Geforce 5900 ultra Low FPS Help!!

[legacy-regen]

System:

p4 2.6 Ghz
Asus p4b533 Motherboard
512 MB ddr ram

I just got a GeforceFX 5900 Ultra 256mb card. I installed the latest diplay drivers: v44.03

No matter what settings I use I only get 46-48 FPS in botmatch. I used to get more than this with my Geforce4 4400.

I am running the latest patch.

Has anyone had similar issues?

[legacy-regen]

Let me clarify a bit...

I am running Windows XP pro.

I get the same fps 46-48 @ 1024x768 in botmatch regardless of the AA and Anisotropic filter settings. What might be causing the bottleneck?

[legacy-Syberdoor]

it might be that botmatch is almost not graficcard related but a cpu benchmark....
you say you got more, was this something like 3 frames more or a severe difference? anyway after patch applying you sometimes get better results only with deleting the ut2003.ini as well as the benchmark inis in ..\Benchmark\Stuff (especially MaxDetails.ini i think)

but do not expect a big change in botmatch... flyby is what to should get the real fps boost...

PS: oh and by the way.. who on earth is interested in damn benchmarks? they are unimportant.. what do you get in game with max details 1600x1200 and 6x AA (and 0x AF coz it sucks and doen't bring any grafical improvements no matter what they say!!!!)

[legacy-Dess]

regen, your problem could come from your PSU. What do you have ?
I have an antec ~460W for my non ultra 5900 and it's faster than my previous ti4600.

[legacy-ned-uk]

Originally posted by Syberdoor
after patch applying you sometimes get better results only with deleting the ut2003.ini as well as the benchmark inis in ..\Benchmark\Stuff (especially MaxDetails.ini i think)


this has worked for a few people. i`d try this first.
its normally best to do a full disk format when changing hardware and start with a fresh install to get the best out of it.

[legacy-mluckey]

Exactly!

If you change your configuration, you have to delete the game configuration files, so the game can reconfigure. This includes any upgrades of drivers. UT2003 will not reconfigure until you tell it to.

Good luck!

[legacy-st_trooper]

Originally posted by Syberdoor
PS: oh and by the way.. who on earth is interested in damn benchmarks? they are unimportant.. what do you get in game with max details 1600x1200 and 6x AA (and 0x AF coz it sucks and doen't bring any grafical improvements no matter what they say!!!!) lol, I bet you still have a GF 2MX.

Everyone benches their system after upgrading. It shows them how much faster their system is in that specific benchmark.

Your example is weak and irrelevant.

[legacy-regen]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I did a fresh Install of Win XP when I installed the card, so I know that's not the issue.

I have a 350 Watt Power Supply.

If I turn of AA and Anisotropic filtering, I get about 51 fps @ 1024x768 botmatch. With 4x AA and 8 X Aniso I get ~49 fps.

I used to get 60-62 fps @ 1024x768 in botmatch with my Geforce 4 4400. I hope there's not something wrong with my new card :(

[legacy-mluckey]

Let us know how it goes after resetting the UT2003 config files! I'm seriously considering upgrading in a few weeks.

[legacy-regen]

I tried deleting the ut2003.ini as well as the benchmark .ini's. I get the exact same results. :(

[legacy-Dess]

regen, check if your system (in your bios and/or w/ a hardware software like AIDA) has AGP8x, FastWrite and SBA enabled.

[legacy-ned-uk]

Originally posted by regen
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I did a fresh Install of Win XP when I installed the card, so I know that's not the issue.

If I turn of AA and Anisotropic filtering, I get about 51 fps @ 1024x768 botmatch. With 4x AA and 8 X Aniso I get ~49 fps.


Ouch! that does look poor. I get that out of my system below. It must be a setup/config issue. Double check all your bios, hardware etc settings. Try different drivers too. Im still using 30.82 (think thats the number) as the later ones slowed my system . Im not suggesting you go back this far but it may be worth trying a few 40.xx drivers.

[legacy-DeadFish]

http://download.guru3d.com/detonator/

go and get 44.61 drivers that is only for 5900 ultra - a lot of people said that that drivers is much better than 44.03.

I am getting 5900 Ultra tomorrow and i got the exactly the same motherboard as yours anbd the processor too :(

Just hope it is the drivers issue not the card itself.

[legacy-DeadFish]

Oh you got Evga card too? :) i checked the www.evga.com messageboard and i am not sure if it is you that posted same post as here?

[legacy-Syberdoor]

Originally posted by st_trooper
lol, I bet you still have a GF 2MX.

Everyone benches their system after upgrading. It shows them how much faster their system is in that specific benchmark.

Your example is weak and irrelevant.

i have a geforce4 ti4200, and yes I did a benchmark, to be exact 2 times 2dmark 2001 one after fresh install one after installing icq, just to see that icq costs about 1000 pts in Win98only because of systemressource use...

