| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Athelite
   |
Posted - 2004.08.23 17:49:00 -
[1]
My framerate sux. Right from the time I started building my characters, my fps was abysmal. Shouldn't be...
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.
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.23 17:49:00 -
[2]
My framerate sux. Right from the time I started building my characters, my fps was abysmal. Shouldn't be...
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.
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.23 22:03:00 -
[3]
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)
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.23 22:03:00 -
[4]
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)
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.23 22:22:00 -
[5]
Appreciate the input. Yes I built my computer...I build them for a living. My power supply is 450W.
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.
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.23 22:22:00 -
[6]
Appreciate the input. Yes I built my computer...I build them for a living. My power supply is 450W.
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.
|
Qwakrz
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 09:10:00 -
[7]
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)
|
Qwakrz
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 09:10:00 -
[8]
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)
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 16:22:00 -
[9]
Not sure how to get an actual framerate in this game (suggestions?), but when I said it sucked, I meant it was essentially unplayable.
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.
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 16:22:00 -
[10]
Not sure how to get an actual framerate in this game (suggestions?), but when I said it sucked, I meant it was essentially unplayable.
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.
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 16:53:00 -
[11]
Heres my system specks...
N-Vidia NF7-S motherboard
AMD Athalon xp 2400+
512mb of pc3700DDR
Ati radeon 9600SE (soon to be x800 XT )
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
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 16:53:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 17:10:55
oops repost
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 16:53:00 -
[13]
Heres my system specks...
N-Vidia NF7-S motherboard
AMD Athalon xp 2400+
512mb of pc3700DDR
Ati radeon 9600SE (soon to be x800 XT)
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
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 16:53:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Max78 on 24/08/2004 17:10:55
oops repost
|
Qwakrz
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 18:40:00 -
[15]
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
|
Qwakrz
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 18:40:00 -
[16]
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
|
Evon Garr
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 18:42:00 -
[17]
ctrl-alt-shift-m
fps counter + more...
What you salvage is not mine, but what I mine is not for you to salvage! |
Evon Garr
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 18:42:00 -
[18]
ctrl-alt-shift-m
fps counter + more...
What you salvage is not mine, but what I mine is not for you to salvage! |
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 19:51:00 -
[19]
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 XT)
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 say
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 maybe
Have you scanned you computer for viruses latley?
go to (www.trendmicro.com) to do a free online scan.
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.24 19:51:00 -
[20]
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 XT)
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 say
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 maybe
Have you scanned you computer for viruses latley?
go to (www.trendmicro.com) to do a free online scan.
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 04:38:00 -
[21]
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?
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 04:38:00 -
[22]
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?
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 14:26:00 -
[23]
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.
|
Max78
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 14:26:00 -
[24]
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.
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 18:29:00 -
[25]
Not sure what the issue was...played with it again and now at the highest possible quality I'm getting around 22-25fps, and at the lowest I'm getting around 37.
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...
|
Athelite
|
Posted - 2004.08.25 18:29:00 -
[26]
Not sure what the issue was...played with it again and now at the highest possible quality I'm getting around 22-25fps, and at the lowest I'm getting around 37.
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...
|
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.08.28 15:25:00 -
[27]
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. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.08.28 15:25:00 -
[28]
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. |
Massai
|
Posted - 2004.08.30 10:46:00 -
[29]
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.
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)
|
Massai
|
Posted - 2004.08.30 10:46:00 -
[30]
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.
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)
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |