EVE-Search ForumWatch http://eve-search.com/ The alternative EVE-Online Forum browser. en-us Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0000 EVE-Search RSS Module v1.1 chribba@evemail <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Jacmert Corra'Halcyon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#19 Originally by: Slardibardfast

Massia

Who do you work for????? I really dont want a PC from them. Bet you dont sell AMD.

Athlon 64... Missing 32 channels?? what channels???? where did you read that??? Athlon 64 is called Athlon 64 because it supports 64 bit instruction extensions (plus more and bigger registers when running in 64bit mode).

Lol, looks like you beat me to the punch. Actually, the AMD Athlon 64 would have to have 32 additonal "channels", but those "channels" would essentially be irrelevant wires when you're operating in 32-bit mode. They're just additional data/address lines that would be necessary for 64-bit operation. However, that capability really makes no difference, for the reason that you explained: the Athlon 64 can operate natively (or effectively natively) in 32-bit mode, and unlike Intel's Itanium 2, doesn't have to convert its own instructions from 64-bit down to 32-bit. Or something like that. Plus, the Athlon 64 is really fast, too.
--------
StrongHold - Ghost Fleet
Jacmert - "Jesus Boy"
http://www.sfu.ca/pkchan
- I love my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 22:23:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1114913 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Jacmert Corra'Halcyon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#19 Originally by: Slardibardfast

Massia

Who do you work for????? I really dont want a PC from them. Bet you dont sell AMD.

Athlon 64... Missing 32 channels?? what channels???? where did you read that??? Athlon 64 is called Athlon 64 because it supports 64 bit instruction extensions (plus more and bigger registers when running in 64bit mode).

Lol, looks like you beat me to the punch. Actually, the AMD Athlon 64 would have to have 32 additonal "channels", but those "channels" would essentially be irrelevant wires when you're operating in 32-bit mode. They're just additional data/address lines that would be necessary for 64-bit operation. However, that capability really makes no difference, for the reason that you explained: the Athlon 64 can operate natively (or effectively natively) in 32-bit mode, and unlike Intel's Itanium 2, doesn't have to convert its own instructions from 64-bit down to 32-bit. Or something like that. Plus, the Athlon 64 is really fast, too.
--------
StrongHold - Ghost Fleet
Jacmert - "Jesus Boy"
http://www.sfu.ca/pkchan
- I love my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 22:23:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1114914 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Jacmert Corra'Halcyon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#18
Originally by: Massai
Radeon 9600Pro AIWs are not good gaming cards, whoever told you that their faster, and however you determined their faster is a load of crap. Their designed to be slower cause they do more crap.

They're designed to be slower because they do more crap? What are you talking about? They MAY have extra hardware features, but unless the software is using those extra features that the other cards don't have AND those hardware features slow the card down, that's not going to be the reason why one card is faster than the other. A more relevant reason would be because the GPU or graphics memory is lower clocked, or they crippled the memory interface from 128-bit to 64-bit, etc. Or they reduced the number of pixel pipelines.

Originally by: Massai

Also the athlon 64 isnt the best thing to have gone for a gaming machine pretty much cause of the processer trying to use the extra 32 channels that arnt actually being requested

What are you talking about? The Athlon 64 is a SUPERB gaming processor. Let me quote Anandtech:
"Knowing just how much Athlon 64 processors trump current Pentium 4 processors in games, it would only be fair to point out the Pentium 4's advantages in other programs, like encoding or specialized applications, such as Lightwave. Certain 3D rendering apps, like Maya, will go back and forth between the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4, though the P4 does eventually win out in that area."

Secondly, the Athlon 64 is trying to use the extra 32 channels, and that's why it's not as good a processor for gaming? ?????????????????????? That makes no sense. Why would an Athlon 64 not recognize that it's operating in 32-bit mode, and why would it somehow still work but slow itself down by trying to address 64-bit memory locations? The AMD engineers wouldn't build a chip with such a major performance flaw.