BUT: If i had 23 000 pts and could not play ut properly I would not be happy.. and if I had 3 pts and could play ut I would...
Maybe you noticed that nVidia tells Improvments with ANY of their detonator over previous ones, based on the ut2003 bench... maybe you noticed that most updated dets do not increase ingame fps at all... and maybe you noticed that detonators as well as catalyst drivers are patched especially for benchmarks which means it looks nice and has no effect in game....

SO stopp telling me that a high benchmark score is of ANY importance if the game runs... FIRST thing is to get gaming performance and second is to look for a nice benchmark result....

but I'm not sure if it is useful explaining this to a guy which has his benchmark score right under his name.... *lol*

[legacy-Dess]

Please keep cool guys, no flame... regen just needed help, not a war :/

[legacy-regen]

"Oh you got Evga card too?"

Yeah that was me...

I also tried upgrading to the 44.71 as well as the 44.67 drivers. I got the same exact benchmark scores :(

I put my geforce 4 in to test and was able to get 61 fps on the botmatch. It doesn't make sense that I get more fps with a geforce 4 4400 than a geforce fx 5900. I am frustrated. It kinda sucks paying so much for a video card and getting worse performance than what I had before.

PS: Hey Deadfish: Let me know how your benchmarks go... Maybe I got a bad card...

[legacy-mluckey]

Yeah, it's odd that your new configuration is slower than your old. The 5900 is fast, really fast, and the Ti-4400 is.....not. That alone would tell you something.

I had issues a long time ago, when xp failed to uninstall the previous card (GF3 TI-200). For whatever reason, it still showed it present, even though it had been gone for days. Once that was solved, everthing went O.K. I'm not saying that it's an issue in your case, but that maybe the attention should be turned away from UT2003, and on the hardware itself, mainly into the BIOS and hardware configuration manager.

In the BIOS, you should enable AGP fastwrites, Sidebanding, and at least 256 meg AGP aperture setting. If you have the ability to enable 0 wait state write, then you should. Of course, you should have the transfer rate as high as you can.

[legacy-DeadFish]

ok

i got 5900 today - i could not wait!

So the performance on UT2003 is far MUCH better than before with Ti 4600. I dunno why you got a problem with FTP and 5900?

Ok i use 44.67 as Evga recommended. Have u got that?

[legacy-191]

if you get this problem only with online play, just set the connection typ higher.

[legacy-DeadFish]

I tried the benchmark - a bit better than before - like 5 to 15 more.


BUT the plunge map (worst FPS map ever) it was jerky and a lot of slowdowns with Ti 4600 . But with 5900 - MUCH better, far less slowdowns than before. Even on 1600x1200.

Also - Battlefield 1942 - on 1198x798 something - a bit choppy, etc, even worse on 1600x1200. But with 5900 on 1600x1200 - as smooth as baby's butt!! I can tell the performance on 5900 is much faster than on my Ti 4600.

Did u feel playing games much smoothier than before? if so then your card is fine.

i think benchmark is buggy.

[legacy-regen]

"I had issues a long time ago, when xp failed to uninstall the previous card (GF3 TI-200). "

I did 3 clean XP installs. Each time trying a new set of drivers. 44.03, 44.67, and 44.71 all of them had the same slow performance.

Deadfish,

What fps do you get in botmatch @ 1024x768 with No AA and No Anisotropic filtering?

Also,

Do you have 3dmark03 installed? If so what score do you get? I am interested because we have the same processor and MB and I want to make sure that my Geforce card is not a bad one. If it is I need to return it..

[legacy-DeadFish]

Flyby - 163
Botmatch - 52

Yes - as same as my Ti 4600 but the gameplay is smoother on 5900 than Ti 4600. I would say 50% better.

I still think benchmark is buggy.

[legacy-regen]

Thanks DF.

At least I know it's not a problem with the card itself. The play does seem smoother, I just don't understand the low FPS in the benchmark. Perhaps it is buggy. Maybe someone from Epic or DE knows something about this.

[legacy-Syberdoor]

how much increase is "seems smoother" in fps?

@dess.. I didn't want to make war.. and I tried to help by explaining the "botmatch-thing" but no one wanted to hear...

anyway? you haev an agp 8x mainboard regen?

[legacy-DeadFish]

Nope - We have same MB - Only x2 and x4.


how much increase is "seems smoother" in fps?

Battlefield 1942 - I would say 30 - 40 FPS increase on 1600x1200. Same to Ut2003 but roughly 20 to 25 fps increase on 1600x1200 too.

I want to say that I am very pleased with 5900 cos I used to be annoyed with choppiness problem on Bt1942 on standard resolution not 1600x1200 but now it is smooth.

