Cavkov Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 wtf that command doesnt work i still got around 10-20 FPS!!! that sucks ... i have intel Graphics 64mb ,....256RAM whats wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdomwinds Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Maybe it's because you have intel card. Also, you need more ram. double or get more ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Indeed, any and all Intel graphics cards are horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy289 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 lol, it's not BS, i can get 500fps with this card: GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB AGP 8x But, i was staring at a wall and crouching, I can get in the high 100s when normally fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurionStormrage Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Emon 8x doesn't offer a very significant increase in performance over 4x. AGP x 8 isn't going to show an improvement over AGP x 4 if the rest of your system is inferior. It makes a HUGE difference if your system can take advatage of the twice-the-speed AGP bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy289 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 Here's my complete system specs: AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (266FSB 256K Cache) 512MB PC2700 DDR RAM 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache HDD 52x/32x/52x CD-RW GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB DDR AGP 8x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Chewy289 Here's my complete system specs: AMD Athlon XP 2400+ 512MB PC2700 DDR RAM 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache HDD 52x/32x/52x CD-RW GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB DDR AGP 8x That's close to my specs, I run a gig of PC3200 DDR RAM and a 2200+ tho. The .2 more mhz don't make a significant difference in gameplay for the $70 more it costs and the $130 for another stick of 512 ram is worth every penny. ;x AGP8X is great...as long as the game can support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy289 Posted October 3, 2003 Author Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Ardent That's close to my specs, I run a gig of PC3200 DDR RAM and a 2200+ tho. The .2 more mhz don't make a significant difference in gameplay for the $70 more it costs and the $130 for another stick of 512 ram is worth every penny. ;x AGP8X is great...as long as the game can support it. 2400+ costs $82 2200+ costs $72 $10 more for 200 more MHz is a good deal I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Chewy289 2400+ costs $82 2200+ costs $72 $10 more for 200 more MHz is a good deal I think... didnt when i was building...maybe i need to buy a new cpu <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by FurionStormrage AGP x 8 isn't going to show an improvement over AGP x 4 if the rest of your system is inferior. It makes a HUGE difference if your system can take advatage of the twice-the-speed AGP bus. Actually, it still doesn't. 8x AGP bus, 8x AGP card, turn it down to 4x, it's not as slow as you'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfire13 Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 My card's a GF4Ti4200 8xAGP with 128M RAM. I can't run it at 8x, though, since my mobo only supports up to 4x. Perhaps that's why I'm getting lower framerates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 CPU is the major factor in OpenGL speed, so how fast is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Emon CPU is the major factor in OpenGL speed, so how fast is yours? Well, it's one of...but you need a lot of things to make OpenGL run quickly. If your machine doesn't run cohesively, as far as OpenGL's concerned it may as well not run. Just a small point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Of course, the same is true for almost anything. But my point is that OpenGL is largely CPU dependant, as opposed to how Direct3D is very GPU dependand. Upgrading from a GF4 to like a Radeon 9x00 won't have a huge difference in some OpenGL apps as would most Direct3D apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Emon Of course, the same is true for almost anything. But my point is that OpenGL is largely CPU dependant, as opposed to how Direct3D is very GPU dependand. Upgrading from a GF4 to like a Radeon 9x00 won't have a huge difference in some OpenGL apps as would most Direct3D apps. Fair enough, but the cohesiveness of the parts inside your box should always be a priority. It's sort of like construction: don't start building before you agree on the final plan, or else it'll take a lot longer to finish the job (and is more likely to be shoddy, to boot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I have experience to prove that. For years, we had built PCs out of scavaged parts to save money, always ran like ****. Once we started building everything from new components... Hey... It works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Emon I have experience to prove that. For years, we had built PCs out of scavaged parts to save money, always ran like ****. Once we started building everything from new components... Hey... It works! I have a cobbled-together and overclocked Mac G4. Runs anything but a web browser like a pile of garbage, but it's an