Help!!! Ti4600 & XP2000 - Not that fast

From the pixels, bits, and shaders to the graphic cards that power them. Discuss the latest from AMD and NVIDIA here.

Moderators: morphine, SecretSquirrel

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:28 pm

I just upgraded my system to an Athlon XP 2000, with a A7V333 with Samsung 512meg DDR (1 dimm) and a Visiontek Ti4600. Playing RTCW I see about 85fps, and about the same in Counterstrike. My friend gets 100 in CS on a GF3 and a high end K7. Any ideas? I'm running Windows 2000 Professional. I just read the P4 2.4ghz shootout, and they were talking 258fps (is that real?).. I'm getting nowhere near that, but I'd at least expect more than my friends K7

-- Mylo
mylo
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Mylo

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:36 pm

What resolution, depth, &c?
murray
Gerbil XP
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:38 pm

I've tried a variety.. with and without AA. If I bump up to extremely high res and 4x AA, my FPS drops to 40's. But on 640x480x16.. I expect more than 85
mylo
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Mylo

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:43 pm

doh! *slaps head*
85 should have run a bell with me the first time. I'm betting you have vsync on and that's your monitor's refresh rate. If you turn it off you can see the nice high benchmark happy numbers, otherwise, you might as well leave it on. It should look nicer, and in reality you aren't getting more frames than your refresh rate anyways.

edit: random missing letters

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: murray on 2002-04-02 19:44 ]</font>
murray
Gerbil XP
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 9:18 pm

Interesting.. I tried playing with the r_swapInterval option.. which according to this page:

http://www.3dspotlight.com/tweaks/wolfe ... cw-3.shtml

Controls whether vsync is on or off.. Interestingly it was "off" when I was getting 85-90fps. I turn it "on" and now I get 60.

The monitor refresh may still be the problem though, since I've heard Win2k has a problem dropping to the lowest refresh (in this case 60hz) available. Since I'm using the new drivers, and the nvrefresh fix doesn't work with them.. I'm unable to fix it at a higher level.

This still doesn't explain why I'm only getting 90fps with it OFF.

-- Mylo
mylo
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Mylo

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:06 pm

WindowsXP does not understand "optimal" video refresh rates.

For DirectX, you can over-ride the default (60Hz) refresh by doing Start-Run-DXDIAG, then selecting the "More Help" tab and clicking on "Override". You can set one refresh rate for all Direct3D modes. So, if I have set mine for 100Hz, that is great for most of the resolutions that I use, up to 1280x1024, but at 1600x1200 or 1920x1440, my monitor loses sync because it can only handle those resolutions at lower refresh rates. This fix does not seem to work with some OpenGL games. RtCW may have its own setting (I saw it in a ReadMe somewhere).

The best solution seems to be PowerStrip, which lets you set lock in custom refresh rates for every resolution.
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15589
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:46 pm

It is a thing with RTCW, what u have to do is change the max fps limit. To change it, go to the executable, (right click on it) where it says target and it should say "C:Program FilesReturn to Castle WolfensteinWolfMP.exe" all you have to do is add +set com_maxfps 500 to the end of it so it looks like this. "C:Program FilesReturn to Castle WolfensteinWolfMP.exe" +set com_maxfps 500.

That should take care of it. Oh yeah, that works for Quake 3 as well.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dan@imprezion on 2002-04-02 22:49 ]</font>
dan@imprezion
Gerbil
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Delaware

Postposted on Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:55 pm

BOO YA.. YOU RULE... 189fps baby

Thanks!
-- Mylo
mylo
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Mylo

Postposted on Wed Apr 03, 2002 11:34 am

Glad to help... but even those 189fps wont help you get away from my sniper rifle...
dan@imprezion
Gerbil
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Delaware

Postposted on Wed Apr 03, 2002 11:50 am

Wowza.. 325fps... I turned on the vsync, and it's obviously slower (@ 85fps) but seems cleaner. Maybe it's time for me to get a faster monitor. Setting the refresh rate in my wolfconfig_mp.cfg file did actually override windows default 60hz, but the most my monitor can do is 85hz. Looks like that's definately my bottle neck at this point. The only question is, where can I get a 300hz monitor :wink: hehehe

Thanks again,
-- Mylo

p.s. Bring on your sniper rifle :smile: I'm a medic! I'M INVINCABLE!
mylo
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Mylo

Postposted on Thu Apr 04, 2002 1:01 am

As far as I know, isn't 85hz about as high as most monitors go?
absurdity
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: VT

Postposted on Thu Apr 04, 2002 1:05 am

Actually.. I installed PowerStrip, and locked it down at 100hz (at 1024x768).. anything higher stopped at 85hz. I turned on AAx2 and I get exactly 100fps all the time :smile:

I have a Dell (Sony) P990 19" monitor.

-- Mylo
mylo
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Mylo

Postposted on Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:01 am

I have used Powerstrip to set my refresh rates to 100Hz for 1280x1024 and lower. Above that, the monitor's bandwidth limits the refresh rates to 85Hz for 1600x1200, 75Hz for 1920x1080, 70Hz for 1920x1200, and 60Hz for 1920x1440. The ViewSonic PF815 is a bit old. Some newer monitors have more bandwidth. I don't see much difference in 640x480 at 100Hz vs. 160Hz, so I've stuck with 100Hz.
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15589
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Postposted on Fri Apr 05, 2002 5:42 pm

you miht consider the fact that if you clock your monitor too high it could burn out.
AENIMA
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Oregon.

Postposted on Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:15 pm

You don't need refresh rates to be much higher than 85hz.. If your card can display 85fps my recomendation would be to increase the resolution. 1600x1200 at 85hz/85fps should be a lot better than 500+fps at 640x480. :smile:
gyrfalcon
Gerbil
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Wed Apr 10, 2002 11:21 pm

an interesting fact is that your eyes dont actually see more than 90 frames inna second!!!
AENIMA
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Oregon.

Frames and what the eye can see...

Postposted on Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:15 pm

This is kinda like pro audio equipment debates: saying what you can and can not hear... And maybe if you can't see it, you'll know if it's missing. ;)

But you're mostly right about 90fps, no matter how much higher you go diminishing returns result.
gyrfalcon
Gerbil
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Fri Apr 12, 2002 4:38 am

Wowza.. 325fps... I turned on the vsync, and it's obviously slower (@ 85fps) but seems cleaner.


Except, he can obviously tell.
Rambar
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 4:32 am

Postposted on Fri Apr 12, 2002 9:46 am

Rambar wrote:
Wowza.. 325fps... I turned on the vsync, and it's obviously slower (@ 85fps) but seems cleaner.


Except, he can obviously tell.


Hah! Well at 85hz he can't ;) I think he just likes the 325fps displayed in the corner of his screen.
gyrfalcon
Gerbil
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:00 pm


Return to Graphics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests