Radeon 9800 Pro, still sucking

I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD to try and get this card working better, but it just does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel what does everyone else set the setting to. It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, i know this card should work better than this. The system again. Clean install of XP pro 1gig PC800 2.53 P4 audigy 2 120gig HD momo 9800 Pro.

Have you played with any bios settings ? Try turning fast writes on or off setting agp aperture settings lower to 32 or 64 to force textures to stay on the cards memory. set setting agp to 4x you should be screaming with that setup. I get 80 to 100+ with my 9700pro on an AMD/Via system though. I run 1600x1200 2xfsaa 8x anisotropic and turn shadows off. Good luck to ya "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > to try and get this card working better, but it just > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > what does everyone else set the setting to. > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > i know this card should work better than this. > > The system again. > Clean install of XP pro > 1gig PC800 > 2.53 P4 > audigy 2 > 120gig HD > momo > 9800 Pro. > >

Hi M, I just did a quicky test with my ATI 9700 Pro, Cat 3.1 drivers. Turn off forced 16x Anistropic filtering and set it to Application Preferences. My reasoning... My A7N8X, XP2700+, 512MB, 8xAGP at 1280x1024x32 had these results at Martinsville with 42 AI cars (and other settings to suit my CPU). No FSAA, No forced Anis = ~60fps 6x FSAA forced = ~43fps, with a low of ~30fps in a crash. 6x FSAA forced, 16x Anis forced = 27fps in the pit. Thank you for having me try this test -- I found that 1280x1024 x6 FSAA looks mighty nice and runs well too :-) Jason. "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > to try and get this card working better, but it just > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > what does everyone else set the setting to. > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > i know this card should work better than this. > > The system again. > Clean install of XP pro > 1gig PC800 > 2.53 P4 > audigy 2 > 120gig HD > momo > 9800 Pro. > >

Are you sure that you have Vsync set to 'Always off'? Apologies for suggesting this, but such a drastic loss of fps simply points to Vsync. In the D3D control panel, I have optimized everything for quality: forcing 4xFSAA and 8xAniso (i.e. 'Application Preference' unchecked), Vsync 'Always off', Truform 'Always off'. 'Texture Preference' and 'Mipmap Detail Level' both set to 'High Quality'. You don't really need something like Rivatuner for the ATI as its control panel gives you access to the most important settings. Although RivaTuner still works for overclocking the ATI (at least the latest version does). Which driver version are you installing with your 9800? Achim "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > to try and get this card working better, but it just > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > what does everyone else set the setting to. > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > i know this card should work better than this. > > The system again. > Clean install of XP pro > 1gig PC800 > 2.53 P4 > audigy 2 > 120gig HD > momo > 9800 Pro. > >

mjones wrote: > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. Tweak3D (or something) from www.rage3d.com, your one stop site for most ATI related stuff Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

There's a known slow-down bug with XP SP1, and a fix is available from microsoft. It's not publically available but should be easy to find on the net. rms

Just read a review and the 9800 pro is slower than the 9700 and the ultra, you may be fighting a loosing battle :( "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8rUja.169$[email hidden]... > There's a known slow-down bug with XP SP1, and a fix is available from > microsoft. It's not publically available but should be easy to find onthe > net. > > rms > >

Mind post a link to the review? Thanks G Patricks

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 14:57:56 GMT, "jwilson54" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Just read a review and the 9800 pro is slower than the 9700 and the ultra, >you may be fighting a loosing battle :( >"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8rUja.169$[email hidden]... >> There's a known slow-down bug with XP SP1, and a fix is available from >> microsoft. It's not publically available but should be easy to find on >the >> net. >> >> rms >> >> >