amazing browser machine! Plus it was free, since all the parts were scavenged from the high school's computer lab. I think we've also got a collection of cobbled-together 486s, Pentiums and Pentium IIs around too. We honed our construction skills with leftovers from our high school's computer labs, but now we go to computer fairs and powershop. :x I think the last round of computers (AMD AthlonXP 2200+ on the ASUS A7N8XDeluxe AGP8X mobo with an ASUS 128mb Ti4200 w/120mb Maxtor(? can't remember) 8mb cache HD and 1gig of Samsung PC3200 DDR RAM and nothing special for disk drive/DVD/CD-R drives) ran at $1080. Coincidentally, I'm still using that build for gaming, as it's pretty rabid. I have a new build for AutoCAD, though. Sheesh that mofo is a RAM beast AMD AthlonXP 2800+ on the A7N8XDeluxe 2.0 with ASUS AGP8X Ti4600 @128mb DDR RAM w/ 80mb Maxtor 8mb cache and 1.5gig of Samsung PC3200 DDR RAM. I'm sure it'd crush this machine for gaming, but it's used almost exclusively for CAD work. I've built three of them so far, one for myself and two for local architecture firms. No complaints thus far, although I will say that I hate what passes for BIOS with ASUS. But you go with what's best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I work in neurological rehabilitation, and went through neuro theory in uni... I hope someone a bit tech can confirm this, but I'm fairly sure the optic nerve(that relays visual information to the brain) has its own 'refresh rate'(this is called something different in neurological terms, like a 'gain threshold') Nonetheless, I am almost certain our limited eyes and brain cannot comprehend the true beauty of 300fps+ I think our brain stops nearer to the 150fps mark... but once again I would like someone to confirm this... As for myself, I run on a 64mb Geforce 5200, 1600x1200, all at 32 bit/high/very high/trilinear settings, with dynamic glow off and I get a crisp 80-100 fps, and have the monitor to match it via refresh rate. Its just amazing for me(compared to my old computer ). I havent even bothered dumbing things down to clock up the fps to ridiculous speeds, and I'm a performance junkie !! MTFBWYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samus Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 As for myself, I run on a 64mb Geforce 5200, 1600x1200, all at 32 bit/high/very high/trilinear settings, with dynamic glow off and I get a crisp 80-100 fps, and have the monitor to match it via refresh rate. Its just amazing for me(compared to my old computer ). I havent even bothered dumbing things down to clock up the fps to ridiculous speeds, and I'm a performance junkie !! MTFBWYA What about volumetric shadows? Do you use that? It caps off quite a few frames as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 What about volumetric shadows? Do you use that? It caps off quite a few frames as well. Yeah, I never bother with shadows, OFF they go ! MTFBWYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterSidious Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 What makes good fps THE MOST (100-300)? -processor -graphics card -FSB speed -OS -crazy insane codes that forces the fps to the highest What kind of fps should I expect from this after 2 weeks goes by also 2.8Ghz 800Mhz FSB 512KB Cache Nvidia Geforce FX 5600 Go 128MB 60 GB 7200RPM hd 15.4" 1680*1050 WideSXGA+ Compatible 3d Sound 512MB RAM on Jedi Academy on the min, med., and max settings PLEASE respond to this post, I really want to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfire13 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I'm getting between 30 to 40 fps in most areas. Is this low for my specs? P4 1.8GHZ 1Gig SDR PC-133 SDRAM GF4 Ti4200 128Mb 8x AGP (latest drivers) SB Audigy WinXP I'm running it at 1152x864x32bit with everything on maximum except no anisotropic filtering and simple shadows. Oh, and vsync is off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 That sounds about right Stafire13 since you are running a high resolution with a high texture bit (32). Try running at 1024x768x32 and turn off Force Feedback, turn off shadows completely, and see if that makes a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N3h3bkau Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Originally posted by Emon I have experience to prove that. For years, we had built PCs out of scavaged parts to save money, always ran like ****. Once we started building everything from new components... Hey... It works! Hey... Smartpower 400 Watt PSU Pentium 2 400 (124x4.0 496 MHz) PC133 256 SDRAM Aopen AX63 Pro Rv. 1.0a (bios 1.32) Maxtor 7200 RPM 40 gig Maxtor 5600 RPM 20 gig Vanta AGP 8 Meg Video card (100/85) Built completely from part I got from teachers that had no use for them (minus the hard drives) I still use this as my main system and works good enough for me. I get about 25-35 FPS in multiplayer at Medium settings 800x600 resolution. I plan on getting a GF4 MX440 64meg for $30 from a friend as a temp upgrade until I finish saving for my college PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfire13 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Thanks, Andy. I'll probably stick to my settings for now anyway, since I'm an eye-candy freak. 30 to 40 fps is enough for me. I just wanted to know if I was getting the performance I ought to have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.