TR Forums

Hockster · Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:51 pm

I've been thinking my system has been performing lower than it should be for a long time. This is because, in most of my games I seem to be getting lower FPS than expected. Take UT2003 for example, my FPS drop as low as 20 sometimes, and average at about 40-50.

Today I am shocked, as I've just read an article over at xbits. It's testing Quake III Arena using the same demo I benchmark it with. They have a 2000MHz Pentium 4 and are using a much worse card than me. Here's the link:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/6-val...p/index2.html#8

At 1024x768, their cards score about 214FPS. I only get 212-220.

So, is my score really low? I mean how does Quake play for all you guys? With me, when I stand still in an empty room my FPS are usually 250, but in action they go to about 150. On some maps with a lot of people they even drop below 100 - 70-90 sometimes! Is this badly low? I play at 1024x768. What's your lowest your FPS ever go when playing in loads of action?

Please help me here - I've been worrying about my system under-perfroming for many months now.

etilena · Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:17 pm

Site reviews usually do their testing on a new system, that is a clean install of Windows, if I'm not mistaken. After installing and uninstalling many apps on Windows, you usually get a performance hit with most programs. I don't know if this is the case for you.

Another thing to note that specs aren't everything. They could be using different drivers that might affect performance and they might have tweaked some stuff before running the games. All highly speculative though. :wink:

Usually play games and as long as you don't feel the lag affecting your gameplay, you shouldn't really worry bout the decrease in performance.

tanker27 · Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:44 am

Hockster if your worried about that score then do not read any articles concerning Doom III. Id expects the average FPS to hover around 30-40 FPS on a GeForce 4. (Also add 5% for the newer cards).

Austin · Sun Jan 26, 2003 9:42 am

Yeah as said the reviewers tend to use a fresh OS which will always be quicker and more efficient than one bogged down by installs, deinstalls, antivirus, firewalls, driver revs etc etc. Also many disable or run with minimal sound and that's before you start to think about all the gfx detail options. QIII is an ancient game mostly left in there as a comparison to cards gone by, a GF3 is more than you need to run QIII very well. Also don't forget you don't get a high end CPU (like P4 2.53ghz) and a high end card (like 4600) to run in 1024x768 without eye candy. Another factor could be that you're running RIMM-PC800 which is roughly equal to DDR333-PC2700, a little behind perf oferred by DDR400-PC3200, Dual DDR or RIMM-PC1066. Use benchmarks as a guide only, in reviews particularly the biggest thing to note is the diff cards (or whatever) used in a review, it's how they compare in the same system and again only a guide to what your system should be capable of if similarly equipped. BTW I don't think that link works ...

pattouk2001 · Sun Jan 26, 2003 12:41 pm

Hi. On Quake 3 at 1024x768x32 I score 325fps. That is with the following hardware:

CPU: AthlonXP 2600+ (333mhz FSB) @ 2.25ghz
VGA: GF4 Ti4600 @ 315/720mhz
Motherboard: Jetway V333U
Memory: TwinMOS PC3200 512mb

eckslax · Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:44 pm

That's a heck of a nice score there. What do you get on 3Dmark?

pattouk2001 · Sun Jan 26, 2003 3:59 pm

Hi. I get the following:

3Dmark2001: 13,703
3Dmark2000: 15,012

I've also had to clock mi CPU back down to 2.16ghz from 2.25ghz, as I was starting to experience some instabilities. 2.16ghz is better than the stock 2.08ghz though, don't you agree, lol?

Are you watching Hockster

?

sativa · Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:26 pm

Hockster in your sig, i noticed you used 512MB PC800 RDRAM with a 2.53GHz P4.

Can that RAM support a 533mhz BUS?

Hockster · Tue Jan 28, 2003 10:37 am

Yes, PC800 RDRAM is definitely allowed with my processor.

pattouk2001: You score 325 on Quake III four.dm66!? I only get 225...so something is DEFINITELY wrong!

Anyway. I just tried Quake III at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and the FPS were awful. They were about 30-50. Now tell me is that bad or not?

