Go Back   Rage3D » Rage3D Discussion Area » Archived Discussions » Radeon Technical Support
Rage3D Subscribe Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Radeon Technical Support Radeon technical support forum for all Radeon products from the classic Radeon to the latest cutting edge family of graphics cards.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Sep 8, 2002, 10:43 PM   #1
Advertisement (Guests Only)

Login or Register to remove this ad
SmuvMoney
Radeon R600
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 627
SmuvMoney is still being judged by the masses


Unhappy Increased 3DMark2k1 performance but no increase in game performance?

I purchased a Radeon 9700 OEM from newegg.com. Last Tuesday, it finally arrived. I replaced my Gainward Geforce 3 TI 200. However, it seems that my performance has not increased where it counts - within games. Before I explain, here is my present setup:

AMD Athlon XP 1900+ w/ Glaciator-Lite HSF
EPoX 8KHAL KT266A DDR Retail Motherboard
Transcend PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 768 MB (512 MB, 256 MB)
IBM Deskstar 60GXP 7200 RPM UDMA100 60 GB Hard Drive
Pioneer 16x/40x DVD
Plextor Plexwriter 24x/10x/40x CD-RW Retail
SB! Live Sound Card
3COM V.90 PCI Hardware Modem
3COM 3c905c-TX EtherLink PCI NIC
SuperPower KS201 Steel Tower w/ 300 W Power Supply
Windows XP Home (no SP1 yet)

Here are the programs I'm using to compare performance:

3DMark2001SE: This benchmark hasn't given me any problems. With my Gainward TI 200, I couldn't break 7000 without overclocking. With OC, I get around 7500. With my Radeon 9700, I get around 10500 easily, but I have similar setups get 11000-12000 without overclocking the PC. I am unsure where I could have missed the boat.

Quake 3 Arena: I run a high detail config with everything pretty much on. With my Gainward TI 200, I get around 150 FPS on demo four @ 1024x768. If I overclock, I can get to 160ish. For some reason, with the Radeon 9700, I don't get any higher running that same config. I had seen at least one Radeon review and a personal account where demo four ran @ 190-200 FPS. In fact, the fellow sent me his config - he was running a very similar setup as well. His config got 203 on his machine. The same config on my machine got 160-165 (a 20% drop). I am at a loss as to why there is such a discrepancy for the same chip speed, OS, and card. I could see a 10% fluctuation but over 15% seems unusual. My point is that this card should not be bested or tied by a Geforce 3 TI 200 under almost any circumstance.

The only good (yet unusual) part of this is that the Radeon 9700 seems to scale so well that I can use max quality detail in OpenGL and turn on 2x FSAA and AF and lose 1-2 FPS max. This scaling continues into 1152x864 and even a little into 1280x1024 (r_mode 7 & 8 for you Quake buffs). Using this does make the game look a lot nicer, but I was hoping for a significant FPS boost as well.

Unreal Tournament: Running the thunder.dem (from Reverend's UT site), wicked400.dem, and wicked405.dem, both cards demoed in the 85-90 FPS in OpenGL for thunder.dem. The values for the other demos were pretty much identical. I know UT is a lot more CPU limited than Quake 3, but I was expecting at least a small increase using the same config. I don't see any difference between the games in terms of FPS, but that may be more to CPU limitation. As with Quake 3, the game does look nicer in general from what I have seen.

I have tried many things to improve the FPS performance. I have reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled XP twice in the last 5 days. None of this has had any effect. I have moved around RAM and taken out PCI cards. None of this had any noticeable effect. I have turned off services like indexing and other "useless" services. I have been looking in the BIOS for things I might have missed. I have the BIOS set to run AGP 4X with fast writes disabled and Aperture = 128 MB.

I don't want to sound like a whiner as other people are having more serious problems with Radeon 9700 at the moment. However, for as much money as I paid for this card, I was expecting a whole lot more considering how good my TI 200 had treated me.

My questions would be:

- Am I CPU limited by the Radeon 9700?
- Is there any reason why I am running seemingly 15-20% below similar setups?
- Am I just SOL?

