Upgraded vid card

Just installed a FX5200 Ultra. Nascar 2003 never looked and played so good. Everything maxed out, 1024x768x32, AA and Ansio enabled, drawing distance at 100%. I'm getting 90 to 100 FPS by myself, between 30 and 70 with other traffic. Really looks great. bluestringer

Which system do you have....? My first thoughts are that you are talking rubbish... A 5200 is not a fast card by any means especially with AA and Aniso enabled as well as maxing everything. Show me a screenshot or a copy and paste from Fraps and i might believe you. AD

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bjq599$t0r$[email hidden]... > Which system do you have....? > > My first thoughts are that you are talking rubbish... > > A 5200 is not a fast card by any means especially with AA and Anisoenabled > as well as maxing everything. > > Show me a screenshot or a copy and paste from Fraps and i might believeyou. > > AD > > It's not a 5200, it's a 5200 Ultra. The FX cards are optimized for AA and Ansio and they run much better than older cards with it enabled. I know what I'm seeing, don't have to prove it to no one, so it really doesn't bother me if you believe it or not. All I know it is a great card for me. bluestringer

OK you forced me to go look up a few reviews...and guess what i was right. It is alot slower than even a good OLD GF4 ti 4200.....lol As i said...you cant get those sort of frames per second out of that hardware.Especially not with maxed out everything and AA and Aniso enabled like you said. Go read just one of the startlingly HONEST reviews of the 5200 Ultra.(Ultra cheap it stands for) http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Albatron_FX5200_Ultra/pg_3.htm I dont expect an apology .....:)) AD

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bjqufq$gss$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> OK you forced me to go look up a few reviews...and guess what i was right. > > It is alot slower than even a good OLD GF4 ti 4200.....lol > > As i said...you cant get those sort of frames per second out of that > hardware.Especially not with maxed out everything and AA and Aniso enabled > like you said. > > Go read just one of the startlingly HONEST reviews of the 5200

Ultra.(Ultra

Quoted text (10 lines)

> cheap it stands for) > > http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Albatron_FX5200_Ultra/pg_3.htm > > I dont expect an apology .....:)) > > AD > > >

I don't do benchmarks. Just Nascar 2003. And yes I'm getting those FPS. You can believe that benchmark crap if you want, I'll just keep playing Nascar 2003 and grin. :)) bluestringer

Just curious, what was your prior video card and what is your cpu speed? Do you have NR2003 set with 43 cars visible in the front and 43 visible in the rear? -Tim "bluestringer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Sz78b.804$[email hidden]... > > "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bjqufq$gss$[email hidden]... > > OK you forced me to go look up a few reviews...and guess what i wasright. > > > > It is alot slower than even a good OLD GF4 ti 4200.....lol > > > > As i said...you cant get those sort of frames per second out of that > > hardware.Especially not with maxed out everything and AA and Anisoenabled

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > like you said. > > > > Go read just one of the startlingly HONEST reviews of the 5200 > Ultra.(Ultra > > cheap it stands for) > > > >

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Albatron_FX5200_Ultra/pg_3.htm

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > I dont expect an apology .....:)) > > > > AD > > > > > > > > I don't do benchmarks. Just Nascar 2003. And yes I'm getting those FPS.

You > can believe that benchmark crap if you want, I'll just keep playing Nascar > 2003 and grin. :)) > > bluestringer > >

"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Just curious, what was your prior video card and what is your cpu speed?Do > you have NR2003 set with 43 cars visible in the front and 43 visible inthe > rear? > > -Tim Prior card was a GF4 MX440. I don't have that many cars visible, 25 front, 15 rear I think. Don't really need that many cars visible. I did notice that changing the mirror quaility did not have much effect on the FPS. CPU is AMD XP1800 T'bred. bluestringer

