Sartis Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 Well my cpu and graphics card are AMD Athlon 1800XP, 512MB DDR RAM, and Geforce3 Ti 200. I have all graphic setting set up to absolute highest, and I have 2 things I'm wondering. 1. Read in the FAQ that cpu and card could overheat if put higher than 800x600 resolution unless you have 'uber' hardware does mine constitute as uber enough. 2. I seem to be losing FPS on servers on map change, I have to rejoin the server sometimes to get my FPS back up. I lose about 40fps each time this happens. Once went right down to 25fps. Any suggestions. This happened on 1024x768 reso, full setting. Also happened with 800x600. I use the 23.11 drivers from Nvidia. Please help, want to know if I 'over heated' my card playing in 1024x768 thats why I'm having these problems or what...I swear before I was getting full FPS even after map changes.. I know FPS isn't a huge big deal, just very wierd on the FPS loss. I can easily get 90 FPS with a map full of people swinging and stuff at full, but as soon as a map change bam FPS goes down to 25 or a little higher, then I restart JK2 and it's back up to 90 most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBJedi Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 Originally posted by ed1371 Actually, you should NOT take off the side of you case regardless of proc you are running. Cases are designed for air to flow a certain way. If you want to cool it down in there, look at other options (cleaning up ribbon cables, keeping your fans and heat sinks clean, adding additional fans correctly, getting the liquid cooling systems that are out now) Most cases aren't designed 'either way'. It's up to the person building the PC to decide on the air-flow route with fans and where the cables are placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toolboi Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 ATI Radeon 64mb DDR Ahem, theres your problem. That card is... 5 years old? And before we start talking about wolfenstein and Quake 3... Q3 is how old, and wolfenstien... well... the graphics are not up to par with JK2. ATI Radeon 8500 is proven to outperform any geforce 3 Not to sound like a fan boy or anything but... ahem ahem and let us not forget that ATI has specific "optimizations" that make Q3 run faster (not to mention 3dmark ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemi-Cuda Posted May 4, 2002 Author Share Posted May 4, 2002 the Radeon 64mb DDR is NOT 5 years old. it came out quite a bit after Q3, and Q3 came out in '99. it runs every other game i own great (and yes, wolfenstein DOES have better graphics. did you not SEE the cutscenes in JK2? they look horrible). it only stutters on JK2 because of a problem the game has with Radeon based cards (many people with Radeons can atest to this) as for my graphics settings in game, i run at 800x600, low geo detail, medium texture detail, detailed shaders off, shadows off, dynamic lights and vsync off. the only little extra thing i have on is wall marks (its pretty much needed to get a realistic saber =P) actually though i can run the game at high geo detail and high texture detail and not notice a bit of difference in FPS. this tells me there is something going wrong, as it should make a BIG difference oh and as well i run the SOF2 mptest with full blown detail and still achieve respectable FPS. this game is newer (not actually even released yet) has very obviously better graphics, but none of the stutter problems JK2 has (made by the same company too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBJedi Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 SOF 2 test uses a tiny little map with almost nothing going on. Of course the performance is fast. Let's see you claim high performance with the full version SOF 2 with lots of grass and outdoors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toolboi Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 this tells me there is something going wrong, as it should make a BIG difference Naw, not necissarily (I can never spell that). I find that in many games these days, esecialy with high end hardware, that changing settings does jack squat for FPS. eg. Max Payne: That game ran EXACTLY the same on ALL modes of detail. As for the Radeon, are you sure its that new? It registers as ancient in my mind... oh well, so do most things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyInAWhelchair Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 Originally posted by power_ed well.. i use 800mhz Pentium III 348mb SD PC133 Ram Riva TNT2 pro 32mb i have all details maxed up with a 1024x screen resolution and i get about 40-60 FPS in rtCW though i get aprx 80 FPS Try turning off all other applications.. ESP: virus programs as they tend to grab quite allot of your RAM.. also, you might consider using the "high performance" window setting etc it turns off shadows 'n stuff.. ::/Ed I really find it hard to believe you get 80 fps in RTCW with this setup. Actually I donty believe it at all. A Boy In A Wheelchair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorlagen Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 First of all, The_Mormegil, you're a moron. This is the guy who is bitching because the XBOX runs games smoothly. Wake up, the XBOX is a highly optimized system solely for the purposes of gaming, running games in 640x480 resolution. HOW COULD YOU NOT GET SMOOTH FRAMES? Secondly, I think it was Hemi- Cuda who just bitched about how horrible the cutscenes look in JKII, and how this is proof that Wolf has better graphics than Outcast. MORON. The cut scenes are made to look like that, it was an artistic decision, albeit a mistake in the world of aesthetically pleasing things. How can you even believe for a second those cutscenes are high quality and rendered, when it looks worse than the normal game? Stop complaining about your frames. JKII has WAY more going on than Wolf, and is going to use up more resources. You've got an ATI card, and it's not even a 8500 or a top of the line one. Your card is roughly equivilent to a GF2 Ultra, or maybe a GF3 Ti200. People with these cards on 1 gig machines (like you have, not top of the line, already machines out there with TWICE as much hertz) shouldn't expect to get uppity fps in new age games. Have fun trying to run WarIII, or UT2003 when they come out. But for now, stop complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorlagen Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 I stand proven. The ATI Radeon 64MB DDR came out midway through 2000. 2 years ago. How does UT run? Great? GOOD! http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/review/79062.html In that review the ATI Radeon 64MB DDR, the card YOU have, is compared to a GeForce2 GTS and a GeForce 1 DDR. It ties with the GF2 GTS and does little to destroy the GF1. When using a card with such dated ability, it's pathetic to come here and complain, especially when using a cpu years old as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.