Low fps

DP7 · Dec 9, 2004

Ive just recently installed HL2 and i have been getting really low fps, the game is almost un-playable. I ran the video stress test and it calculated approx. 12fps. I was woundering if anyone could give me advice or tell me were my problem is and how to increase the fps.
My Specs are:

Celeron 2.8Ghz
504MB ram
Windows XP SP1
Intel 82845G 64MB GC

The video drivers are up to date, also i keep getting that HL2 application error "Memory can not be read" when ever i try to adjust the video settings,i understand valve are working on this. any advise i would would be greaful.

silverstealth89 · Dec 9, 2004

um your graphics ccard is bellow requirements you should have at least a 128MB. and its integrated which sucks also

corkscru74 · Dec 9, 2004

Yep, agree with silverstealth89. Your onboard graphics card is your systems bottleneck - if you've got the dough I'd opt for a Radeon 9800pro (128mb version is around £120-£140 now).

After that I'd suggest getting some more memory if your motherboard supports it. Depending on whether you have DDR (Double Density Ram - good) or SD-Ram (You guessed it, Single Density - slower) will affect the performance as well. But not all Mobos support DDR so that's something else you might want to look at.

Ah the joys of spending other peoples money!

silverstealth89 · Dec 9, 2004

the RAM is ok 1GB is preferrable but the gfx card is the prob

DiSTuRbEd · Dec 9, 2004

DP7 said:
Celeron 2.8Ghz

This is the major problem guys.

silverstealth89 · Dec 9, 2004

no its not a 2.8 is pretty good. i could understand if it would be 1.6/ but otherwise its ok

DP7 · Dec 9, 2004

thanx for the replys guys. yeah silverstealth89 id love a really cool GFX card just carnt really afford one atm unfortunatly, just wanna play HL2 :frown: soon as i get the cash im gonna buy one though if thats the problem. Also DiSTuRbEd i understand celeron arnt the best for gaming but i thought @ 2.8ghz should be acceptable?

Ultimape · Dec 9, 2004

150$ = 9600xt = full graphics settings, + running great.

practically same specs, sept i have a p4.

DiSTuRbEd · Dec 9, 2004

silverstealth89 said:
no its not a 2.8 is pretty good. i could understand if it would be 1.6/ but otherwise its ok

Umm this is a celeron, not a p4...

Wildhound · Dec 9, 2004

DiSTuRbEd said:
Umm this is a celeron, not a p4...

Umm your point? It's still 2.8GHz and still more than enough.

DiSTuRbEd · Dec 9, 2004

Wildhound said:
Umm your point? It's still 2.8GHz and still more than enough.

My point it doesn't function as good as a p4 2.8ghz processor, about works half as good.

Wildhound · Dec 9, 2004

DiSTuRbEd said:
My point it doesn't function as good as a p4 2.8ghz processor, about works half as good.

Sure it's not as quick, but half is BS. Even if you were correct, 1.4GHz is above the minimum.

frances_farmer · Dec 9, 2004

DiSTuRbEd said:
My point it doesn't function as good as a p4 2.8ghz processor, about works half as good.

right, and where is your evidence to back up this claim you plucked out of the air.

DiSTuRbEd · Dec 9, 2004

frances_farmer said:
right, and where is your evidence to back up this claim you plucked out of the air.

Go find any benchmarks, it will prove the point.

giant384 · Dec 9, 2004

is 504 ram possible??

Jimmo · Dec 9, 2004

I got a cleeron 2.2, with a gig of ram, and a 9800 pro, 128mb

And i get 50 fps+ constant, so a 2.8 is fine, its his GFX card. And as for they are half what they say, thats rubbish

JFry · Dec 9, 2004

Maybe he stepped on his ram stick before he put it in and some ram broke off.
Anyways to the original poster, I think if you get a decent graphics card like the 9600 xt or 9800 pro you will see a huge increase in fps. The celeron is pretty crappy architecture but at 2.8 it should be able to handle hl2 with very few slowdowns.

Wildhound · Dec 9, 2004

JFry said:
Maybe he stepped on his ram stick before he put it in and some ram broke off.

Then it wouldn't work. Not to mention the modules on a 512MB stick are 64 or 32MB each.

More than likely his system is just reporting it incorrectly.

CTTcrew_MrBlue · Dec 9, 2004

Wildhound said:
Then it wouldn't work. Not to mention the modules on a 512MB stick are 64 or 32MB each.

More than likely his system is just reporting it incorrectly.

The Onboard video on his motherboard is the thing using the ram, making it report as 504 actually.

Top Secret · Dec 9, 2004

DiSTuRbEd said:
Go find any benchmarks, it will prove the point.

No, you're wrong.

Wildhound · Dec 9, 2004

CTTcrew_MrBlue said:
The Onboard video on his motherboard is the thing using the ram, making it report as 504 actually.

Odd that a 64MB video chip would only take 8MB of system memeory.

OD-Black_Fire · Dec 9, 2004

Yeah, I saw that too. NEW:

Ram
Video card

Then you'll be set

Oh, and a 2.8ghz Celeron is like a 2.2ghz p4

CTTcrew_MrBlue · Dec 9, 2004

Wildhound said:
Odd that a 64MB video chip would only take 8MB of system memeory.

onboard video does odd things like that.

DP7 · Dec 9, 2004

yeah the manufacturing specs say my system has 512mb. Just read straight from my System properties i guess. So basically my onboard GFX card sucks, soon as i get some cash together im off to the shops. Thanx alot for the feedback :thumbs: .

robini123 · Dec 10, 2004

Two major problems.

1. Your video card is not supported by the game.
2. Despite what some think here, your CPU is woefully inadequate for the job. It lacks the math co-processor found in Pentium and AMD chips.

A possible solution would be to buy an AGP video card, assuming you have an AGP slot. I bought a Radeon 9200 w/256Mb VRAM for $100.00. You would have to disable your integrated video card and uninstall it's drivers first.

That or buy a real gaming box.

Orange · Dec 10, 2004

i get crappy 15 FPS with 1.8 ghz, radeon 9000pro 128mb and pc133 512 sdram

New mobo perhaps?

robini123 · Dec 10, 2004

Orange said:
i get crappy 15 FPS with 1.8 ghz, radeon 9000pro 128mb and pc133 512 sdram

New mobo perhaps?

That's weird. I have an AMD 1.46, 512 PC2100, And a Radeon 9200 w/256Mb VRAM and my frames average 35.

dynamicx · Dec 10, 2004

Problem is no doubt the gfx card.. I didn't even think integrated graphics would run. Once you get a decent card, you should be able to play on high or atleast medium with no slowdown.

StainlessJ-FPGA · Dec 10, 2004

DP7 said:
yeah the manufacturing specs say my system has 512mb. Just read straight from my System properties i guess. So basically my onboard GFX card sucks, soon as i get some cash together im off to the shops. Thanx alot for the feedback :thumbs: .

You know, for how much you paid for HL2 you could have gotten a video card...

StainlessJ-FPGA · Dec 10, 2004

Orange said:
i get crappy 15 FPS with 1.8 ghz, radeon 9000pro 128mb and pc133 512 sdram

New mobo perhaps?

New everything actually. I hate to tell ya, that 9000 pro is a dx8 card, one of only a couple in the 9xxx series, and it in fact is a lower performer than the older 8500... I would check to make sure you are running in dx8 mode at least, and make sure you have settings low.

Winston · Dec 10, 2004

frances_farmer said:
right, and where is your evidence to back up this claim you plucked out of the air.

celerons have a much smaller cach and are missing the co processor (at least the older missed it)...that makes them very slow even with 2.8ghz.

Orange · Dec 11, 2004

Hl2 is running by default on dx level 8.1 hardware, 9.0 software.

That's what it says in my option screen. If it can't run 9.0, doesn't it just play in 8.0 or do i have to adjust it?

Low fps

DP7

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

DP7

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Spy

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

DP7

Guest

robini123

Guest

Newbie

robini123

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Winston

Guest

Newbie

Similar threads