Aruna · Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:33 pm

At 1024x768, their cards score about 214FPS. I only get 212-220

Aw... Does that really bug you? It's friggin above 200. All this chestbeating about having a machine that runs q3 at 300+ FPS is insane.. Who really cares (Those l337, 0wn3d y00! fools?)? I run a ATI 8500 at 1280x1024 and get 125FPS all the time. I'd still play the same at 300 or 70. Your eyes aren't going to notice the friggin difference anyway between 100 to 200 FPS. If it really bothers you.. do a fresh install of everything and worry about it.

/rant.

electrorax · Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:42 pm

well depends on the compents dell supplied you with as well. generaly cutting corners means you get generic hardware whereas the boys on this site build their own rigs with the best makes/products available... your motherboard may need new drivers... defrag/fresh install the HD.. BTW what speed does the HD spin?? besides 200fps is crazy nehow... have you got the latest drivers?? if not go to nvidias home page.

electrorax · Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:53 pm

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000355 shows one benefit of having PC1066 RIMMS in your machine if you want the best benchmark results

Hockster · Tue Jan 28, 2003 2:03 pm

Aw... Does that really bug you? It's friggin above 200. All this chestbeating about having a machine that runs q3 at 300+ FPS is insane.. Who really cares (Those l337, 0wn3d y00! fools?)? I run a ATI 8500 at 1280x1024 and get 125FPS all the time. I'd still play the same at 300 or 70. Your eyes aren't going to notice the friggin difference anyway between 100 to 200 FPS. If it really bothers you.. do a fresh install of everything and worry about it.

/rant.

The fact that my system is perfroming worse than it should is really bothering me. For example, if a system was meant to run at 1600FPS, but was only doing 800FPS, what you be worried? I sure would - worried that the sytem is not performing properly. That is the case with me.

Austin · Tue Jan 28, 2003 6:18 pm

Yeah you naturally want to get near the expected perf and money's worth out of your kit, nothing wrong with that. I don't think you're looking to get anything unreasonable but Q3 or 3Dmark in default res without any eye candy isn't going to get close to testing your hw. 4xAA is a bad idea on GF4TI, the perf hit is too big, look to using 2xAA (or QxAA if the game looks good with it) and 4xAF.

:-?

RIMM-PC1066 is no longer the fastest thing, Dual Channel DDR333-PC2700 is WAY faster and still cheaper even though P4 DC-DDR mobos are still highly priced. Normal DDR400-PC3200 is VERY close to RIMM-PC1066 perf but is less constraining when o/c'ing.

KBeee · Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:28 pm

Hey Hockster - try re-running the Q3 FPS test with the sound off. Most hardware sites seem to run grafix tests without the sound.

Hockster · Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:40 pm

That's a good idea, but still no difference it made. I got the exact same FPS: 214. These FPS are bugging me more and more everyday - most reviews getting 270-330FPS with similar system, and pattouk2001 getting 325FPS.

sativa · Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:20 pm

Yes, PC800 RDRAM is definitely allowed with my processor.

I know its allowed, i was just thinking that maybe its forcing you to run at a 400mhz bus OR, your RAM & bus are running way out of sync. 533x1.50093.... = 800, but 533x2 = 1066.

UoMDeacon · Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:35 pm

You're right...it does seem strange that his 2.53GHz proc is equiped with PC800 RAM. I think he needs to check the bus speed that his system is currently running at, as well as get an accurate reading on his proc speed. Because as far as I know, it's impossible to get 2.53GHz off a 400MHz bus. If that is the case, then he needs to bitch to Dell.

sativa wrote:
Yes, PC800 RDRAM is definitely allowed with my processor.

I know its allowed, i was just thinking that maybe its forcing you to run at a 400mhz bus OR, your RAM & bus are running way out of sync. 533x1.50093.... = 800, but 533x2 = 1066.

Hockster · Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:42 pm

Honestly, PC800 RDRAM is just fine for my processor. My processor is running at a 533MHz FSB, just the memory is only running at 400MHz. I've known many tech sites that have done reviews with a 533MHz processor running with PC800 RDRAM - nothing wrong with it at all. Intel didn't actually validate PC1066 RDRAM till a few weeks/months after the 533MHz processors appeared, so they knew people would be using PC800 RDRAM until they validated it.

Anyway, I'd just like to say that I should be reformattnig my computer this weekend. Hopefully that will improve my performance, and also the video driver problem that I've had for a while.

TR Forums

I'm really worried...

I'm really worried...

Mine are...

3Dmark

Who is online