I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drives and do a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. If you had searched here, you also would have found threads where I discussed my installation of a Radeon 9700 Pro and how it gave the same or lower fps as a GeForce 4. However, you can run anti-aliasing and other goodies with no fps hit on the Radeon where it will kill the fps on a GeForce 4. Lesson: if your FPS is low to start with, likely because CPU power is lacking, the Radeon won't help to boost it. The Radeon and the GeForce 4 should not be affected much by resolution or colour depth. Older cards would crumple under the strain of 32 bit colour or 1600 x 1200 resolution. There are about 25 control panel settings that will adjust fps in a game and there are about 30 settings in NR2003 that will affect NR2003. List EVERY single option choice in the game and in Windows Display settings and several of us here may be able to help you to either adjust or realise that the fps you are getting is "normal" for your set-up. Since there are about 7 billion combinations and permutations, if you do not list every single setting and option then it's just guess work and you get lots of so-called experts telling you to wipe your system and start over--which is BS advice. Anything that may be affecting the new video card negatively such as left-over crap from nVIDIA, etc., can be removed easily without wiping your system. Also, unless you installed a bunch of crap beyond the drivers themselves, it won't make a lick of difference whether you uninstall it or not in XP. XP will use the proper driver and ignore the old ones until you put the old card back in. Bottom line: you cannot build a system today that will run NR2003 with all the eye candy on at 32-bit 1600x1200 resolution and have a decent frame rate. Put your GeForce 4 back in and wait for the next gen. of video cards to come along. Marc "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > to try and get this card working better, but it just > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > what does everyone else set the setting to. > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > i know this card should work better than this. > > The system again. > Clean install of XP pro > 1gig PC800 > 2.53 P4 > audigy 2 > 120gig HD > momo > 9800 Pro. > >

In certain situations a windows re-install can be done much faster than tracking down whats causing the root issue. And you get the added benefit of knowing you are starting clean. I know for certain I can have a squeaky clean install of XP in 2 hours. You are not giving any guarantees that you could do similar using the standard troubleshooting process. As Morris said he's already done a clean install and the issue still remains so your point is mute.. "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6LYja.157$[email hidden]... > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drives anddo

Quoted text (19 lines)

> a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. > > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. > > If you had searched here, you also would have found threads where I > discussed my installation of a Radeon 9700 Pro and how it gave the same or > lower fps as a GeForce 4. However, you can run anti-aliasing and other > goodies with no fps hit on the Radeon where it will kill the fps on a > GeForce 4. Lesson: if your FPS is low to start with, likely because CPU > power is lacking, the Radeon won't help to boost it. > > The Radeon and the GeForce 4 should not be affected much by resolution or > colour depth. > > Older cards would crumple under the strain of 32 bit colour or 1600 x 1200 > resolution. > > There are about 25 control panel settings that will adjust fps in a game

and > there are about 30 settings in NR2003 that will affect NR2003. List EVERY > single option choice in the game and in Windows Display settings andseveral > of us here may be able to help you to either adjust or realise that thefps > you are getting is "normal" for your set-up. Since there are about 7 > billion combinations and permutations, if you do not list every single > setting and option then it's just guess work and you get lots of so-called > experts telling you to wipe your system and start over--which is BSadvice. > Anything that may be affecting the new video card negatively such as > left-over crap from nVIDIA, etc., can be removed easily without wipingyour > system. Also, unless you installed a bunch of crap beyond the drivers > themselves, it won't make a lick of difference whether you uninstall it or > not in XP. XP will use the proper driver and ignore the old ones untilyou

Quoted text (7 lines)

> put the old card back in. > > Bottom line: you cannot build a system today that will run NR2003 with all > the eye candy on at 32-bit 1600x1200 resolution and have a decent frame > rate. > > Put your GeForce 4 back in and wait for the next gen. of video cards to

come

Quoted text (39 lines)

> along. > > Marc > > "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > > to try and get this card working better, but it just > > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > > what does everyone else set the setting to. > > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > > i know this card should work better than this. > > > > The system again. > > Clean install of XP pro > > 1gig PC800 > > 2.53 P4 > > audigy 2 > > 120gig HD > > momo > > 9800 Pro. > > > > > >

Marc's reference to the permutations with Nascar graphic settings etc is also BS. Most if not nearly all users will do the 3D Config at the beginning and leave it alone because the game uses this to make the best compromise for the users hardware. It's not a competition i know but 2 hours for a complete format is a v max.The backed up stuff takes no time now. AD

The latest PC World has a short piece on the Radeon Pro 9800 and how it is not meeting expectations. They are speculating that the drivers are screwed up. But this is ATI, they NEVER have driver problems :) Larry "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > to try and get this card working better, but it just > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > what does everyone else set the setting to. > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > i know this card should work better than this. > > The system again. > Clean install of XP pro > 1gig PC800 > 2.53 P4 > audigy 2 > 120gig HD > momo > 9800 Pro. > >