I'm not sure if you know how basic CPU architectures work. You have a data bus, and an address bus. A bus is basically a PARALLEL collection of data/address lines. It's not like the CPU is wasting its time switching between 64 channels and getting data from each "channel". It's actually connected to 64 data and 64 address lines, or however the Athlon 64 is set up, and it would be receiving signals on those lines SIMULTANEOUSLY. If it's running in 32-bit mode, it would ignore the extra connections and operate in 32-bit mode.

Originally by: Massai

Before you decide to flame me, i too build machines for a living, and sell them corporately.

Umm, ok. But I guess you don't know that much about gaming systems, then (that's NOT an insult).

Originally by: Massai

If your using benchmarking programs like PCmark the stats for the card is baked... meaning that the results you get out arnt the ingame realtime stats you'll get. Just remember benchmarking programs lie more than politians.

Do you mean 3DMark? Because PCMark isn't really a gaming or 3D graphics benchmark.

Originally by: Massai

i'm running on a 9600XT with cats 4.2 and i dont have any real issues other than lag. Running windowed at 1280x1024 at 16 bit colour. and am apparently getting 9 fps... which i think is a load of crap. (not jerky screen nice smooth movements)

You're running 9 fps with a 9600XT? Ouch... What CPU are you running?
--------
StrongHold - Ghost Fleet
Jacmert - "Jesus Boy"
http://www.sfu.ca/pkchan
- I love my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 22:19:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1114915 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Jacmert Corra'Halcyon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#18
Originally by: Massai
Radeon 9600Pro AIWs are not good gaming cards, whoever told you that their faster, and however you determined their faster is a load of crap. Their designed to be slower cause they do more crap.

They're designed to be slower because they do more crap? What are you talking about? They MAY have extra hardware features, but unless the software is using those extra features that the other cards don't have AND those hardware features slow the card down, that's not going to be the reason why one card is faster than the other. A more relevant reason would be because the GPU or graphics memory is lower clocked, or they crippled the memory interface from 128-bit to 64-bit, etc. Or they reduced the number of pixel pipelines.

Originally by: Massai

Also the athlon 64 isnt the best thing to have gone for a gaming machine pretty much cause of the processer trying to use the extra 32 channels that arnt actually being requested

What are you talking about? The Athlon 64 is a SUPERB gaming processor. Let me quote Anandtech:
"Knowing just how much Athlon 64 processors trump current Pentium 4 processors in games, it would only be fair to point out the Pentium 4's advantages in other programs, like encoding or specialized applications, such as Lightwave. Certain 3D rendering apps, like Maya, will go back and forth between the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4, though the P4 does eventually win out in that area."

Secondly, the Athlon 64 is trying to use the extra 32 channels, and that's why it's not as good a processor for gaming? ?????????????????????? That makes no sense. Why would an Athlon 64 not recognize that it's operating in 32-bit mode, and why would it somehow still work but slow itself down by trying to address 64-bit memory locations? The AMD engineers wouldn't build a chip with such a major performance flaw.

I'm not sure if you know how basic CPU architectures work. You have a data bus, and an address bus. A bus is basically a PARALLEL collection of data/address lines. It's not like the CPU is wasting its time switching between 64 channels and getting data from each "channel". It's actually connected to 64 data and 64 address lines, or however the Athlon 64 is set up, and it would be receiving signals on those lines SIMULTANEOUSLY. If it's running in 32-bit mode, it would ignore the extra connections and operate in 32-bit mode.

Originally by: Massai

Before you decide to flame me, i too build machines for a living, and sell them corporately.

Umm, ok. But I guess you don't know that much about gaming systems, then (that's NOT an insult).

Originally by: Massai

If your using benchmarking programs like PCmark the stats for the card is baked... meaning that the results you get out arnt the ingame realtime stats you'll get. Just remember benchmarking programs lie more than politians.

Do you mean 3DMark? Because PCMark isn't really a gaming or 3D graphics benchmark.