Thank you for your time whomever replies to this. I am at a complete loss after trying to improve the performance for 5 days. The card is presently in my machine and I hope to solve/improve the situation soon. Thanks again.
__________________
Peace & God Bless,

$muvMoney
John 14:27 & Numbers 6:24

Athlon 64 3500+ 939 | Epox 9NDA3+ | 1 GB Corsair XMS RAM | Gigabyte X800 XT PE | Audigy 2 ZS | Samsung SATA 120 GB HD
3com Etherlink 3C905C-TX | USR 56K PCI Modem | Thermaltake Tsumani Case | Thermaltake Silent Purepower 410W PSU
SmuvMoney is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 10:48 PM   #2
kakarot
Radeon Caribbean Islands
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United States Boston
Posts: 4,041
kakarot is still being judged by the masses


Default

Did you do a clean install of windows when replacing the cards? Also are you running any VIA 4in1's? The R9700 really shines when you run at 4xAA and 16x aniso
kakarot is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 10:53 PM   #3
mAcOdIn
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,560
mAcOdIn is still being judged by the masses


Default

I know I'll probably get attacked for this but alot of games ran around the same for both radeon 9700 and geforce4 at 1024x768. Like kakarot said the cards main strength is allowing you to turn on ansio and FSAA at that resolution and still be above the performance of said geforce4.
mAcOdIn is offline  
Advertisement (Guests Only)
Login or Register to remove this ad
Old Sep 8, 2002, 10:58 PM   #4
A176
Radeon R300
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 187
A176 is still being judged by the masses


Default

Disable V-Sync and what not...then try upgrading your system to something faster The FPS could be due to system limitations
A176 is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:00 PM   #5
Boke
Near Dark
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 874
Boke is still being judged by the masses


Default

I doubt that mAcOdIn... as you are correct. At 1024x768 there will be very little difference in speed... unless you use 6x FSAA and max anisotropy on both cards.
Boke is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:07 PM   #6
Bigus Dickus
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: You know, I've seen some damn long descriptions of where people live, and I was just wondering how freakin' long of a location they actually allow you to write in here. Looks like it's quite a bit. Oh well, if the space is here I'll use it!!! :)
Posts: 1,701
Bigus Dickus is still being judged by the masses


Default

Skimmed through the post, so I apologize if I missed these...

Did you do a clean OS install?

If not, did you completely remove NV drivers with Detonator Destroyer or something similar? (this is one common problem)

Do you have the Via 4-in-1's installed?
__________________
Those who fear the facts shall forever try to discredit the fact finders - Daniel C. Dennett

IMO, Mr. Derek Smart is a hypocrite: Only someone who is either (a) lying (b) ashamed of their products (c) just plain ashamed, would hestitate to give out some simple and straight forward information. - Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Bigus Dickus is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:08 PM   #7
cveale
Troll Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Earth (Atlanta, GA)
Posts: 791
cveale is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by mAcOdIn
I know I'll probably get attacked for this but alot of games ran around the same for both radeon 9700 and geforce4 at 1024x768. Like kakarot said the cards main strength is allowing you to turn on ansio and FSAA at that resolution and still be above the performance of said geforce4.
And it's GPU performance which is about 2-3 times more powerful than the GeForce4 in synthetic test. Next gen games should really increase the gap between the 4600 and the 9700 even at 1024x768. It really seems that most people dont really understand what "CPU limited" means either.
__________________
"Roof-pig! Most unexpected."

"Happy me, I'm the biggest, brightest ball of gas in the cosmos."

P4 2.53 - o'clocked to 2.75 (fsb 147)
512 MB Corsair 3200 Cas2
Radeon 9700 Pro
Gigabyte GA-8SG677 motherboard
Intel Pro 100 net card
this sig was automatically shortened to meet the 10-lines max rule
cveale is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:22 PM   #8
ciparis
Radeon R520
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 424
ciparis is still being judged by the masses


Default

CPU limited. You were CPU limited at those resolutions already; the 9700 isn't going to change that. If you make things more demanding on the vid card, the 9700 gives you a massive framerate increase.

Btw, the quickest test to see if you're CPU limited is to add features (AA etc) or increase resolution. If your FPS does not change, then you are CPU limited at that lower res - keep going up until the FPS drops, and then back down to the highest res / AA level that still gives you the FPS you want.
__________________
Kryten: Sir, a class A enforcement orb can easily outrun us.
Lister: Kryten, the Eastbourne zimmer-frame relay team can easily outrun us. It's not about speed it's about wit, brains and cunning.
Kryten: Hmm, I was hoping it wouldn't come to that sir.

Last edited by ciparis : Sep 8, 2002 at 11:26 PM.
ciparis is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:22 PM   #9
Crisler
SAPPHIRE PR REP
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United States Carbondale, IL
Posts: 7,909
Crisler can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultyCrisler can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default

The real shining power of the 9700 is it's ability to run high res with full features and little to no slowdown. It is not until higher powered systems that the real speed of the card begins to shine.

Basically set your games at 1280x1024, turn up the FSAA and the AF, make sure the games detail levles are set to max, now enjoy your game the way the designer wanted it to look.

Edward
Crisler is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:30 PM   #10
mAcOdIn
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,560
mAcOdIn is still being judged by the masses


Default

Yep, unfortunately I'm stuck playing at 1024x768 but I can now do it with 16tap and 6xFSAA, and later on as I upgrade the card will be there to waiting to show the rest of it's power. Here's a good comparison for ya both of these are mine

These tests were both done with 4tap and 4xfsaa
geforce: 2814 points
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4398659
and Radeon 9700: 8287 points
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4400063

Now with a geforce4 it'll be closer than that but the radeon'll still whoop it. And I've got a fairly slow cpu for this card as do you unfortunately,so either up the res or turn on all features or do both, and then you'll see why the purchase was justified.
mAcOdIn is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:31 PM   #11
SmuvMoney
Radeon R600
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 627
SmuvMoney is still being judged by the masses


Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by kakarot
Did you do a clean install of windows when replacing the cards? Also are you running any VIA 4in1's? The R9700 really shines when you run at 4xAA and 16x aniso
I mention that I reformatted and reinstalled XP twice. The Radeon was in the machine at the time. This had NO effect for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by mAcOdIn
I know I'll probably get attacked for this but alot of games ran around the same for both radeon 9700 and geforce4 at 1024x768. Like kakarot said the cards main strength is allowing you to turn on ansio and FSAA at that resolution and still be above the performance of said geforce4.
I wouldn't have that much of a problem if my previous card was a Geforce 4. However, my previous card was a Gainward Geforce 3 TI 200. That kind of bothers me considering the present price of a Geforce 3 versus the 9700. Granted, the performance with FSAA and AF at that resolution also speaks for itself. My ultimate concern is that other users with similar setups are getting 15%-20% more performance in 3DMark and Quake 3.

Quote:
Originally posted by A176
Disable V-Sync and what not...then try upgrading your system to something faster The FPS could be due to system limitations
I have disabled V-synch (I keep it off always). I have thought about upgrading the CPU or even the motherboard (and rebuilding the machine). However, this still does not explain why my performance seems to lag behind others of the same class.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
Skimmed through the post, so I apologize if I missed these...

Did you do a clean OS install?

If not, did you completely remove NV drivers with Detonator Destroyer or something similar? (this is one common problem)

Do you have the Via 4-in-1's installed?
I did 2 clean OS installs (format HD, reinstall XP). During both reinstalls, the Radeon card was present. Even though I have put the Geforce 3 in for more testing since the second one, it seems that the performance was no different from before I did the first format/reinstall.

I installed the 442s for my Epox motherboard after both reinstalls. I also updated the BIOS as I have that on floppy.

Quote:
Originally posted by cveale
And it's GPU performance which is about 2-3 times more powerful than the GeForce4 in synthetic test. Next gen games should really increase the gap between the 4600 and the 9700 even at 1024x768. It really seems that most people dont really understand what "CPU limited" means either.
I'm not going to assume that this comment was directed at me, I didn't think I could be CPU limited after looking at Tom Hardware's Radeon 9700 guide. He has a small section on CPU scaling where it seems that a P4 1.6 GHz would do pretty well with a 9700. Between that and the stats of another 9700 user, I didn't think I'd be (potentially this) CPU limited let alone receiving the same performance in games that I do for the TI 200.

Thank you everyone for your fast replies. I barely blinked before comments came in. I apologize for the length of this post, but I didn't want to put in 6 replies back to back. Thanks again.
__________________
Peace & God Bless,

$muvMoney
John 14:27 & Numbers 6:24

Athlon 64 3500+ 939 | Epox 9NDA3+ | 1 GB Corsair XMS RAM | Gigabyte X800 XT PE | Audigy 2 ZS | Samsung SATA 120 GB HD
3com Etherlink 3C905C-TX | USR 56K PCI Modem | Thermaltake Tsumani Case | Thermaltake Silent Purepower 410W PSU
SmuvMoney is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:43 PM   #12
mAcOdIn
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,560
mAcOdIn is still being judged by the masses


Default

well whats a similar config? With those games even a small FSB increase can give ya a good boost so if they're running a slightly oc'ed system they could maybe still beat ya, but I think the reall issue is optimization.
Try doing this and see if ya get better performance. Right click on your hard drive icon in my computer and choose properties. Unselect "allow indexing service to index ......." and choose apply, it'll unindex your drive and come up with some that aren't accesible when that pops up hit "ignore all", also changing your network cards speed from auto select to 10mn half duplex can sometimes fix alot of problems. Why I have no clue.

Edit- Also maybe your ram timings are too relaxed in your bios you could lower some of them(lower is faster). Also set your agp aperature to 128 and if there's an option to enhance agp performance enable that. All these are in the bios. A good bios setup can make alot of difference in games.
mAcOdIn is offline  
Old Sep 8, 2002, 11:53 PM   #13
T2k
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,963
T2k is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SmuvMoney

I'm not going to assume that this comment was directed at me, I didn't think I could be CPU limited after looking at Tom Hardware's Radeon 9700 guide. He has a small section...
Jeeeez, do somebody still pay attention for that rat?

One of the most disgusting, most biased, ugly dishwasher...

Good advice: forget him & his 'reviews', dude.
T2k is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 02:07 AM   #14
OpenGL guy
ATI Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 938
OpenGL guy is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: Increased 3DMark2k1 performance but no increase in game performance?

Quote:
Originally posted by SmuvMoney
My questions would be:

- Am I CPU limited by the Radeon 9700?
No. You are CPU limited by your CPU.
Quote:

- Is there any reason why I am running seemingly 15-20% below similar setups?
Dunno. Are your AGP drivers working properly? Make sure you are using AGP 4x for best performance (until you get an AGP 8x motherboard anyway).
OpenGL guy is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 06:43 AM   #15
hairyyak
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 337
hairyyak is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: Increased 3DMark2k1 performance but no increase in game performance?

Quote:
Originally posted by SmuvMoney
I purchased a Radeon 9700 OEM from newegg.com. Last Tuesday, it finally arrived. I replaced my Gainward Geforce 3 TI 200. However, it seems that my performance has not increased where it counts - within games. Before I explain, here is my present setup:

AMD Athlon XP 1900+ w/ Glaciator-Lite HSF
EPoX 8KHAL KT266A DDR Retail Motherboard
Transcend PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 768 MB (512 MB, 256 MB)
IBM Deskstar 60GXP 7200 RPM UDMA100 60 GB Hard Drive
Pioneer 16x/40x DVD
Plextor Plexwriter 24x/10x/40x CD-RW Retail
SB! Live Sound Card
3COM V.90 PCI Hardware Modem
3COM 3c905c-TX EtherLink PCI NIC
SuperPower KS201 Steel Tower w/ 300 W Power Supply
Windows XP Home (no SP1 yet)

Here are the programs I'm using to compare performance:

3DMark2001SE: This benchmark hasn't given me any problems. With my Gainward TI 200, I couldn't break 7000 without overclocking. With OC, I get around 7500. With my Radeon 9700, I get around 10500 easily, but I have similar setups get 11000-12000 without overclocking the PC. I am unsure where I could have missed the boat.

Quake 3 Arena: I run a high detail config with everything pretty much on. With my Gainward TI 200, I get around 150 FPS on demo four @ 1024x768. If I overclock, I can get to 160ish. For some reason, with the Radeon 9700, I don't get any higher running that same config. I had seen at least one Radeon review and a personal account where demo four ran @ 190-200 FPS. In fact, the fellow sent me his config - he was running a very similar setup as well. His config got 203 on his machine. The same config on my machine got 160-165 (a 20% drop). I am at a loss as to why there is such a discrepancy for the same chip speed, OS, and card. I could see a 10% fluctuation but over 15% seems unusual. My point is that this card should not be bested or tied by a Geforce 3 TI 200 under almost any circumstance.