Yeah, 'acquired' that fix as well. It did indeed help boot times and _certain_ applications. Mainly those that move around large chunks of data. I don't have the address with me, but it is available 'out there'. Damn Microsoft and the hoops they make you go through to get these patches. I'm so tired of their 'Contact Microsoft Support' horseshit when it comes to these things. Larry "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8rUja.169$[email hidden]... > There's a known slow-down bug with XP SP1, and a fix is available from > microsoft. It's not publically available but should be easy to find onthe > net. > > rms > >

I re-image every 6 months whether I need it or not. You never realize how much Windows Rot is slowing you down because it happens so gradually until you start fresh again. Of course this affects people who do a lot of experimentation (installs/removals of software, hardware, etc..) than others. I do a LOT of experimentation. Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:n8_ja.1885$[email hidden]... > In certain situations a windows re-install can be done much faster than > tracking down whats causing the root issue. And you get the added benefit > of knowing you are starting clean. I know for certain I can have asqueaky > clean install of XP in 2 hours. You are not giving any guarantees thatyou > could do similar using the standard troubleshooting process. > > As Morris said he's already done a clean install and the issue stillremains > so your point is mute.. > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6LYja.157$[email hidden]... > > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drivesand

Quoted text (8 lines)

> do > > a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's > > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. > > > > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. > > > > If you had searched here, you also would have found threads where I > > discussed my installation of a Radeon 9700 Pro and how it gave the same

or > > lower fps as a GeForce 4. However, you can run anti-aliasing and other > > goodies with no fps hit on the Radeon where it will kill the fps on a > > GeForce 4. Lesson: if your FPS is low to start with, likely because CPU > > power is lacking, the Radeon won't help to boost it. > > > > The Radeon and the GeForce 4 should not be affected much by resolutionor > > colour depth. > > > > Older cards would crumple under the strain of 32 bit colour or 1600 x1200 > > resolution. > > > > There are about 25 control panel settings that will adjust fps in a game > and > > there are about 30 settings in NR2003 that will affect NR2003. ListEVERY

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > single option choice in the game and in Windows Display settings and > several > > of us here may be able to help you to either adjust or realise that the > fps > > you are getting is "normal" for your set-up. Since there are about 7 > > billion combinations and permutations, if you do not list every single > > setting and option then it's just guess work and you get lots of

so-called

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > experts telling you to wipe your system and start over--which is BS > advice. > > Anything that may be affecting the new video card negatively such as > > left-over crap from nVIDIA, etc., can be removed easily without wiping > your > > system. Also, unless you installed a bunch of crap beyond the drivers > > themselves, it won't make a lick of difference whether you uninstall it

or > > not in XP. XP will use the proper driver and ignore the old ones until > you > > put the old card back in. > > > > Bottom line: you cannot build a system today that will run NR2003 withall

Quoted text (46 lines)

> > the eye candy on at 32-bit 1600x1200 resolution and have a decent frame > > rate. > > > > Put your GeForce 4 back in and wait for the next gen. of video cards to > come > > along. > > > > Marc > > > > "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > > > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > > > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > > > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > > > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > > > to try and get this card working better, but it just > > > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > > > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > > > > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > > > what does everyone else set the setting to. > > > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > > > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > > > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > > > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > > > > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > > > > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > > > i know this card should work better than this. > > > > > > The system again. > > > Clean install of XP pro > > > 1gig PC800 > > > 2.53 P4 > > > audigy 2 > > > 120gig HD > > > momo > > > 9800 Pro. > > > > > > > > > > > >

The word is "moot" and the fact that the problem remains proves my point nicely. Marc "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:n8_ja.1885$[email hidden]... > In certain situations a windows re-install can be done much faster than > tracking down whats causing the root issue. And you get the added benefit > of knowing you are starting clean. I know for certain I can have asqueaky > clean install of XP in 2 hours. You are not giving any guarantees thatyou > could do similar using the standard troubleshooting process. > > As Morris said he's already done a clean install and the issue stillremains > so your point is mute.. > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6LYja.157$[email hidden]... > > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drivesand

Quoted text (8 lines)