Originally by: Massai

i'm running on a 9600XT with cats 4.2 and i dont have any real issues other than lag. Running windowed at 1280x1024 at 16 bit colour. and am apparently getting 9 fps... which i think is a load of crap. (not jerky screen nice smooth movements)

You're running 9 fps with a 9600XT? Ouch... What CPU are you running?
--------
StrongHold - Ghost Fleet
Jacmert - "Jesus Boy"
http://www.sfu.ca/pkchan
- I love my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 22:19:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1114919 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Slardibardfast]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#17 Originally by: Massai
Also the athlon 64 isnt the best thing to have gone for a gaming machine pretty much cause of the processer trying to use the extra 32 channels that arnt actually being requested...also winxp doesnt natively support 64 bit processing yet, and service pack 2 causes process loops to take longer (cause of extra error correcting). Before you decide to flame me, i too build machines for a living, and sell them corporately.


Massia

Who do you work for????? I really dont want a PC from them. Bet you dont sell AMD.

Athlon 64... Missing 32 channels?? what channels???? where did you read that??? Athlon 64 is called Athlon 64 because it supports 64 bit instruction extensions (plus more and bigger registers when running in 64bit mode).

Athlon 64's have a fully functioning 32 bit CPU with 64 bit extensions that can be turned on by 64 bit aware OS's (WinXP 64, Server 2003 64, Linux 64 bit). They dont need a 64bit OS to run at full speed which is why the general public has them and Intel cant give their 64bit CPU's away. They run 32 bit programs & OS's better than Intels current 64 bit CPU as they dont need software to convert the instructions. They also have an onboard memory controler, similar the nVidia's dual memory controler that allows very quick access to the memory WITHOUT having to go over their 2GB/s front side bus (called Hypertransport), this means graphics card instructions are seperate to memory instructions (Intels all go over one FSB at a max of 800MHz). This is what gives them their speed and ability to perform memory intensive tasks very quickly. Intel DOES have a faster core processor that is good for number crunching tasks but cant hold a candle to Athlon 64's for gaming at present.

Please do check your facts before posting and no this is not a flame just fixing the points that got broken.

And now for some linky's


Toms hardware, AMD64 3400 against intel 3.2GHz It does not win them all but 90% of the games benchmarks is not bad
AMD Loosing against 3.2GHz Intel and to prove I am trying to be unbiased, Intel are good at graphics work where memory access does not come into play (e.g. encoding and rendering)
]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 22:13:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/2248513 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Slardibardfast]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#17 Originally by: Massai
Also the athlon 64 isnt the best thing to have gone for a gaming machine pretty much cause of the processer trying to use the extra 32 channels that arnt actually being requested...also winxp doesnt natively support 64 bit processing yet, and service pack 2 causes process loops to take longer (cause of extra error correcting). Before you decide to flame me, i too build machines for a living, and sell them corporately.


Massia

Who do you work for????? I really dont want a PC from them. Bet you dont sell AMD.

Athlon 64... Missing 32 channels?? what channels???? where did you read that??? Athlon 64 is called Athlon 64 because it supports 64 bit instruction extensions (plus more and bigger registers when running in 64bit mode).

Athlon 64's have a fully functioning 32 bit CPU with 64 bit extensions that can be turned on by 64 bit aware OS's (WinXP 64, Server 2003 64, Linux 64 bit). They dont need a 64bit OS to run at full speed which is why the general public has them and Intel cant give their 64bit CPU's away. They run 32 bit programs & OS's better than Intels current 64 bit CPU as they dont need software to convert the instructions. They also have an onboard memory controler, similar the nVidia's dual memory controler that allows very quick access to the memory WITHOUT having to go over their 2GB/s front side bus (called Hypertransport), this means graphics card instructions are seperate to memory instructions (Intels all go over one FSB at a max of 800MHz). This is what gives them their speed and ability to perform memory intensive tasks very quickly. Intel DOES have a faster core processor that is good for number crunching tasks but cant hold a candle to Athlon 64's for gaming at present.