The only good (yet unusual) part of this is that the Radeon 9700 seems to scale so well that I can use max quality detail in OpenGL and turn on 2x FSAA and AF and lose 1-2 FPS max. This scaling continues into 1152x864 and even a little into 1280x1024 (r_mode 7 & 8 for you Quake buffs). Using this does make the game look a lot nicer, but I was hoping for a significant FPS boost as well.

Unreal Tournament: Running the thunder.dem (from Reverend's UT site), wicked400.dem, and wicked405.dem, both cards demoed in the 85-90 FPS in OpenGL for thunder.dem. The values for the other demos were pretty much identical. I know UT is a lot more CPU limited than Quake 3, but I was expecting at least a small increase using the same config. I don't see any difference between the games in terms of FPS, but that may be more to CPU limitation. As with Quake 3, the game does look nicer in general from what I have seen.

I have tried many things to improve the FPS performance. I have reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled XP twice in the last 5 days. None of this has had any effect. I have moved around RAM and taken out PCI cards. None of this had any noticeable effect. I have turned off services like indexing and other "useless" services. I have been looking in the BIOS for things I might have missed. I have the BIOS set to run AGP 4X with fast writes disabled and Aperture = 128 MB.

I don't want to sound like a whiner as other people are having more serious problems with Radeon 9700 at the moment. However, for as much money as I paid for this card, I was expecting a whole lot more considering how good my TI 200 had treated me.

My questions would be:

- Am I CPU limited by the Radeon 9700?
- Is there any reason why I am running seemingly 15-20% below similar setups?
- Am I just SOL?

Thank you for your time whomever replies to this. I am at a complete loss after trying to improve the performance for 5 days. The card is presently in my machine and I hope to solve/improve the situation soon. Thanks again.
Does seem a bit strange. My set-up is:-
Epox 8kHA+, Athlon XP 2100+, 256MB DDR2100, Radeon 9700 etc.

And my 3D Mark went from 8000 to 12000. Although I did have a Radeon 8500 before.

And I have a seen a vast improvement in games.
__________________
HELP! HELP! It's only a rabbit.
hairyyak is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 08:25 AM   #16
divisionbell
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 200
divisionbell is still being judged by the masses


Default

Why do people buy this card expecting huge FPS gains if they leave their card at the same setting as their last card?

The power of this card, people, is CRANKING UP EVERYTHING AND STILL RUNNING SMOOTH AS SILK!!!
__________________
P4 1.6a @ 2.4
Asus P4B266-c
512 Mushkin DDR333
Radeon 9700
SB Live Plat. 5.1
Maxtor 40 Gig ATA 133 7200RPM
Antec Smart Power 350
Lite On 40X CDR, Asus 52X CD-ROM
****IF I HAVE PROBLEMS, I HAVE ALREADY CHECKED WITHOUT OVERCLOCKING*****
divisionbell is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 11:26 AM   #17
The_PrEtEnDeR
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 21
The_PrEtEnDeR is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by divisionbell
Why do people buy this card expecting huge FPS gains if they leave their card at the same setting as their last card?

The power of this card, people, is CRANKING UP EVERYTHING AND STILL RUNNING SMOOTH AS SILK!!!

ROFLMAO OOOoooKaaayyy Whatever you say...
__________________
-ICE- PrEtEnDeR

Main rig atm is:
Abit BD7ii-R [email protected]
512mb c2 pc3200 XDR
9700 pro ++ many others
SB sudigy Plat
2x100gig JB SE's in raid0
1x20gig 1x40gig ++
this sig was automatically shortened to meet the 10-lines max rule
The_PrEtEnDeR is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 11:34 AM   #18
karlotta
they are real
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: oregon
Posts: 2,697
karlotta is still being judged by the masses


Default

what ever... The_PrEtEnDeR,, That is what my 9700pro does for me. It lets me play my games at1600/1200 6xAA and 16xAF with all the settings max!! but some new games i have to leave the settings at med.
karlotta is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 11:41 AM   #19
ragingWS6
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Posts: 1,808
ragingWS6 is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: Increased 3DMark2k1 performance but no increase in game performance?