> do > > a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's > > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. > > > > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. > > > > If you had searched here, you also would have found threads where I > > discussed my installation of a Radeon 9700 Pro and how it gave the same

or > > lower fps as a GeForce 4. However, you can run anti-aliasing and other > > goodies with no fps hit on the Radeon where it will kill the fps on a > > GeForce 4. Lesson: if your FPS is low to start with, likely because CPU > > power is lacking, the Radeon won't help to boost it. > > > > The Radeon and the GeForce 4 should not be affected much by resolutionor > > colour depth. > > > > Older cards would crumple under the strain of 32 bit colour or 1600 x1200 > > resolution. > > > > There are about 25 control panel settings that will adjust fps in a game > and > > there are about 30 settings in NR2003 that will affect NR2003. ListEVERY

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > single option choice in the game and in Windows Display settings and > several > > of us here may be able to help you to either adjust or realise that the > fps > > you are getting is "normal" for your set-up. Since there are about 7 > > billion combinations and permutations, if you do not list every single > > setting and option then it's just guess work and you get lots of

so-called

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > experts telling you to wipe your system and start over--which is BS > advice. > > Anything that may be affecting the new video card negatively such as > > left-over crap from nVIDIA, etc., can be removed easily without wiping > your > > system. Also, unless you installed a bunch of crap beyond the drivers > > themselves, it won't make a lick of difference whether you uninstall it

or > > not in XP. XP will use the proper driver and ignore the old ones until > you > > put the old card back in. > > > > Bottom line: you cannot build a system today that will run NR2003 withall

Quoted text (46 lines)

> > the eye candy on at 32-bit 1600x1200 resolution and have a decent frame > > rate. > > > > Put your GeForce 4 back in and wait for the next gen. of video cards to > come > > along. > > > > Marc > > > > "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > > > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > > > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > > > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > > > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > > > to try and get this card working better, but it just > > > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > > > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > > > > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > > > what does everyone else set the setting to. > > > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > > > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > > > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > > > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > > > > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > > > > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > > > i know this card should work better than this. > > > > > > The system again. > > > Clean install of XP pro > > > 1gig PC800 > > > 2.53 P4 > > > audigy 2 > > > 120gig HD > > > momo > > > 9800 Pro. > > > > > > > > > > > >

What exactly does it prove Marc? In his case (which seems is the exception not the rule) he ruled out many s/w issues in a single swipe. Yes his problems still exists but now we know its liklely hardware related or possibly a bios issue not likely a OS/driver issue. My point was not to argue this case specifically but to say that a clean re-install is quite often necessary in the trouble shooting process. Go ahead argue all you like Mr Expert... <<<-- MUTED "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zs4ka.533$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> The word is "moot" and the fact that the problem remains proves my point > nicely. > > Marc > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:n8_ja.1885$[email hidden]... > > In certain situations a windows re-install can be done much faster than > > tracking down whats causing the root issue. And you get the added

benefit

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > of knowing you are starting clean. I know for certain I can have a > squeaky > > clean install of XP in 2 hours. You are not giving any guarantees that > you > > could do similar using the standard troubleshooting process. > > > > As Morris said he's already done a clean install and the issue still > remains > > so your point is mute.. > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:6LYja.157$[email hidden]... > > > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drives > and > > do > > > a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's > > > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. > > > > > > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. > > > > > > If you had searched here, you also would have found threads where I > > > discussed my installation of a Radeon 9700 Pro and how it gave the

same > or > > > lower fps as a GeForce 4. However, you can run anti-aliasing andother > > > goodies with no fps hit on the Radeon where it will kill the fps on a > > > GeForce 4. Lesson: if your FPS is low to start with, likely becauseCPU

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > power is lacking, the Radeon won't help to boost it. > > > > > > The Radeon and the GeForce 4 should not be affected much by resolution > or > > > colour depth. > > > > > > Older cards would crumple under the strain of 32 bit colour or 1600 x > 1200 > > > resolution. > > > > > > There are about 25 control panel settings that will adjust fps in a

game > > and > > > there are about 30 settings in NR2003 that will affect NR2003. List > EVERY > > > single option choice in the game and in Windows Display settings and > > several > > > of us here may be able to help you to either adjust or realise thatthe

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > fps > > > you are getting is "normal" for your set-up. Since there are about 7 > > > billion combinations and permutations, if you do not list every single > > > setting and option then it's just guess work and you get lots of > so-called > > > experts telling you to wipe your system and start over--which is BS > > advice. > > > Anything that may be affecting the new video card negatively such as > > > left-over crap from nVIDIA, etc., can be removed easily without wiping > > your > > > system. Also, unless you installed a bunch of crap beyond the drivers > > > themselves, it won't make a lick of difference whether you uninstall

it > or > > > not in XP. XP will use the proper driver and ignore the old onesuntil > > you > > > put the old card back in. > > > > > > Bottom line: you cannot build a system today that will run NR2003 with > all > > > the eye candy on at 32-bit 1600x1200 resolution and have a decentframe > > > rate. > > > > > > Put your GeForce 4 back in and wait for the next gen. of video cardsto

Quoted text (44 lines)

> > come > > > along. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > "mjones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > I just don't get it, I've done everything I can, > > > > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled > > > > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS > > > > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting. > > > > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD > > > > to try and get this card working better, but it just > > > > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should > > > > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had. > > > > > > > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel > > > > what does everyone else set the setting to. > > > > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32 > > > > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and > > > > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600 > > > > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso. > > > > > > > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff. > > > > > > > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy, > > > > i know this card should work better than this. > > > > > > > > The system again. > > > > Clean install of XP pro > > > > 1gig PC800 > > > > 2.53 P4 > > > > audigy 2 > > > > 120gig HD > > > > momo > > > > 9800 Pro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Please give us the URL or a few more hints as to where you read it, to help us search and find that review as well. Thanks! Achim "jwilson54" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UfXja.90343$OV.193613@rwcrnsc54... > Just read a review and the 9800 pro is slower than the 9700 and the ultra, > you may be fighting a loosing battle :(...

Could you give us a little more detail? I couldn't find anything on the net or in Microsoft's Knowledge Base. Thanks! Achim "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8rUja.169$[email hidden]... > There's a known slow-down bug with XP SP1, and a fix is available from > microsoft. It's not publically available but should be easy to find onthe > net....

While I personally have not had this bug with my system, here is the link to it. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;815411 Don Burnette Joachim Trensz wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Could you give us a little more detail? I couldn't find anything on > the net or in Microsoft's Knowledge Base. > > Thanks! > > Achim > > > "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8rUja.169$[email hidden]... >> There's a known slow-down bug with XP SP1, and a fix is available >> from microsoft. It's not publically available but should be easy to >> find on the net. > ...

"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6LYja.157$[email hidden]... > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drives anddo > a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. > > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. You're talking shite mate. If you are changing manufacturers - you would be stupid not to reinstall windows to ensure you've cleared out all the old drivers. Furthermore - this holds true for Soundcards and Motheboards DOug

Thanks Don! Achim "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > While I personally have not had this bug with my system, here is the linkto > it. > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;815411

Hi Doug, I don't want to endorse the way Marc expressed his thoughts and I wouldn't want to be as categorical as him, but it's not all shite what he says either. I've carried the same WinME installation with me across 4 motherboards with 3 different chipsets (full AMD, AMD/Via, Nvidia nForce2), 3 different graphics card makes (3dfx, Nvidia, ATI), 4 different soundcards (2xSBLive, Audigy1, Audigy2), lots of different wheels and joysticks I've tested, many software installs and deinstalls, innumerable graphics driver updates, DirectX from I think Dx7, Dx8, Dx8.1, Dx8.1a to Dx9, other HW changes like CD drives, different network cards, different online connections (from plain modem to ISDN card, to ADSL card in Spain to external ADSL in Brussels using the original Enternet, then RASPPPoE, then switching to a Router deinstalling RASPPPoE) - I could make this list a bit longer, but it's long enough to make my point. I've never reinstalled until a few weeks ago (I just thought it's time to clean up), I've always used the same installation. I've properly deinstalled what I could, deleting the inf files, checking the Registry for remnants if necessary, but mainly using Windows uninstaller. I've kept the Registry clean using Ontrack's System Suite's Registry cleaner, which detects a lot of unneeded stuff in the Registry. When switching mobos, I've deleted the entire SystemDevice branch in Window's DeviceManager (preferrably in SafeMode) and then cross checked with a quick glance also in safe mode whether there's still some unwanted hardware registered, and then I've simply installed the new mobo. My system has always been nicely stable, and also fast. I've compared the old install to the new one, and there is no difference in speed nor stability. Both are stable, and equally fast. During these 2.5 years, whenever I'd had problems and people recommended a full reinstall, I later on found out that the problem had nothing to do with my system not being a fresh install, but simply with the new stuff still being buggy, because later updates usually cured the problems. Even when I tried a quick reinstall (without reinstalling the entire environment, just the basic system) for the Audigy1 once, I had to find out that the problems that existed in my full install also existed in the barebone reinstall and had nothing to do with remainders of old stuff still being in the system. A full reinstall has never helped me, as the prob never was within my system, but within the new stuff that didn't work properly for some reason (admittedly, perhaps only in certain environments, but a full reinstall didn't create such an environment either) and I am under the impression that it also doesn't help that many others, from reading the NGs and forums. Now, I know I've given quite a speech here and apologise for that <g> but it simply is a topic I find interesting. Also please believe me that I am not trying to criticise your advice in any way, but my personal experience is as I've described above. Personally, I would suggest a reinstall only as the very last resort, after _loads_ of other options have been tried. I'd never suggest it early on. Achim "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b6rneu$8cso6$[email hidden]... > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6LYja.157$[email hidden]... > > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drivesand