You have an XP1800 and a 5200 Ultra and you seriously expect anyone to believe those claims..???? In computer world matey there are some things which just cant happen due to absolute impossibility. For example... a) You cant get PC133 ram to run at 5000mhz...why not...? Coz its impossible. b) Nascar 2003 on max everything with 32 bit and with AA and Aniso enabled cannot run at those frames per second with that pc....why not...? Coz its impossible. That pc could be o/c and it couldnt do it. The limiting factor is the 5200U,and the sooner you realise that you have a slow low end card the better.Does it not dawn on you that in the range 5900U is at the top and can do those figures you suggest.Then we come DOWN to 5800 models...and through the range we then come upon a lower model called the 5600....and then just for the people who cant afford much they chuck in a 5200 range. Even for the simplest of people i think its easy to grasp that the 5200 is a low end card capable of moderate performance.Mated with a VERY low end cpu you have VERY moderate performance. Nascar 2003 at those settings you say would need XP2500+ with a 5600U approx.A very well setup XP2200 with a very good graphic card would also suffice. So bluestringer,unless you like looking silly,just say the truth next time. Unless you really thought no-one here knew anything about computers/fps/hardware To prove i know what i am saying...you could get your pc to run those figures if you did the usual tweaking steps. AA and Ani off Vsync off 16 bit not 32 bit and move up to 1280x1024 Then you get a little more detail due to the upping of the res to slightly offset the drops.It wont look alot different,and its nicer to average 70fps while driving than 30fps and looking good.If you enjoy driving you cant see the beauty much at 200mph :) AD

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> kirjoitti viestiss� news:bjs2nt$lhr$[email hidden]... > That pc could be o/c and it couldnt do it. The limiting factor is the > 5200U,and the sooner you realise that you have a slow low end card the > better.Does it not dawn on you that in the range 5900U is at the top andcan Umm... why is it so important that he realises that he has a low end card? He's happy with it, so I really don't see any point in you ranting about it. BTW, he mentioned in a reply that he doesn't have all cars visible, so it's not "max everything". He also mentioned that the fps ranges between 30 and 70 during races... is it impossible to have a minimum of 30fps with that setup? Could be, but I don't really care :-P - Igor -

"bluestringer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vRP7b.2162$[email hidden]... > Just installed a FX5200 Ultra. Nascar 2003 never looked and played sogood. > Everything maxed out, 1024x768x32, AA and Ansio enabled, drawing distanceat > 100%. I'm getting 90 to 100 FPS by myself, between 30 and 70 with other > traffic. Really looks great. > > bluestringer > > 100 % draw distance is overkill at most tracks. Especially the shorter tracks. So you could decrease that and maybe see even more of an increase in your framerates. Kyle

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bjs2nt$lhr$[email hidden]... > You have an XP1800 and a 5200 Ultra and you seriously expect anyone to > believe those claims..???? > <snip> Ok, you win. I'm not getting the performance I said I was. LMAO. Like I said, I really don't care if you believe it or not. bluestringer

"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S_o8b.3050$[email hidden]... > > "bluestringer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:vRP7b.2162$[email hidden]... > > Just installed a FX5200 Ultra. Nascar 2003 never looked and played so > good. > > Everything maxed out, 1024x768x32, AA and Ansio enabled, drawingdistance

Quoted text (10 lines)

> at > > 100%. I'm getting 90 to 100 FPS by myself, between 30 and 70 with other > > traffic. Really looks great. > > > > bluestringer > > > > > > 100 % draw distance is overkill at most tracks. Especially the shorter > tracks. So you could decrease that and maybe see even more of an increase

in > your framerates. > > Kyle > > Thanks Kyle, I'll do that. I also found out, I don't need a whole bunch of cars shown in the front and rear. bluestringer

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bjs2nt$lhr$[email hidden]... > You have an XP1800 and a 5200 Ultra and you seriously expect anyone to > believe those claims..???? > > In computer world matey there are some things which just cant happen dueto

Quoted text (16 lines)

> absolute impossibility. > For example... > > a) You cant get PC133 ram to run at 5000mhz...why not...? Coz its > impossible. > > b) Nascar 2003 on max everything with 32 bit and with AA and Aniso enabled > cannot run at those frames per second with that pc....why not...? Coz its > impossible. > > That pc could be o/c and it couldnt do it. The limiting factor is the > 5200U,and the sooner you realise that you have a slow low end card the > better.Does it not dawn on you that in the range 5900U is at the top and

can > do those figures you suggest.Then we come DOWN to 5800 models...andthrough > the range we then come upon a lower model called the 5600....and then just > for the people who cant afford much they chuck in a 5200 range. > > Even for the simplest of people i think its easy to grasp that the 5200 isa