Quote:
Originally posted by SmuvMoney
I purchased a Radeon 9700 OEM from newegg.com. Last Tuesday, it finally arrived. I replaced my Gainward Geforce 3 TI 200. However, it seems that my performance has not increased where it counts - within games. Before I explain, here is my present setup:

AMD Athlon XP 1900+ w/ Glaciator-Lite HSF
EPoX 8KHAL KT266A DDR Retail Motherboard
Transcend PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 768 MB (512 MB, 256 MB)
IBM Deskstar 60GXP 7200 RPM UDMA100 60 GB Hard Drive
Pioneer 16x/40x DVD
Plextor Plexwriter 24x/10x/40x CD-RW Retail
SB! Live Sound Card
3COM V.90 PCI Hardware Modem
3COM 3c905c-TX EtherLink PCI NIC
SuperPower KS201 Steel Tower w/ 300 W Power Supply
Windows XP Home (no SP1 yet)

Here are the programs I'm using to compare performance:

3DMark2001SE: This benchmark hasn't given me any problems. With my Gainward TI 200, I couldn't break 7000 without overclocking. With OC, I get around 7500. With my Radeon 9700, I get around 10500 easily, but I have similar setups get 11000-12000 without overclocking the PC. I am unsure where I could have missed the boat.

Quake 3 Arena: I run a high detail config with everything pretty much on. With my Gainward TI 200, I get around 150 FPS on demo four @ 1024x768. If I overclock, I can get to 160ish. For some reason, with the Radeon 9700, I don't get any higher running that same config. I had seen at least one Radeon review and a personal account where demo four ran @ 190-200 FPS. In fact, the fellow sent me his config - he was running a very similar setup as well. His config got 203 on his machine. The same config on my machine got 160-165 (a 20% drop). I am at a loss as to why there is such a discrepancy for the same chip speed, OS, and card. I could see a 10% fluctuation but over 15% seems unusual. My point is that this card should not be bested or tied by a Geforce 3 TI 200 under almost any circumstance.

The only good (yet unusual) part of this is that the Radeon 9700 seems to scale so well that I can use max quality detail in OpenGL and turn on 2x FSAA and AF and lose 1-2 FPS max. This scaling continues into 1152x864 and even a little into 1280x1024 (r_mode 7 & 8 for you Quake buffs). Using this does make the game look a lot nicer, but I was hoping for a significant FPS boost as well.

Unreal Tournament: Running the thunder.dem (from Reverend's UT site), wicked400.dem, and wicked405.dem, both cards demoed in the 85-90 FPS in OpenGL for thunder.dem. The values for the other demos were pretty much identical. I know UT is a lot more CPU limited than Quake 3, but I was expecting at least a small increase using the same config. I don't see any difference between the games in terms of FPS, but that may be more to CPU limitation. As with Quake 3, the game does look nicer in general from what I have seen.

I have tried many things to improve the FPS performance. I have reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled XP twice in the last 5 days. None of this has had any effect. I have moved around RAM and taken out PCI cards. None of this had any noticeable effect. I have turned off services like indexing and other "useless" services. I have been looking in the BIOS for things I might have missed. I have the BIOS set to run AGP 4X with fast writes disabled and Aperture = 128 MB.

I don't want to sound like a whiner as other people are having more serious problems with Radeon 9700 at the moment. However, for as much money as I paid for this card, I was expecting a whole lot more considering how good my TI 200 had treated me.

My questions would be:

- Am I CPU limited by the Radeon 9700?
- Is there any reason why I am running seemingly 15-20% below similar setups?
- Am I just SOL?