Quoted text (16 lines)

> do > > a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's > > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. > > > > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. > > You're talking shite mate. > > If you are changing manufacturers - you would be stupid not to reinstall > windows to ensure you've cleared out all the old drivers. > > Furthermore - this holds true for Soundcards and Motheboards > > DOug > >

You may not endorse what I said, but I endorse what you said. I agree with it 100%, practise it myself, and have experienced the same results over a similar number of hardware changes and three O/S's. I am an IT professional and do a substantial change and/or upgrade to my system (that happens to run my sims) at least twice a year. I look after a portfolio of about 250 PC's, many of which are used for high-end CAD and 3D rendering purposes. I have found the same thing with them. Sorry to be so categorical, but people who don't have a high knowledge of computers (which is most of us) *shouldn't* be re-installing their operating system at the drop of a hat. I try to help people avoid problems, not create more for themselves. For the few who are knowledgeable out there who choose to do this, good for you. I am asking that you not recommend it to others who don't have your knowledge or capability to deal with all the consequences. You know, I drive a fancy car and bought an after-market sport suspension for it. All the freaks (equivalent to us) at the fan site I belong to laughed because I was asking around where to take the car to have the new parts installed (dealers don't want to do it because technically the warranty is affected, etc., etc.). They all would have done it themselves they said. Just get your friends to do it with you and pay them with a case of beer (preferably after the job was done). Well, this is the equivalent to what is being recommended here. Many of those guys install turbos, change springs, shocks, roll bars, whatever for a hobby. They are tinkering every weekend doing something. I wouldn't attempt to install expensive new springs and shocks on a brand new car myself with NONE of the correct tools if my life depended on it. Let them laugh. My car runs great and it cost me a few bucks to have it done professionally. People who just want to use a computer and have some fun with racing sims don't need to re-install Windows, especially to gain 1 or 2 fps. If there is anything more to be gained than that, then you have some other problem with your installation that needs to be fixed independently. And erasing your computer as a way to fix it is stupid and short-sighted, because if you allowed the botch-up to occur in the first place (unknowingly), you will do it again. Instead, either leave well enough alone or do what Joachim has done and learn how to properly maintain your system. </speech off> Marc "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b6rsqn$89qfl$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hi Doug, > > I don't want to endorse the way Marc expressed his thoughts and I wouldn't > want to be as categorical as him, but it's not all shite what he says > either. > > I've carried the same WinME installation with me across 4 motherboards

with > 3 different chipsets (full AMD, AMD/Via, Nvidia nForce2), 3 different > graphics card makes (3dfx, Nvidia, ATI), 4 different soundcards (2xSBLive, > Audigy1, Audigy2), lots of different wheels and joysticks I've tested,many > software installs and deinstalls, innumerable graphics driver updates, > DirectX from I think Dx7, Dx8, Dx8.1, Dx8.1a to Dx9, other HW changes like > CD drives, different network cards, different online connections (fromplain > modem to ISDN card, to ADSL card in Spain to external ADSL in Brusselsusing > the original Enternet, then RASPPPoE, then switching to a Router > deinstalling RASPPPoE) - I could make this list a bit longer, but it'slong > enough to make my point. > > I've never reinstalled until a few weeks ago (I just thought it's time to > clean up), I've always used the same installation. I've properlydeinstalled > what I could, deleting the inf files, checking the Registry for remnantsif > necessary, but mainly using Windows uninstaller. I've kept the Registry > clean using Ontrack's System Suite's Registry cleaner, which detects a lot > of unneeded stuff in the Registry. > > When switching mobos, I've deleted the entire SystemDevice branch in > Window's DeviceManager (preferrably in SafeMode) and then cross checkedwith