Please do check your facts before posting and no this is not a flame just fixing the points that got broken.

And now for some linky's


Toms hardware, AMD64 3400 against intel 3.2GHz It does not win them all but 90% of the games benchmarks is not bad
AMD Loosing against 3.2GHz Intel and to prove I am trying to be unbiased, Intel are good at graphics work where memory access does not come into play (e.g. encoding and rendering)
]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 22:13:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/2248514 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Demius]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#16 Edited by: Demius on 30/08/2004 16:09:35
Btw, Demius=Athelite

I don't know where you get your information, and far be it for me to be less than diplomatic, but your just wrong.

A 9600XT is just a 9600Pro overclocked to 500mhz core speed (same memory speed) and a big ol cooling system (they also added a temperature diode to support the 'overdrive' system, but that has no impact on performance. As a matter of fact, I've overclocked my 9600Pro AIW to 527mhz core clock and 337 memory speed with no artifacts, and only a 4 degree C increase in GPU temperature.

The issue was that I was using dual monitors, and the EVE window was ever-so-slightly overlapping onto monitor 2. I moved it over a shade such that the whole window was on one monitor, and VOILA! I'm getting >60fps at all times with the card settings and the graphic settings cranked.

The AIW card is NO different than the regular 9600Pro in architecture, except of course that there is a TV tuner added. As a matter of fact, from an architecture standpoint, there is no difference between my card and yours except that I can watch TV on mine and you can't.

As for the Ath64, well, unless you can't afford it, buying a new 32bit processor now is a waste of money. In a couple of months Win64 will be mainstream, will have all the supporting drivers and will kick the crap outta systems still clinging to 32bit schemes, AND there is no APPRECIABLE difference in performance now.

As for benchmarking programs, well, show me a better, more consistant and objective way to test my PC and I'm in. For now though, since all the computers I run tests against are in the same ball-park using the same equipment, I'll trust the data before I trust your anecdotes. I get almost 15,000 pts in 3dmark 2001, and around 4500 in 3dmark 2003. I've yet to try Aquamark, but so far the first two tests are consistant with others' experiences using this rig.
.
]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 15:59:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/570692 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Demius]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#16 Edited by: Demius on 30/08/2004 16:09:35
Btw, Demius=Athelite

I don't know where you get your information, and far be it for me to be less than diplomatic, but your just wrong.

A 9600XT is just a 9600Pro overclocked to 500mhz core speed (same memory speed) and a big ol cooling system (they also added a temperature diode to support the 'overdrive' system, but that has no impact on performance. As a matter of fact, I've overclocked my 9600Pro AIW to 527mhz core clock and 337 memory speed with no artifacts, and only a 4 degree C increase in GPU temperature.

The issue was that I was using dual monitors, and the EVE window was ever-so-slightly overlapping onto monitor 2. I moved it over a shade such that the whole window was on one monitor, and VOILA! I'm getting >60fps at all times with the card settings and the graphic settings cranked.

The AIW card is NO different than the regular 9600Pro in architecture, except of course that there is a TV tuner added. As a matter of fact, from an architecture standpoint, there is no difference between my card and yours except that I can watch TV on mine and you can't.

As for the Ath64, well, unless you can't afford it, buying a new 32bit processor now is a waste of money. In a couple of months Win64 will be mainstream, will have all the supporting drivers and will kick the crap outta systems still clinging to 32bit schemes, AND there is no APPRECIABLE difference in performance now.

As for benchmarking programs, well, show me a better, more consistant and objective way to test my PC and I'm in. For now though, since all the computers I run tests against are in the same ball-park using the same equipment, I'll trust the data before I trust your anecdotes. I get almost 15,000 pts in 3dmark 2001, and around 4500 in 3dmark 2003. I've yet to try Aquamark, but so far the first two tests are consistant with others' experiences using this rig.
.
]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 15:59:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/570693 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Massai]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#15
Also the athlon 64 isnt the best thing to have gone for a gaming machine pretty much cause of the processer trying to use the extra 32 channels that arnt actually being requested...also winxp doesnt natively support 64 bit processing yet, and service pack 2 causes process loops to take longer (cause of extra error correcting). Before you decide to flame me, i too build machines for a living, and sell them corporately.

If your using benchmarking programs like PCmark the stats for the card is baked... meaning that the results you get out arnt the ingame realtime stats you'll get. Just remember benchmarking programs lie more than politians.

i'm running on a 9600XT with cats 4.2 and i dont have any real issues other than lag. Running windowed at 1280x1024 at 16 bit colour. and am apparently getting 9 fps... which i think is a load of crap. (not jerky screen nice smooth movements)


]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 10:46:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1574054 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Massai]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#15
Also the athlon 64 isnt the best thing to have gone for a gaming machine pretty much cause of the processer trying to use the extra 32 channels that arnt actually being requested...also winxp doesnt natively support 64 bit processing yet, and service pack 2 causes process loops to take longer (cause of extra error correcting). Before you decide to flame me, i too build machines for a living, and sell them corporately.

If your using benchmarking programs like PCmark the stats for the card is baked... meaning that the results you get out arnt the ingame realtime stats you'll get. Just remember benchmarking programs lie more than politians.

i'm running on a 9600XT with cats 4.2 and i dont have any real issues other than lag. Running windowed at 1280x1024 at 16 bit colour. and am apparently getting 9 fps... which i think is a load of crap. (not jerky screen nice smooth movements)


]]> Mon, 30 Aug 2009 10:46:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1574121 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Andrue]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#14 Edited by: Andrue on 28/08/2004 15:28:12
Originally by: Athelite
Okay, turned on the monitor...

At 1280x1024 and my settings cranked I'm getting 22fps. Looks okay to me. The odd thing is, when I turn my card's d3d setting down to 'Performance', and turn the resolution down to 1024x768, there is no difference. Still sits at 22fps.

Sup with that?


That is a familiar tale. I upgraded my graphics card from an FX5600 to an FX6800 and all it did was raise the worse case fps from low 20s to low 30s. Best case is still high 40s.

Changing resolution made no difference and it means that my desktop has roughly the same fps as my laptop. Comparing specs:

Desktop / Laptop
Resolution 1280x1024 / 1024x768
Gfx FX6800 Ultra / Mobility 9000
Memory 1GB fast RAM / 512MB normal RAM
Processor Athlon 2.4G / P4 2.8

Since the two machines are about the same fps this adsd to the likelihood of it being a CPU issue to me.
--
(Battle hardened miner)

[Brackley, UK]

WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality.]]> Sat, 28 Aug 2009 15:25:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/96087 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Andrue]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#14 Edited by: Andrue on 28/08/2004 15:28:12
Originally by: Athelite
Okay, turned on the monitor...

At 1280x1024 and my settings cranked I'm getting 22fps. Looks okay to me. The odd thing is, when I turn my card's d3d setting down to 'Performance', and turn the resolution down to 1024x768, there is no difference. Still sits at 22fps.

Sup with that?


That is a familiar tale. I upgraded my graphics card from an FX5600 to an FX6800 and all it did was raise the worse case fps from low 20s to low 30s. Best case is still high 40s.

Changing resolution made no difference and it means that my desktop has roughly the same fps as my laptop. Comparing specs:

Desktop / Laptop
Resolution 1280x1024 / 1024x768
Gfx FX6800 Ultra / Mobility 9000
Memory 1GB fast RAM / 512MB normal RAM
Processor Athlon 2.4G / P4 2.8

Since the two machines are about the same fps this adsd to the likelihood of it being a CPU issue to me.
--
(Battle hardened miner)

[Brackley, UK]

WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality.]]> Sat, 28 Aug 2009 15:25:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/96088 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#13
Highest means that the Display Settings in my ATI Control Panel (3d-tab, d3d) are sett to Quality (extreme left) and the ingame settings at 1280x1024 at 24bit color, and Lowest is Performance in ATI card settings and 1024x768 at 8bit color etc...
]]> Wed, 25 Aug 2009 18:29:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166778 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#13
Highest means that the Display Settings in my ATI Control Panel (3d-tab, d3d) are sett to Quality (extreme left) and the ingame settings at 1280x1024 at 24bit color, and Lowest is Performance in ATI card settings and 1024x768 at 8bit color etc...
]]> Wed, 25 Aug 2009 18:29:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166779 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#12
hmmm... well i turned my res up to 1280x1024 and it made a differance on mine... Do you have it at 24-bit with 8-bit Alpha. if so try setting it lower(15-bit 1-bit Alpha) that should make a huge differance.
]]> Wed, 25 Aug 2009 14:26:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587171 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#12
hmmm... well i turned my res up to 1280x1024 and it made a differance on mine... Do you have it at 24-bit with 8-bit Alpha. if so try setting it lower(15-bit 1-bit Alpha) that should make a huge differance.
]]> Wed, 25 Aug 2009 14:26:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587172 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#11
At 1280x1024 and my settings cranked I'm getting 22fps. Looks okay to me. The odd thing is, when I turn my card's d3d setting down to 'Performance', and turn the resolution down to 1024x768, there is no difference. Still sits at 22fps.

Sup with that?
]]> Wed, 25 Aug 2009 04:38:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166776 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#11
At 1280x1024 and my settings cranked I'm getting 22fps. Looks okay to me. The odd thing is, when I turn my card's d3d setting down to 'Performance', and turn the resolution down to 1024x768, there is no difference. Still sits at 22fps.

Sup with that?
]]> Wed, 25 Aug 2009 04:38:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166777 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#10 Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 19:59:57
Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 19:58:03
Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 19:54:29
Originally by: Max78


Heres my system specks...

N-Vidia NF7-S motherboard
AMD Athalon xp 2400+
512mb of pc3700DDR
Ati radeon 9600SE (soon to be x800 XTVery Happy)
3 Maxtor 10k rpm 68 pin scsi drives (8.5 gig)
1 15k rpm Maxtor 68 pin scsi (36.5 gig)
Running windows XP Home edition


Sorry i forgot to say what i was going to sayConfused

thoes are my speks and i have the gfx at 15 bit with 1 bit alpha and i run 2 accounts mining 16 miners going with hardley any lag.

And as far as i can see your computer is better than mine other than the hard drives and scsi card maybeQuestion

Have you scanned you computer for viruses latley?
go to (www.trendmicro.com) to do a free online scan.



]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 19:51:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587167 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#10 Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 19:59:57
Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 19:58:03
Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 19:54:29
Originally by: Max78


Heres my system specks...

N-Vidia NF7-S motherboard
AMD Athalon xp 2400+
512mb of pc3700DDR
Ati radeon 9600SE (soon to be x800 XTVery Happy)
3 Maxtor 10k rpm 68 pin scsi drives (8.5 gig)
1 15k rpm Maxtor 68 pin scsi (36.5 gig)
Running windows XP Home edition


Sorry i forgot to say what i was going to sayConfused

thoes are my speks and i have the gfx at 15 bit with 1 bit alpha and i run 2 accounts mining 16 miners going with hardley any lag.

And as far as i can see your computer is better than mine other than the hard drives and scsi card maybeQuestion

Have you scanned you computer for viruses latley?
go to (www.trendmicro.com) to do a free online scan.



]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 19:51:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587168 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Evon Garr]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#9 fps counter + more...
What you salvage is not mine, but what I mine is not for you to salvage!]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 18:42:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/767758 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Evon Garr]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#9 fps counter + more...
What you salvage is not mine, but what I mine is not for you to salvage!]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 18:42:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/767759 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Qwakrz]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#8 Edited by: Qwakrz on 24/08/2004 18:42:57
To get the frame rate press

CTRL + ALT + SHFT + M

Shows the monitor box with frame rate and a few other things as well.