Quoted text (8 lines)

> low end card capable of moderate performance.Mated with a VERY low end cpu > you have VERY moderate performance. > > Nascar 2003 at those settings you say would need XP2500+ with a 5600U > approx.A very well setup XP2200 with a very good graphic card would also > suffice. > > So bluestringer,unless you like looking silly,just say the truth next

time.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Unless you really thought no-one here knew anything about > computers/fps/hardware > > To prove i know what i am saying...you could get your pc to run those > figures if you did the usual tweaking steps. > > AA and Ani off > Vsync off > 16 bit not 32 bit > and move up to 1280x1024 > > Then you get a little more detail due to the upping of the res to slightly > offset the drops.It wont look alot different,and its nicer to average

70fps > while driving than 30fps and looking good.If you enjoy driving you cantsee > the beauty much at 200mph :) > > AD > > Son, you don't know me, and I don't know you, so don't try to insult my intelligence. I know what I can do with MY computer. I know about tweaks and stuff, I work on PC's. Like I said, that's the performance I'm getting with the card on MY system, if you don't believe it, then that's fine. I don't have to prove it to anyone, but I could if I had to. I don't know what your problem is, maybe you spent a bundle on a high end card and can't tweak your PC to get the best out of it. I, after extensive research and testing bought the card that would give me the best price/perfromance for my system. So, believe what you want, I'm gonna race and grin. bluestringer

"bluestringer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CDr8b.427$[email hidden]... > "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bjs2nt$lhr$[email hidden]... > > ..???? > Son, you don't know me, I wouldn't worry too much about Aidee, he's just kid who gets bored easily. Aidee's actually pretty helpful on certain topics as with most people here, but unfortunately tact isn't one of his skills ;-) Your card is not the top of the line as I'm sure you knew when you bought it. The improvement you were so impressed by was in comparison with your old hardware, which at the end of the day is what really counts. Very few people buy cutting edge hardware, but an awful lot of kids read about it & like to regurgitate the info like it's Top Trumps or something ;-) Malc.

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Hjs8b.2824$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "bluestringer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:CDr8b.427$[email hidden]... > > "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:bjs2nt$lhr$[email hidden]... > > > > ..???? > > > Son, you don't know me, > > I wouldn't worry too much about Aidee, he's just kid who gets bored

easily. > Aidee's actually pretty helpful on certain topics as with most peoplehere, > but unfortunately tact isn't one of his skills ;-) > > Your card is not the top of the line as I'm sure you knew when you bought > it. > The improvement you were so impressed by was in comparison with your old > hardware, which at the end of the day is what really counts. Very fewpeople > buy cutting edge hardware, but an awful lot of kids read about it & liketo > regurgitate the info like it's Top Trumps or something ;-) > > Malc. > > Thanks Malc. Good point. bluestringer

OK, that makes sense. You said in your first post that everything was maxed out which I think is why some didn't believe you. 42 front & back would be maxed out settings. Have fun! -Tim "bluestringer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2E98b.1257$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Just curious, what was your prior video card and what is your cpu speed? > Do > > you have NR2003 set with 43 cars visible in the front and 43 visible in > the > > rear? > > > > -Tim > > > Prior card was a GF4 MX440. I don't have that many cars visible, 25

front, > 15 rear I think. Don't really need that many cars visible. I did noticethat > changing the mirror quaility did not have much effect on the FPS. CPU isAMD > XP1800 T'bred. > > bluestringer > >

"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > OK, that makes sense. You said in your first post that everything wasmaxed > out which I think is why some didn't believe you. 42 front & back wouldbe > maxed out settings. > > Have fun! > > -Tim Yea, I guess some people would see it that way. I don't think having all the cars showing front and back does anything for the quality of how the sim looks. I should have said I have all the quality settings maxed out. I'll try it and see what it does to the FPS. bluestringer