Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Hardware Induces FPS Woes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New Hardware Induces FPS Woes.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like I should be seeing better framerates from my (partially) new hardware. This is the system:
    • AMD Athalon 64 3200+ @ 2.0ghz (socket-939) running off a 1000mhz FSB
    • 1GB CAS2.5 DDR400
    • Radeon 9600 128MB on AGP8X bus
    Ingame settings:
    • Textures: High
    • World Detail: High
    • Characters: Normal
    • Physics: Low
    • Dynamic Mesh LOD: Highest
    • Decal Stay: High
    • Character Shadows: Full
    • Decals: On
    • Dynamic Lighting: On
    • Detail Textures: On
    • Coronas: Off
    • Trilinear Filtering: Off
    • Projectors: On
    • Foliage: Off
    • Weather Effects: Off
    • Sound: 3D Sound
    • System Driver: Off
    • Reduce Mouselag: On
    Driver settings:
    • AA: 2X
    • AF: 4X
    • Trueform: Off
    • Vsync: Off

    Now, with Vsync off - as mentioned above - my framerates in Rankin vary from 120 to 35, depending where I am. They also will spike intermittently, both upwards and downwards - but only for a frame or two. It's quite annoying.

    Now, with Vsync on, they're much more steady... but still not what I should be seeing. They range between 40 and 50 fps in Rankin, wtihout the spiking. However, mouselag is sometimes noticable even with reduce mouselag on.

    Any ideas?

    #2
    AA and AF lag the game, and are prolly causing those spikes

    i only use AA and AF when i want to use dumpframes, in which case i use AA6x and AF 16x, on a 9600XT 128, and with a 2500+ barton

    Comment


      #3
      man- your video card - a plain 9600- SUCKS.
      Its a big bottleneck with aa and af enabled.

      Do yourself a big favor: 9800 pro for $99 (at time of post).
      http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...FC-AFFIL&sku=C
      **EDIT- NOW OUT OF STOCK!!!!**

      check this comparison- 9600 is near BOTTOM of chart in ut2004. YUCK
      http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...charts-05.html

      Comment


        #4
        Yeah, I understand that the 9600 is a bottleneck; it's one of the components I brought over from my old system. However, shouldn't I be seeing better framerates, even with that bottleneck?

        Comment


          #5
          check this comparison- 9600 is near BOTTOM of chart in ut2004. YUCK- 6th from bottom.
          http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...charts-05.html
          9800 pro is 6th( or 8th- cpu limited at that setting) FROM THE TOP- WOOT!

          try turning off AA and AF and see if it helps.

          Comment


            #6
            What video resolution you set to?
            and still try turning off aa and af

            Comment


              #7
              Running 2xAA and 4xAF with a 9600np can't be good. Run with both AA and AF off, most settings low - that way you can at least keep the res at 1024x768. You're expecting far too much from that card...

              Comment


                #8
                I use to run a 9600 also and it just plain sucks for UT. Just about all my settings had to be set to medium for any decent frame rates. Turn AA and AF off that card definally can't handle it. I am upgraded to a BFG 6800 GT last summer and now I can run the game at 8AA and 16AF and get 85 FPS in ONS online.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Im sensing a pattern here
                  9600=:down:

                  let us know if turning off aa and af helped.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I think your card should do a bit better .But at the chart you can see your card does bad at aa/af. I wold recommend ati 9800 pro .

                    Edit : yes running with aa / af off should do a real difference .

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by bemymonkey
                      Running 2xAA and 4xAF with a 9600np can't be good. Run with both AA and AF off, most settings low - that way you can at least keep the res at 1024x768. You're expecting far too much from that card...
                      :up:

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Okay, then I'll go for another upgrade. However, I'd rather not buy ATI.

                        Anyone know where I can get that GeForce FX 5950U for a similar pricing to the 9600? It seems almost identical in all benchmarks.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          get a 6600 GT, forget that

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Is it true, if youre Ut2k4-Settings are at High/Normal that the game will load a-lill-bit longer then if youre settings are at Normal/Low?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I can't find any comprehensive videocard benchmarks that include that card (6600 GT.)
                              Originally posted by ]M[-SiLv3rJaX-
                              Is it true, if youre Ut2k4-Settings are at High/Normal that the game will load a-lill-bit longer then if youre settings are at Normal/Low?
                              Depends on the RAM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X