BTW, I run in windowed mode as thats the only way I can run 2 accounts, IRC, Messenger etc and swap between them.

-EDIT-

You have updated your motherboard drivers recently (new ones released a few weeks ago). VIAArena
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 18:40:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1952754 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Qwakrz]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#8 Edited by: Qwakrz on 24/08/2004 18:42:57
To get the frame rate press

CTRL + ALT + SHFT + M

Shows the monitor box with frame rate and a few other things as well.

BTW, I run in windowed mode as thats the only way I can run 2 accounts, IRC, Messenger etc and swap between them.

-EDIT-

You have updated your motherboard drivers recently (new ones released a few weeks ago). VIAArena
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 18:40:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1952755 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#6
Heres my system specks...

N-Vidia NF7-S motherboard
AMD Athalon xp 2400+
512mb of pc3700DDR
Ati radeon 9600SE (soon to be x800 XTVery Happy)
3 Maxtor 10k rpm 68 pin scsi drives (8.5 gig)
1 15k rpm Maxtor 68 pin scsi (36.5 gig)
Running windows XP Home edition

]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 16:53:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587163 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#7 Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 17:10:55
oops repost
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 16:53:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587164 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#6
Heres my system specks...

N-Vidia NF7-S motherboard
AMD Athalon xp 2400+
512mb of pc3700DDR
Ati radeon 9600SE (soon to be x800 XTVery Happy)
3 Maxtor 10k rpm 68 pin scsi drives (8.5 gig)
1 15k rpm Maxtor 68 pin scsi (36.5 gig)
Running windows XP Home edition

]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 16:53:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587165 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#7 Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 17:10:55
oops repost
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 16:53:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587166 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#5
First, it turned out that it was playing in window-mode rather than full screen...which was the basis of the problem. I changed the settings ingame to Full Screen and now (so far), the game runs as smooth as silk.

Interestingly enough though, I discovered that the stock bios version my MOBO (Asus K8VSEDX) came with would not allow me to set the Memclock to CPU Ratio to the DDR400 setting...and in fact had it defaulted to DDR200. I updated from v 1003 to v 1004 and now I'm running at spec.

Thanks for the help guys. Appreciate it.

Oh, btw, I ininstalled SP2...I might reinstall it now that I know how to work around it, but I thought it might have had something to do with my problem.
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 16:22:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166774 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#5
First, it turned out that it was playing in window-mode rather than full screen...which was the basis of the problem. I changed the settings ingame to Full Screen and now (so far), the game runs as smooth as silk.

Interestingly enough though, I discovered that the stock bios version my MOBO (Asus K8VSEDX) came with would not allow me to set the Memclock to CPU Ratio to the DDR400 setting...and in fact had it defaulted to DDR200. I updated from v 1003 to v 1004 and now I'm running at spec.

Thanks for the help guys. Appreciate it.

Oh, btw, I ininstalled SP2...I might reinstall it now that I know how to work around it, but I thought it might have had something to do with my problem.
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 16:22:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166775 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Qwakrz]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#4 Edited by: Qwakrz on 24/08/2004 09:17:13

When you say the framerate is poor, what values are we talking about?

I have a 9600 chip & my framerate in space is usually 19-25 fps which for this sort of game is fine.

Dont expect to get frame rates as high as 100-200fps as this game a) does not need them & b) will never get them as even with the fastest card & cpu people have only been getting low 50's.

I would personally say that 15 or lower fps is poor frame rate for Eve.

BTW, I have an AMD 64 3000 CPU, almost the same as you, it is the GCard that is maxed out but its the way Eve is written.

Also, ALL games will cause the CPU to hover around 95-100% usage as they will use whatever CPU time is free to do LOTS of things in the background (e.g. moving objects with finer detail, collision detection, keyboard input..... the list goes on & on)
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 09:10:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1952746 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Qwakrz]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#4 Edited by: Qwakrz on 24/08/2004 09:17:13

When you say the framerate is poor, what values are we talking about?