[legacy-regen]

"seems smoother"

It does seem smoother because I am able to play at 1024x768 @ 4xaa and 8xAniso with about 50-60 fps. Sometimes it drops into the low 20's though, and IMO at 500$ that is not acceptable. Even if I turn off AA and Aniso it still drops into the low 30's, high 20's. THis does not happen with my Geforce 4400. The lowest it drops with that card is ~40 FPS.

[legacy-DeadFish]

Oh - Have you overclocked the 5900?

Normal Geforce 5900 Ultra is 450/800 - E-Geforce which made by Evga can be overclocked to 500/900 without a problem. E-Geforce should be 500/900.

DL Coolbits and install it, then reboot........ - Then go to desktop , right click on it, go to properties , go to settings, go to advanced, go to Geforce tab etc and go to overclocking tab. There you go.

[legacy-regen]

yeah, mine came set to 500/900 as default...

[legacy-DeadFish]

Oh well.

Maybe next drivers will solve the FPS problem.

YOu have FPS problem on UT 2003 only? What about other games?


If just UT2003 then maybe the next patch will improve the FPS....

[legacy-DeadFish]

Oh, seeing that we got same motherboard and processor. Please kindly tell me how to update its drivers? Thanks

[legacy-regen]

"Please kindly tell me how to update its drivers?"

Which drivers do you mean?

[legacy-DeadFish]

Sorry i was not being specific.

The Intel chipset drivers thingy.

Yes I have updated BIOS to 1014.

But Intel?

Thanks

[legacy-regen]

You can get the Intel chipset drivers here:

ftp://aiedownload.intel.com/df-support/5811/eng/infinst_enu.exe

[legacy-DaPlayer1]

I expect that card to perform much better...... i get like 30-35 fps with my nvidia mx400

[legacy-DeadFish]

which resolution?

i meant on 1600x1200 - 32bit - FAAx8, AAx8 etc - ALL on max, highest - get about 30 to 50 fps more. (Altogether - 100fps at most of the time , at bot match, 40 - 60fps depends on which map) Dunno about lower resolution with AA, etc turned off - probably more than 80fps more.

[legacy-regen]

Hey DeadFish,

Some guy over on the eVGA forum has the same MB/Processor we do and gets 74.6 FPS @ 1024x768 in botmatch with no AA.

http://www.evga.com/community/messageboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1316&FORUM_ID=17&CAT_ID=1&Topic_Title=LOW+FPS+in+UT23K+with+eVGA+Geforce+fx+ 5900+Ultra&Forum_Title=GeForce+FX+Family+Forum

Maybe we got bad cards...

[legacy-DeadFish]

Now i got

1600x1200 - AF x8 , AA - 2

Botmatch - 54


better than at 1024x768.

[legacy-Master Marcus]

for you FX 5900 users, do you enable VSync for your 3D gaming, or do you have NO picture tearing at all ??? Just curious to compare your experience with mine on the ATI side ( P4 3.06, Asus P4C800, Radeon 9700 Pro ): everything's running smooth and fine, but I must use VSync whatever the refresh rate ( 85 hz, Direct X and monitor ).

[legacy-DeadFish]

Nope - I have no problem with 5900. With VSync turned on and off.

[legacy-MarkK2003]

Originally posted by regen
System:

p4 2.6 Ghz
Asus p4b533 Motherboard
512 MB ddr ram

I just got a GeforceFX 5900 Ultra 256mb card. I installed the latest diplay drivers: v44.03

No matter what settings I use I only get 46-48 FPS in botmatch. I used to get more than this with my Geforce4 4400.

I am running the latest patch.

Has anyone had similar issues?

do you experience slowdowns on DM plunge? coz maybe u got the same problem as I do with my 9800 pro on UT2003

[legacy-pjoMofo]

Yep. No lie. Bought it, tried it, returned it. My old 32 MB card ran the game better.

[legacy-MarkK2003]

Originally posted by pjoMofo
Yep. No lie. Bought it, tried it, returned it. My old 32 MB card ran the game better.

u returned it?!?!?! WTF?! Why because of one buggy game?
this game is old! Think Doom 3 or HL2!
BTW what's your 3Dmark03 score?
mine 5300

[legacy-DeadFish]

Yep. No lie. Bought it, tried it, returned it. My old 32 MB card ran the game better.

you are mad!! Yes UT2003 is still buggy - And it is not optimised for brand new cards yet. Yes HL2 and Doom3 are just round the corner.

[legacy-Agent-X(UK)]

Im pretty sure its a bug in bechmarking. I remember a big hardware site having a patch to fix it off epic so they could benchmark it properly. I think it was andantech - but NOT 100% certain.
It'll be included in the next patch they said.