Quoted text (9 lines)

> a quick glance also in safe mode whether there's still some unwanted > hardware registered, and then I've simply installed the new mobo. > > My system has always been nicely stable, and also fast. I've compared the > old install to the new one, and there is no difference in speed nor > stability. Both are stable, and equally fast. > > During these 2.5 years, whenever I'd had problems and people recommended a > full reinstall, I later on found out that the problem had nothing to do

with > my system not being a fresh install, but simply with the new stuff still > being buggy, because later updates usually cured the problems. Even when I > tried a quick reinstall (without reinstalling the entire environment, just > the basic system) for the Audigy1 once, I had to find out that theproblems

Quoted text (7 lines)

> that existed in my full install also existed in the barebone reinstall and > had nothing to do with remainders of old stuff still being in the system. > > A full reinstall has never helped me, as the prob never was within my > system, but within the new stuff that didn't work properly for some reason > (admittedly, perhaps only in certain environments, but a full reinstall > didn't create such an environment either) and I am under the impression

that > it also doesn't help that many others, from reading the NGs and forums. > > Now, I know I've given quite a speech here and apologise for that <g> butit > simply is a topic I find interesting. Also please believe me that I am not > trying to criticise your advice in any way, but my personal experience isas > I've described above. Personally, I would suggest a reinstall only as the > very last resort, after _loads_ of other options have been tried. I'dnever

Quoted text (22 lines)

> suggest it early on. > > Achim > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b6rneu$8cso6$[email hidden]... > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:6LYja.157$[email hidden]... > > > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drives > and > > do > > > a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's > > > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer. > > > > > > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you. > > > > You're talking shite mate. > > > > If you are changing manufacturers - you would be stupid not to

reinstall

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > windows to ensure you've cleared out all the old drivers. > > > > Furthermore - this holds true for Soundcards and Motheboards > > > > DOug > > > > > >

You know what they say about people who "assume" don't ya? Again in "this case" a clean install was a required step in the troubleshooting process. If you support 250 PC's then you wouldnt likely ever need a clean re-install of windows. Of course you have ALL the machines pre-tested before production and backed up using some sort of image based backup and the user data on a raid file server eh.. But then again we arent speaking of 250 PC's but 1. Again my point is supported as why spend 3+ hrs possibly fixing something vs 2 hrs for guaranteed results barring hdw or compat issues of course. He hasnt had any success with this system EVER so his case doesnt apply here. He must make certain steps that HE can do before he can escalate the problem to the mfg or local shop if its really a "problem". /speech off Unfortunately I can't give much advice over what he's tried. Board level diags is whats needed from what I can gather. Triple check sys bios. Maybe work backwards in N2k3, meaning turn off nearly all the graphics and turn each back on till you find the happy medium. Specular highlights is a worthless fps hog. "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > You know, I drive a fancy car and bought an after-market sport suspension > for it. All the freaks (equivalent to us) at the fan site I belong to > laughed because I was asking around where to take the car to have the new > parts installed (dealers don't want to do it because technically the > warranty is affected, etc., etc.). They all would have done it themselves > they said. Just get your friends to do it with you and pay them with acase > of beer (preferably after the job was done). Well, this is the equivalent > to what is being recommended here. Many of those guys install turbos, > change springs, shocks, roll bars, whatever for a hobby. They aretinkering > every weekend doing something. I wouldn't attempt to install expensivenew > springs and shocks on a brand new car myself with NONE of the correcttools

Quoted text (8 lines)

> if my life depended on it. Let them laugh. My car runs great and it cost > me a few bucks to have it done professionally. > > People who just want to use a computer and have some fun with racing sims > don't need to re-install Windows, especially to gain 1 or 2 fps. If there > is anything more to be gained than that, then you have some other problem > with your installation that needs to be fixed independently. And erasing > your computer as a way to fix it is stupid and short-sighted, because if

you > allowed the botch-up to occur in the first place (unknowingly), you willdo > it again. Instead, either leave well enough alone or do what Joachim has > done and learn how to properly maintain your system. > > </speech off> > > Marc

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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> The system again. > Clean install of XP pro > 1gig PC800 > 2.53 P4 > audigy 2 > 120gig HD > momo > 9800 Pro.

As I said in another thread - Papy games like nVidia. N2002 findings recap: XP1800/Ti4200/OGL same performance as XP2400/9700Pro/D3D (which on the whole looks a little sweeter but I get the occasional glitch - never with the Ti4200) The D3D to D3D comparison shows a 20-25% increase, but I got that increase on the 1800 already by using OpenGL. One could safely assume that just "upgrading" the graphics card in the 1800 would have *reduced* performance in N2002. Other games show the sort of improvement you'd expect. I doubt there's anything wrong with your system. Do other games run better? Regards, Mark Davison OVAL Deputy Admin Car #69 http://www.mttj4.plus.com/OVAL/

It's article Q815411. Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b6r5mo$7agjp$[email hidden]... > Could you give us a little more detail? I couldn't find anything on thenet

Quoted text (16 lines)

> or in Microsoft's Knowledge Base. > > Thanks! > > Achim > > > "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8rUja.169$[email hidden]... > > There's a known slow-down bug with XP SP1, and a fix is available from > > microsoft. It's not publically available but should be easy to find on > the > > net. > ... > >

If you have a system with only NR2003 on it, it will take 2 hours. If you use it for a multitude of things, it will take a lot longer and be a lot more annoying. Re-setting-up application software is what takes all the time, not the actual re-install of Windows. You are free to do it. I wouldn't unless it was a last resort and proven to accomplish something--which increasing frame rates it won't. As I said, if you do get a frame rate increase, it's due to something else being out of whack. You can flip between nVIDIA and ATI cards repeatedly in XP so long as you install each one properly with no effect on performance whatsoever compared to a fresh system. Marc "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XWtka.659$[email hidden]... > You know what they say about people who "assume" don't ya? Again in "this > case" a clean install was a required step in the troubleshooting process. > If you support 250 PC's then you wouldnt likely ever need a cleanre-install > of windows. Of course you have ALL the machines pre-tested before > production and backed up using some sort of image based backup and theuser > data on a raid file server eh.. But then again we arent speaking of 250 > PC's but 1. Again my point is supported as why spend 3+ hrs possibly > fixing something vs 2 hrs for guaranteed results barring hdw or compat > issues of course. He hasnt had any success with this system EVER so his > case doesnt apply here. He must make certain steps that HE can do beforehe > can escalate the problem to the mfg or local shop if its really a"problem".

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > /speech off > > Unfortunately I can't give much advice over what he's tried. Board level > diags is whats needed from what I can gather. Triple check sys bios. > Maybe work backwards in N2k3, meaning turn off nearly all the graphics and > turn each back on till you find the happy medium. Specular highlights is

a > worthless fps hog. > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > You know,I > drive a fancy car and bought an after-market sport suspension > > for it. All the freaks (equivalent to us) at the fan site I belong to > > laughed because I was asking around where to take the car to have thenew > > parts installed (dealers don't want to do it because technically the > > warranty is affected, etc., etc.). They all would have done itthemselves > > they said. Just get your friends to do it with you and pay them with a > case > > of beer (preferably after the job was done). Well, this is theequivalent

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > to what is being recommended here. Many of those guys install turbos, > > change springs, shocks, roll bars, whatever for a hobby. They are > tinkering > > every weekend doing something. I wouldn't attempt to install expensive > new > > springs and shocks on a brand new car myself with NONE of the correct > tools > > if my life depended on it. Let them laugh. My car runs great and it

cost > > me a few bucks to have it done professionally. > > > > People who just want to use a computer and have some fun with racingsims > > don't need to re-install Windows, especially to gain 1 or 2 fps. Ifthere > > is anything more to be gained than that, then you have some otherproblem > > with your installation that needs to be fixed independently. Anderasing > > your computer as a way to fix it is stupid and short-sighted, because if > you > > allowed the botch-up to occur in the first place (unknowingly), you will > do > > it again. Instead, either leave well enough alone or do what Joachimhas

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > done and learn how to properly maintain your system. > > > > </speech off> > > > > Marc > >

Thanks Larry. Now if Mr. Wilson would give us the URL to that '9800 slower than 9700' review, we'd all be up to date. Achim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fnJka.58711$[email hidden]... > It's article Q815411. > > Larry