I have a 9600 chip & my framerate in space is usually 19-25 fps which for this sort of game is fine.

Dont expect to get frame rates as high as 100-200fps as this game a) does not need them & b) will never get them as even with the fastest card & cpu people have only been getting low 50's.

I would personally say that 15 or lower fps is poor frame rate for Eve.

BTW, I have an AMD 64 3000 CPU, almost the same as you, it is the GCard that is maxed out but its the way Eve is written.

Also, ALL games will cause the CPU to hover around 95-100% usage as they will use whatever CPU time is free to do LOTS of things in the background (e.g. moving objects with finer detail, collision detection, keyboard input..... the list goes on & on)
]]> Tue, 24 Aug 2009 09:10:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1952747 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#3
As for the 9600 Pro AIW, no in fact the AIW version is faster than the 9600Pro because it uses a 256bit architecture rather than a 128bit. If you look at Tomshardware and compare it's performance against other cards, you'll find that it is a very capable card.

The bottle neck here is clearly the Processor as it's useage is maxed out, but I'm at a loss for why.

Like I said, I appreciate the input though.
]]> Mon, 23 Aug 2009 22:22:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166772 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#3
As for the 9600 Pro AIW, no in fact the AIW version is faster than the 9600Pro because it uses a 256bit architecture rather than a 128bit. If you look at Tomshardware and compare it's performance against other cards, you'll find that it is a very capable card.

The bottle neck here is clearly the Processor as it's useage is maxed out, but I'm at a loss for why.

Like I said, I appreciate the input though.
]]> Mon, 23 Aug 2009 22:22:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166773 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#2
Hi there! Did you build you computer? How many watts is your power supply? and it could be that All in wonder. The All in Wonder is actualy worse than the 9600se. I bought my friend that same card (All in Wonder 9600 pro 256) and i put it in my computer and it ran half ass compared to my 9600SE.

If you have the money i would go for a 9800 128 they are prety nice cards.(NOT an off brand)

And what is the Rez set at? (1024x768)

]]> Mon, 23 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587157 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Max78]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134&page=1#2
Hi there! Did you build you computer? How many watts is your power supply? and it could be that All in wonder. The All in Wonder is actualy worse than the 9600se. I bought my friend that same card (All in Wonder 9600 pro 256) and i put it in my computer and it ran half ass compared to my 9600SE.

If you have the money i would go for a 9800 128 they are prety nice cards.(NOT an off brand)

And what is the Rez set at? (1024x768)

]]> Mon, 23 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1587158 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134
Athalon 64 3200+
Asus K8VSE Delux MOBO
1Gig PC3200 Ram
Radeon 9600Pro All in Wonder (Cat 4.8...default settings)
Windows XP Pro, SP2*

Someone just point me to some threads, FAQs, or steer me to a settings file...gimme some idea.

*one note...I DID have the SP2 issue of a black box over the login screen...I changed the compatibility mode to win98...and I'm wondering if that's what did it. I also notice that my processor is pegged at around 95-100% all the time, but I've seen this in other games and the game worked fine.

I have some technical prowess, so don't be afraid to dive right in with technical solutions.

Thanks ladies and gentlemen.
]]> Mon, 23 Aug 2009 17:49:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166770 <![CDATA[n00b question about framerate - by Athelite]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=104134
Athalon 64 3200+
Asus K8VSE Delux MOBO
1Gig PC3200 Ram
Radeon 9600Pro All in Wonder (Cat 4.8...default settings)
Windows XP Pro, SP2*

Someone just point me to some threads, FAQs, or steer me to a settings file...gimme some idea.

*one note...I DID have the SP2 issue of a black box over the login screen...I changed the compatibility mode to win98...and I'm wondering if that's what did it. I also notice that my processor is pegged at around 95-100% all the time, but I've seen this in other games and the game worked fine.

I have some technical prowess, so don't be afraid to dive right in with technical solutions.

Thanks ladies and gentlemen.
]]> Mon, 23 Aug 2009 17:49:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/166771