Thank you for your time whomever replies to this. I am at a complete loss after trying to improve the performance for 5 days. The card is presently in my machine and I hope to solve/improve the situation soon. Thanks again.
I had the Epox 8KHA+ on my 2000+ system for a while and my 1900+ system has the 8KHAL MB. They both had identical components (except for the sound cards and processors). I noticed that when I took the 2000+ and put into the 8KHAL, that performance was no where near what I could achieve on the 8KHA+ system. I still have no idea why. I did this when I had 2 8500 128MB retail boards. I think you are definitely CPU limited at that resolution, without a doubt. But, I think your problem lies in that motherboard, just because of my experience. The only reason I haven't replaced the 8KHAL is because the 8KHA+ died and I bought the 8K3A+ to replace it (instead of upgrading that MB).
__________________
Gaming System: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate, Intel Core i7-2600k @ 4.7GHZ, Swiftech Apogee XT waterblock with custom watercooling kit in Corsair Obsidian 800d case, 8GB Corsair XMS3-1600 RAM, Asus P8P67 Pro MB, 2xEVGA GTX460 1GB FTW in SLI (900/2075), 2x150GB WD Velociraptor 10,000RPM 3.0gb/s 16mb cache in RAID 0, Coolermaster Real Power Pro 850W PSU
HTPC System: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate, AMD Athlon64 X2 5400+, 4 GB OCZ PC6400 RAM, EVGA GeForce 9600GSO, 320GB Seagate SATA HD, ECS GeForce 8200 MB
ragingWS6 is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 11:58 AM   #20
ViperZ
Radeon R300
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SK. Canada
Posts: 182
ViperZ is still being judged by the masses


Default

I think it's rediculious to have to reinstall an OS for a piece of graphical hardware... I can see that it might make a sliver of difference in performance, but a night and day difference?

Are you guys serious?
__________________
Rigs
ViperZ is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 12:36 PM   #21
LLB
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 304
LLB is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ViperZ
I think it's rediculious to have to reinstall an OS for a piece of graphical hardware... I can see that it might make a sliver of difference in performance, but a night and day difference?

Are you guys serious?
Personally I think it's overkill to do a reinstall just for a graphics card, although maybe for debugging purposes it could be usefull.
I have never done a reinstall for a graphics card, going all the way back to the original Voodoo card.

LLB
LLB is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 01:06 PM   #22
ViperZ
Radeon R300
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SK. Canada
Posts: 182
ViperZ is still being judged by the masses


Default

Debugging when all else fails I can understand...
__________________
Rigs
ViperZ is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 03:00 PM   #23
Nazgul
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Minas Morgul
Posts: 1,946
Nazgul is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by LLB
Personally I think it's overkill to do a reinstall just for a graphics card, although maybe for debugging purposes it could be usefull.
I have never done a reinstall for a graphics card, going all the way back to the original Voodoo card.

LLB
I've done a reinstall on occasion with a new video card, especially if I'm switching manufacturers, as the driver clutter gets a bit much. Then again, it doesn't take me long to get XP reinstalled on this thing and have all my stuff installed, so it's not a big deal for me. Of course, I tweak and try different drivers and other such stuff, so my system tends to get a bit confused quicker than many people's.
__________________
"The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. 'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade."
Nazgul is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 03:03 PM   #24
mAcOdIn
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,560
mAcOdIn is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nazgul
I've done a reinstall on occasion with a new video card, especially if I'm switching manufacturers, as the driver clutter gets a bit much. Then again, it doesn't take me long to get XP reinstalled on this thing and have all my stuff installed, so it's not a big deal for me. Of course, I tweak and try different drivers and other such stuff, so my system tends to get a bit confused quicker than many people's.
With 98se I would always reformat/reinstall but with XP I don't need to as much. I've only reinstalled XP 3 times 2 for mobo swaps(a very good idea especially when swapping chipsets) and then for my 9700, but only cause of SP1. I've noticed no issue's with my radeon 9700 before or after the format that make a difference. If you know how to clean the registry you should be fine, but if after that it still refuses to work then yeah, a format might be a good idea.
mAcOdIn is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 03:06 PM   #25
ragingWS6
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Posts: 1,808
ragingWS6 is still being judged by the masses


Default

When I had Windows 98 or ME, everytime I got a new video card I would do a reinstall because the OS just sucked. I have been running this install of XP Home for almost 8 months, which is probably a record. I have a spare 20GB ATA/133 HD just to see if I would do a full reinstall if it would matter performance wise, and it never does make a difference, so I don't anymore. But, when I get my next MB (nForce2) with my Barton, I will do that.
__________________
Gaming System: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate, Intel Core i7-2600k @ 4.7GHZ, Swiftech Apogee XT waterblock with custom watercooling kit in Corsair Obsidian 800d case, 8GB Corsair XMS3-1600 RAM, Asus P8P67 Pro MB, 2xEVGA GTX460 1GB FTW in SLI (900/2075), 2x150GB WD Velociraptor 10,000RPM 3.0gb/s 16mb cache in RAID 0, Coolermaster Real Power Pro 850W PSU
HTPC System: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate, AMD Athlon64 X2 5400+, 4 GB OCZ PC6400 RAM, EVGA GeForce 9600GSO, 320GB Seagate SATA HD, ECS GeForce 8200 MB
ragingWS6 is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 03:11 PM   #26
mAcOdIn
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,560
mAcOdIn is still being judged by the masses


Default

Hey a tip for you xp owners that some people might not think about. When doing a reinstall don't activate it until your sure it's running great and has been tested. Ive only activated XP 3 times and already I can't do it over the internet anymore, now MS was cool about it and the guy let me activate but if your really gutting your system hold of on activating till your sure. And yes XP rocks compared to 98/me best 130 bucks I ever spent for software.
mAcOdIn is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 03:14 PM   #27
omar96
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: United States Earth
Posts: 267
omar96 is still being judged by the masses


Default

Switching either from ATi to nV or from nV to ATi, I've always had to install drivers 2-3 times to get them to "take" to the system and kick up performance. After that, reinstall your AGP driver if you're running VIA, AMD, or SIS. I've never had to reinstall an OS for a graphics card...sometimes it's easier to do though.

Besides, my ATi Rage 128 gets me through the night. Or not.
__________________
w00t!
omar96 is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 05:38 PM   #28
Silentst2000
Radeon Southern Islands
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,956
Silentst2000 is still being judged by the masses


Default

Yes you are cpu limited. Yes you sould follow the uninstall guide for nvidia drivers and what not. Yes you should install the latest 4-in-1 if you havn't already. And Yes you should check your memory timings in bios and make sure they arn't ****ed up which could explain the drop in perf. (Remember...when you are cpu limited everything counts)
__________________
P4 [email protected][]Abit IC7[]2x [email protected](420ddr)[]Retail ATi 9700 PRO zero tweaks[]Creative Audigy2 []Liteon 32x12x40 burner[]Asus 52x (S520/A)[]Antec 480 TruPower[]800JB
Silentst2000 is offline  
Old Sep 9, 2002, 10:56 PM   #29
SmuvMoney
Radeon R600
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 627
SmuvMoney is still being judged by the masses


Talking Thanks for your help so far...gotta start tweaking/OCing...

I wanted to thank everyone for all their advice so far. I have set my card for AGP 4x as verified by PowerStrip and CPU-Z. I am in the midst of downloading XP SP1 so I can't do any real optimization tonight. I do plan to tweak and (re) update my BIOS, VIA drivers (v4.42), and ATI drivers in the immediate future as well as attempt to slightly the memory voltage and CPU voltage to allow some FSB overclocking. I do especially want to look at my memory timings, but this BIOS for some reason is giving me grief if I don't set some key settings to auto. I am unable to boot XP if i change certain memory settings that I have seem (missing/corrupt ntfs.sys even though the file exists and is from the XP CD). I will update this during the week and post my progress in reducing my CPU/motherboard limitations. Thanks again everyone.
__________________
Peace & God Bless,

$muvMoney
John 14:27 & Numbers 6:24

Athlon 64 3500+ 939 | Epox 9NDA3+ | 1 GB Corsair XMS RAM | Gigabyte X800 XT PE | Audigy 2 ZS | Samsung SATA 120 GB HD
3com Etherlink 3C905C-TX | USR 56K PCI Modem | Thermaltake Tsumani Case | Thermaltake Silent Purepower 410W PSU
SmuvMoney is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chrome 3 Out, JavaScript Performance Increased 150% since V1 Android1 Front Page News 0 Sep 16, 2009 12:11 PM
Will An Increase In RAM Increase Game Performance? Supercross General Hardware 15 Sep 13, 2003 11:36 AM
6025: 3dmark2k1 increase or decrease? game performance? fLeM911 AMD Radeon Discussion and Support 5 Feb 1, 2002 01:02 PM
DMA checked off --> increased performance?? chelupa Radeon Tweaking, Modding, and Overclocking 5 Nov 13, 2000 07:58 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright ©1998-2011 Rage3D.com
Links monetized by VigLink