[legacy-pjoMofo]

That card made me 'mad'. POS in my opinion. Whatever though...I wasn't planning on upgrading anytime soon so I returned it. The bottom line...if you're gonna upgrade....you gotta do all of it - mobo - processor - mem - video. You can get away with adding memory to boost games but it only goes so far. Need the mobo/processor to work in conjunction with the new video card. The old boards/chips just don't know what to do with em.

>>I'm running an old Athon 800 chip. :D

[legacy-Syberdoor]

I cannot agree to that... a new CPU will be good for 3 years.. a new videocard for one.... so there's no use in upgrading all together...
And it's less expensive if you upgrade and can for example keep your vid card so you only have to spend money on Memory CPU Mainboard... and a little bit later you change vid card only...

[legacy-pjoMofo]

I respect your opinion but in terms of full system functionality - it makes ZERO sense to get a new video card with an OLD system. I tried it and was stupid to do so. Upgrading everything at once - to support the new hardware - is SMART. I was dumb. I've seen and talked to others that have done the same. Friend bought a Radeon 9800 pro for his 1.1 Ghz system. Doesn't work any better than his old video card. You simply need the higher end equipment to reap the benefits. Granted, most can't drop several hundred dollars to update everything at once. But if I could - I would.

[legacy-Syberdoor]

Well see, I have a P4 with 2.53 Ghz... and a Ti4200, Now if Hl2 or something comes out and I wanna play it good looking I need a Better system... Well I do not know what Specs Hl2 needs know, but to take Doom3... It would be a 1Ghz CPU... now there is little sense in updating my Cpu from 2.53 to no Idea 3,2 Ghz then... I do no think those 700Mhz would help... games are a lot moer grafic intensive than cpu intensiv nowadays.

Of Course You are right when you say you cannot put the very best grafixcard into some very old computer and hope for a great effect.... But I think it is a possible method to search the bottleneck, and change it.. so that another thing is the bottleneck... Now if you take your friends computer.. I don't know it, but if it's a 1.1Ghz Duron or Celeron.. and has 256MbRam or something... and you change a gf2 Mx with a Radeon 9800... the bottleneck is changed from videocard to Memory... and you wont get too much improvments...
But if you think how old a 1.1ghz cpu is... I said three years for one cpu.. longer is not possible if you wanna play action games in HQ... And now If he had bought a Radeon 9700Pro.. if it was out he could get a new cpu/mainboard/memory in october for example... keep the videocard and enjoy Hl2

Yeah if you're one of these who buys a Radeon 9800 Pro first, and a Geforce Fx5900 Ultra 2 weeks alter, just because of the 5 Fps more... I think you should upgrade everything at once... If you really can afford, it's certainly the way you get a faster system...

[legacy-Drakeskull]

I have just about the same problem and the same card. The game runs hella good. but my bench is 179fly and 61bot. they used to be 166 66 with my old 4600, but the in game runs alot smoother now.... well the fps are smoother in game but i dont really see the dif. oh and all other games and every thing seem to be playing fine. my 3dmark03 is 5612. i am running a 3000+ and 1024 of pc2700.

[legacy-DeadFish]

Guys - Wait for Det 52.13 or 52.14 or offical release of 52.xx.

[legacy-Drakeskull]

just used new drivers and got some new ram, but the same amount. dang i should have benched before installing both but i didnt. i installed them at the same time. well my scores went up to 210 70

[legacy-DaPlayer1]

i have the latest drivers for my FX5200 and I got an avg. of 43-47 FPS. Not bad...and thinking i was gonna get me the fx5900. 45 FPS compared to 70 FPS when playing isn't much of a difference. lays as smooth as ever...

I don't quite understand why some someone would use 350+ on the 5900 ultra...I'll get me a few stuff with that kinda of $$$ and still be running UT2003 smoothly... Maybe it's for details? Psssh...I tested with my card (maybe it's just my card), but regardless of what settings i have on, the details looked the same. The human eyes can't tell and i have 20/20 vision too..

anyways..i'd expected at least 70 FPS outta a 5900 ultra.

[legacy-If you see kay]

Originally posted by DaPlayer1
I don't quite understand why some someone would use 350+ on the 5900 ultra...I
niether do I
but spending $150 on a 9600 pro and being able to crank every detail to the max,running at a high resolution,6xaa and 16xaf makes the game look TOTALLY different.,which im sure the 9800 would last quite a bit longer and run twice as fast.
I meen really from me going from a fx5200 to a 9600pro feels like jumping 4 yrs into the future of gaming.
Everygame I have I can run maxed out,the 5200 was all normal settings no aa or af and still lagg
like night and day,2k3 is a totally different game now.
it still sucks,but man is it beautiful:up:
the only way i see the 5900u not getting over 70 fps is,slow systems(bottlenecks) or unconfigured improperly(user error)
youd at least need a 2.2 gig and a gig of ddr to see that puppy fly
ut is more dependant on procesor power