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarked using > 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With the Omega > drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low. I > then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in gamesettings > alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fps withthe > GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. Iknow > this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and reading informationon > different sites, it should be much faster. > In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in the middleor > on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x. I > turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with nodifference. > I then thought maybe it was the Omega drivers, so I downloaded the cat3.9. > No changes except my benchmark dropped into the 11500 range. I evenchanged > the power connector thinking it might have something to do with it. Thisis > very disappointing. I was really looking forward to this card. According > to Tom's Hardware it should roughly be twice as fast as my gf4200. Thisis > my second attempt with ATI, when I was replacing my gf3 I tried a 9500pro. > It also was slower than my gf3. I am willing to try a few more things,but > quite honestly I'm not sure what else there is to do. I tried running > Detonator RIP but I just get some error message, I think because I had > already uninstalled the drivers. About a week ago I loaded the latest MB > drivers, so my system is up to date. I'm not sure that would be it anyway, > my system works fine with the 4200. I could really use some help withthis

Quoted text (13 lines)

> one. I know my way around the pc pretty well, I'm just not familiar with > ATI. Thanks for reading. > > P.S. I am also going to post this in the ATI group. > > MSI NForce 1 Motherboard > 512 mb ram > wd 40 gb hd > onboard 5.1 sound > XP 2400+ > Windows XP Home > >

If your mobo is not AGP 8x don't expect a big difference. Get a new mobo. EL "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fd3e5eb$0$62224$[email hidden]... > I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to > replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199. I > uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vga drivers > prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and then installedthe > latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarked using > 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With the Omega > drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low. I > then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in gamesettings > alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fps withthe > GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. Iknow > this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and reading informationon > different sites, it should be much faster. > In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in the middleor > on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x. I > turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with nodifference. > I then thought maybe it was the Omega drivers, so I downloaded the cat3.9. > No changes except my benchmark dropped into the 11500 range. I evenchanged > the power connector thinking it might have something to do with it. Thisis > very disappointing. I was really looking forward to this card. According > to Tom's Hardware it should roughly be twice as fast as my gf4200. Thisis > my second attempt with ATI, when I was replacing my gf3 I tried a 9500pro. > It also was slower than my gf3. I am willing to try a few more things,but > quite honestly I'm not sure what else there is to do. I tried running > Detonator RIP but I just get some error message, I think because I had > already uninstalled the drivers. About a week ago I loaded the latest MB > drivers, so my system is up to date. I'm not sure that would be it anyway, > my system works fine with the 4200. I could really use some help withthis

Quoted text (13 lines)

> one. I know my way around the pc pretty well, I'm just not familiar with > ATI. Thanks for reading. > > P.S. I am also going to post this in the ATI group. > > MSI NForce 1 Motherboard > 512 mb ram > wd 40 gb hd > onboard 5.1 sound > XP 2400+ > Windows XP Home > >

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:52:24 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" <[email hidden]> wrote: >If your mobo is not AGP 8x don't expect a big difference. Get a new mobo. >Upgrade a motherboard to get AGP 8X? Are you mad? AGP speeds have very little relevence to the speed of games. -- 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 relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

I subscribe to Maximum PC (outstanding mag by the way), and they had an issue over the spring benchmarking various new technologies form memory to agp and every component of the pc. And there was no advantage of agp 8. I'm sure there may be some day, but right now that's not it. I just went out and bought a WD 80gb hd with 8mb cache for $99, I was going to do it this winter anyway. My Win XP hd (small 6GB) is full, so I might as well do the format anyway. We'll see how it turns out. I'll be formatting my 40gb also so there will be no display drivers for an Nvidia card anywhere. Just MB drivers for the Nvidia mb. Wish me luck. A few hours of backup ahead of me. Thanks for the suggestions so far. Jeff "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:52:24 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >If your mobo is not AGP 8x don't expect a big difference. Get a new mobo. > > > Upgrade a motherboard to get AGP 8X? Are you mad? AGP speeds have very > little relevence to the speed of games. > -- > 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 relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Get a new mobo then....:-) EL "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:52:24 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >If your mobo is not AGP 8x don't expect a big difference. Get a new mobo. > > > Upgrade a motherboard to get AGP 8X? Are you mad? AGP speeds have very > little relevence to the speed of games. > -- > 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 relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:44:42 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" <[email hidden]> scribbled: >Get a new mobo then....:-) > >EL He's right. Get the newest of the new, pop an 8x card in there, and then set the BIOS to 4x AGP. Unless you're running debugger apps that test specific D3D functions (AGP swapping) you're going to lose no more than 1% of your speed, if even that. 8x is nearly meaningless from a performance perspective. -Slash -- "Ebert Victorious" -The Onion

"Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fd4f66e$0$54349$[email hidden]... > I subscribe to Maximum PC (outstanding mag by the way), and they had an > issue over the spring benchmarking various new technologies form memory to > agp and every component of the pc. And there was no advantage of agp 8. > I'm sure there may be some day, but right now that's not it. I just went > out and bought a WD 80gb hd with 8mb cache for $99, I was going to do it > this winter anyway. My Win XP hd (small 6GB) is full, so I might as welldo > the format anyway. We'll see how it turns out. I'll be formatting my40gb > also so there will be no display drivers for an Nvidia card anywhere.Just > MB drivers for the Nvidia mb. Wish me luck. A few hours of backup aheadof > me. Thanks for the suggestions so far. > > Jeff I have an ATI 9700 Pro on a Nforce2 based system and it runs quite well. I did have some issues with the latest Nforce drivers, but it wasn't a video releated problem. I'm acutaly running a slower cpu than you are (2100xp), but the Nforce1 chipsets are not as good as the Nforce2. You still should be able to get simular/better performance. When I went from a GF3 to the 9700pro I turned down the screen res and turned up/on FSAA and AF. I get better fps and a better image. I blame that more on my CPU than anything. These big dawg cards need a lot of CPU to push them to thier limits. MadDAWG

Well total format complete fresh install of everything. But still no performance gain. I'm gonna stick with the 4200. For this game, and my system, it is much better than the 9800. You guy's may be right afterall about the MB. But I get 36 fps full field drawn at the start (never dropping below that), quincunx aa, and detail set to mostly max in the in game setup. So it's not a need of an upgrade, the game plays great, I was just hoping for a easy performance gain. Thanks for all the help guys. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Slash" <[email hidden]> Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:47 PM Subject: Re: 9800 problem

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:44:42 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" > <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > >Get a new mobo then....:-) > > > >EL > > He's right. Get the newest of the new, pop an 8x card in there, and > then set the BIOS to 4x AGP. Unless you're running debugger apps that > test specific D3D functions (AGP swapping) you're going to lose no > more than 1% of your speed, if even that. 8x is nearly meaningless > from a performance perspective. > > -Slash > -- > "Ebert Victorious" >

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

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:44:42 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" > <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > >Get a new mobo then....:-) > > > >EL > > He's right. Get the newest of the new, pop an 8x card in there, and > then set the BIOS to 4x AGP. Unless you're running debugger apps that > test specific D3D functions (AGP swapping) you're going to lose no > more than 1% of your speed, if even that. 8x is nearly meaningless > from a performance perspective. > > -Slash > -- > "Ebert Victorious" > -The Onion

Jeff, one thing i for sure The ATI cards have presently a technological edge over NVDIA and you should have MUCH nicer graphics with a ATI. Since i have my ATI 9700 pro i don't bother with FPS anymore in Nascar 2003 if they are over 40-50 FPS they are very smooth and i would probably not see the difference between 50 and 100. One other thing i notice when i went from a Geforce 3 to a ATI 9700 pro si that for the same smooth graphics NVDIA was showing higher FPS. For exemple at 40 FPS with the ATI graphics were has smooth has running at least 80 with the Geforce. I have a friend who had the same thing happen to him. Change for a much faster card but speed were the same with is Ti card. He finally changed mobo and everything went double the speed, no, that is incorrect, it went 4 times nicer :-) EL "Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fd60634$0$30486$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> Well total format complete fresh install of everything. But still no > performance gain. I'm gonna stick with the 4200. For this game, and my > system, it is much better than the 9800. You guy's may be right afterall > about the MB. But I get 36 fps full field drawn at the start (never > dropping below that), quincunx aa, and detail set to mostly max in the in > game setup. So it's not a need of an upgrade, the game plays great, I was > just hoping for a easy performance gain. Thanks for all the help guys. > > > Jeff > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Slash" <[email hidden]> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:47 PM > Subject: Re: 9800 problem > > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:44:42 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" > > <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > > > >Get a new mobo then....:-) > > > > > >EL > > > > He's right. Get the newest of the new, pop an 8x card in there, and > > then set the BIOS to 4x AGP. Unless you're running debugger apps that > > test specific D3D functions (AGP swapping) you're going to lose no > > more than 1% of your speed, if even that. 8x is nearly meaningless > > from a performance perspective. > > > > -Slash > > -- > > "Ebert Victorious" > > > "Slash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:44:42 -0500, "Eric Leblanc" > > <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > > > >Get a new mobo then....:-) > > > > > >EL > > > > He's right. Get the newest of the new, pop an 8x card in there, and > > then set the BIOS to 4x AGP. Unless you're running debugger apps that > > test specific D3D functions (AGP swapping) you're going to lose no > > more than 1% of your speed, if even that. 8x is nearly meaningless > > from a performance perspective. > > > > -Slash > > -- > > "Ebert Victorious" > > -The Onion > >

Pretty much what I saw... -Larry "Joao Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fd46ad6$0$25662$[email hidden]... > > "Alan Le" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:JnUAb.67040$[email hidden]... > > > I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to > > > replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199.I > > > uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vga > drivers > > > prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and theninstalled > > the > > > latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarkedusing > > > 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With theOmega > > > drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low. > I > > > then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in game > > settings > > > alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fpswith > > the > > > GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. I > > know > > > this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and readinginformation > > on > > > different sites, it should be much faster. > > > In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in themiddle

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > or > > > on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x. > I > > > turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with no > > difference. > > > > Were you running AA and AF on the Nvidia card? With the ATI cards, you > > still see a hit in FPS with AA and AF on, but it's not nearly as large

as

Quoted text (11 lines)

> it > > is on the Nvidia cards (pre-FX at least). My guess is you weren't using > > either before. Try setting and AA and AF to Application Preference and > see > > what happens. > > > > Alan > > > > > > I went from a GF4400 to a 9800 Pro and, in some sims (e.g. N2003) the

frame > rates actually went down a bit but the image quality improved a lot. Inthe

Quoted text (13 lines)

> GF you can turn off AA and AF completely where as in the 9800 I don't know > how to do it (I can just set it to the minimum). > > I would risk saying that "application controlled" AA and AF does no always > work as expected. > > Nevertheless it is very much worth the change because the new look is much > better! > > > JG > >

Well.... not really. AGP transfers don't even come into play unless you use up all 128MB on the card, and I'm not sure NR2003 does that. Even so, AGP transfer rates have never been shown to be the pinnacle of performance measurements. In other words, it don't matter much. -Larry "Eric Leblanc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DR2Bb.64136$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> If your mobo is not AGP 8x don't expect a big difference. Get a new mobo. > > EL > > "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3fd3e5eb$0$62224$[email hidden]... > > I just installed a 9800 128mb non-pro in my computer. I was going to > > replace my gf 4200 because I was able to get the ATI card for $199. I > > uninstalled the Nvidia drivers and then installed the standard vga

drivers > > prior to installing the 9800. I plugged the card in and then installed > the > > latest Omega drivers. All seemed to go well. I then benchmarked using > > 3dmark2001se. With my GF 4200 128mb I got around 10000. With the Omega > > drivers and the 9800 I got 12398. I thought this seemed a little low.I

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > then went to play NASCAR 2003 with D3D, I left my previous in game > settings > > alone so I could get a good comparison. Where I was getting 36 fps with > the > > GF 4200 in ogl, I was now getting 34 ogl, and 28 D3D with the 9800. I > know > > this cannot be right. Looking at the benchmarks and reading information > on > > different sites, it should be much faster. > > In the ATI control panel I had left many of the options in the middle > or > > on the low side as far as AA goes. I had to change AGP to 4x form 1x.

I

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > turned vsync to always off. I had write fast on and off with no > difference. > > I then thought maybe it was the Omega drivers, so I downloaded the cat > 3.9. > > No changes except my benchmark dropped into the 11500 range. I even > changed > > the power connector thinking it might have something to do with it.

This > is > > very disappointing. I was really looking forward to this card.According

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > to Tom's Hardware it should roughly be twice as fast as my gf4200. This > is > > my second attempt with ATI, when I was replacing my gf3 I tried a 9500 > pro. > > It also was slower than my gf3. I am willing to try a few more things, > but > > quite honestly I'm not sure what else there is to do. I tried running > > Detonator RIP but I just get some error message, I think because I had > > already uninstalled the drivers. About a week ago I loaded the latest

MB > > drivers, so my system is up to date. I'm not sure that would be itanyway, > > my system works fine with the 4200. I could really use some help with > this > > one. I know my way around the pc pretty well, I'm just not familiarwith

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > ATI. Thanks for reading. > > > > P.S. I am also going to post this in the ATI group. > > > > MSI NForce 1 Motherboard > > 512 mb ram > > wd 40 gb hd > > onboard 5.1 sound > > XP 2400+ > > Windows XP Home > > > > > >

You never tried raising the AGP voltage a notch on the 9800? rms