those with x800 xt cards

[Skycat]

Listen to him. He is damn right. PSU has no effect on your FPS whatsoever. I would suggest you to do a clean install of Windows, and try the Catalyst 4.9b driver.
I have X800 XT PE also. I will try the VST @ 1600x12000 6xAA 16xAF tonight when I get home.

Did I just read people suggesting REPLACING THE POWER SUPPLY as a method to getting more frames-per-second?


WHAT?!


Do you people know how a computer actually works?!


Yes, a 220w power supply is pretty low for that system, but a 500w power supply won't give him a single additional frame per second. The clock isn't scaling down to accomodate the power supply. The power supply will do what it's name implies -- supply a (relatively) steady amount of amperage and voltage to the various components of the machine -- until too much wattage is demanded. At that point, the machine will either go to power off, blow the fuse, blow the caps (if they're cheap caps, and this has happend to me) or reset the machine. However, until such a "overdraw" is requested, the PSU will supply the same amount of steady power to the rails. The clock isn't going to slow down because it thinks a 220w PSU isn't enough.


An average of 40FPS @ 1600x1800 with AA/AF maxed is amazingly good. If you're concerned there's a bottleneck, I would examine several things:


1) You may have reached the max processing power of your Pentium. In fact, this is the most likely scenario. The most awesome video card in the world is going to just sit there and wait if the CPU can't feed it data fast enough. The video card, in and of its self, will not make you render any faster if the CPU is already spitting out data as fast as it can.


2) Memory: What KIND of memory do you have? How is it tuned? What are the settings? On any given system, after CPU, memory will be the most common bottleneck, either from a shortage causing a disk swap or from slow or poorly-timed memory. Since most memory now is BIOS-ready (you plug it in, and the BIOS handled the settings), odds are your settings are correct, and a gig is more than enough.


3) Drivers. Using the latest? Are you setting your ATI CATS to performance or quality? It makes a lot of difference. Quality looks sweet, but you take a framerate hit.


4) Anything else eating CPU cycles? Sure you're spyware free? It's rare that someone accumulates so many parasites on their PC that it slows down gaming performance, but if your idee fixx is FPS, then you'll want to make totally sure you're not hosting a bunch of little busy-bodies on your PC.


5) Are the people whose rates you're comparing running the same settings? Are they over-clocking? Are you comparing apples to oranges?


What about the motherboard?


Well, motherboards differ from manufacturer to manufacturer, but on a given chipset, at a given frequency, there's RARELY a performance difference of any observable difference. The main differences in motherboards will usually be in terms of stability and features. Unless you're changing chipsets, it's incredibly unlikely changing to another motherboard manufacturer will give you a solid performance boost.


Just for reference, I get a steady 45FPS in high combat areas running an XP 2700 Barton, 1 gig DDR Corsair memory in matched sticks with optimal tunings and an ATI 9700pro reference card on an ASUS Nforce2 MB. I'm running at 1024x780 2AA/AF, performance settings. On the stress test, with the same settings, I got an 86. So your results, given that you are at 1600x1200 and full AA/AF, don't sound too far off. You're generating about 15% more CPU cycles and your card has roughly double the processing power of mine. If there's anything bottlenecking your machine, it's going to be your CPU.


Just as a NB, I've worked with computers since 1980 and I'll tell you this: throwing hardware at a problem before you fully understand what's causing it is a waste of your time and money. Look at your results, check all the software stuff first, and then if you find there's a bottleneck, replace that component. However, I would replace the PSU as it's a system crash waiting to happen.


There, you just got $500 worth of advice gratis -- who says there's no free lunch?

 

[Nex321]

Did I just read people suggesting REPLACING THE POWER SUPPLY as a method to getting more frames-per-second?


WHAT?!


Do you people know how a computer actually works?!


Yes, a 220w power supply is pretty low for that system, but a 500w power supply won't give him a single additional frame per second. The clock isn't scaling down to accomodate the power supply. The power supply will do what it's name implies -- supply a (relatively) steady amount of amperage and voltage to the various components of the machine -- until too much wattage is demanded. At that point, the machine will either go to power off, blow the fuse, blow the caps (if they're cheap caps, and this has happend to me) or reset the machine. However, until such a "overdraw" is requested, the PSU will supply the same amount of steady power to the rails. The clock isn't going to slow down because it thinks a 220w PSU isn't enough.


An average of 40FPS @ 1600x1800 with AA/AF maxed is amazingly good. If you're concerned there's a bottleneck, I would examine several things:


1) You may have reached the max processing power of your Pentium. In fact, this is the most likely scenario. The most awesome video card in the world is going to just sit there and wait if the CPU can't feed it data fast enough. The video card, in and of its self, will not make you render any faster if the CPU is already spitting out data as fast as it can.


2) Memory: What KIND of memory do you have? How is it tuned? What are the settings? On any given system, after CPU, memory will be the most common bottleneck, either from a shortage causing a disk swap or from slow or poorly-timed memory. Since most memory now is BIOS-ready (you plug it in, and the BIOS handled the settings), odds are your settings are correct, and a gig is more than enough.


3) Drivers. Using the latest? Are you setting your ATI CATS to performance or quality? It makes a lot of difference. Quality looks sweet, but you take a framerate hit.


4) Anything else eating CPU cycles? Sure you're spyware free? It's rare that someone accumulates so many parasites on their PC that it slows down gaming performance, but if your idee fixx is FPS, then you'll want to make totally sure you're not hosting a bunch of little busy-bodies on your PC.


5) Are the people whose rates you're comparing running the same settings? Are they over-clocking? Are you comparing apples to oranges?


What about the motherboard?


Well, motherboards differ from manufacturer to manufacturer, but on a given chipset, at a given frequency, there's RARELY a performance difference of any observable difference. The main differences in motherboards will usually be in terms of stability and features. Unless you're changing chipsets, it's incredibly unlikely changing to another motherboard manufacturer will give you a solid performance boost.


Just for reference, I get a steady 45FPS in high combat areas running an XP 2700 Barton, 1 gig DDR Corsair memory in matched sticks with optimal tunings and an ATI 9700pro reference card on an ASUS Nforce2 MB. I'm running at 1024x780 2AA/AF, performance settings. On the stress test, with the same settings, I got an 86. So your results, given that you are at 1600x1200 and full AA/AF, don't sound too far off. You're generating about 15% more CPU cycles and your card has roughly double the processing power of mine. If there's anything bottlenecking your machine, it's going to be your CPU.


Just as a NB, I've worked with computers since 1980 and I'll tell you this: throwing hardware at a problem before you fully understand what's causing it is a waste of your time and money. Look at your results, check all the software stuff first, and then if you find there's a bottleneck, replace that component. However, I would replace the PSU as it's a system crash waiting to happen.


There, you just got $500 worth of advice gratis -- who says there's no free lunch?

1) Can you please explain me that again? I don't understand

2) I have 2x 512 mb Samsung pc2700 ddr333 2.5-3-3-7

3) CAT 4.8

4) Not sure that I'm spyware free, how do I see that?

5) I have no idea......shall I ask them?

I'm getting IC7 MAX3 Mobo.

Well I ordered 525w psu just incase something would happen.

 

[Nex321]

Edit: I get 40+ fps when I'm running if I'm lucky but when they're shooting it allways drops down to 20 fps. I should be getting 40 fps when someone is shooting and not 20. Allso whatever settings/whatever res /whatever anything I allways get 40 as an avarenge(25-40 in gun fights). As you see thats pretty annoying when you have a good comp......

 

[Agent.M]

Says Im getting 74 fps on my system with everything on high...also im running this at 1920x1200 res.

 

[Sprafa]

Says Im getting 74 fps on my system with everything on high...also im running this at 1920x1200 res.

how big is your monster monitor....

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

Regarding the PSU discussion going on around here:
(In a somewhat different situation though )

I upgraded a week ago, ran 3dmark2001 and 2003, i got 21K+/12K+.
The same day I connected my fan control unit to the same powercable as the GPU, and my scores dropped to 17K/11K. I didn't think about power so I tried just about everything to get the GPU running the way it did in the beginning. (Spyware, uninstalling drivers and applications, closing running processes etc.)

Today I was surfing on a norwegian OC forum and I saw someone talking about power for the X800 GPU, and tried applying the powercable the way it was given in the manual. Voila .. My scores went back up. It looked like a split cable from the PSU, 1 end to the GPU, the other to my HD fixed my problem.

I don't know if it was just a coincidence after several days of non-working solutions, but my guess is that my GPU didn't recieve the ammound of power it was supposed to get.

But I realise I may be wrong, so don't flame me please :afro:

 

[Agent.M]

how big is your monster monitor....

If you check out this thread http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=33660 there are pics i posted of it.

 

[Link]

OH NOES!! PEOPLE DONT LIKE MES ON TEH INTRANET!1!11 I WILL NOT BE POPULERS AND WILL NOT MAKE TEH SEX WITH GIRLS11!ELEVEN

I spent 20 minutes of my time trying to help a total stranger with a problem on a friggen web forum, with no expectation of anything but maybe a thanks, and you're gonna act all high-and-mighty about one line?

In short: When you're watching someone contribute helpfully in a forum, it's bad form to suddenly jump up, unsolicited, and yell "THAT'S ALL WELL-AND-GOOD, BUT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WEAR WHITE AFTER LABOR DAY!"

Ok, chill out. If your not fussed what people think, why did you even reply to me? Christ, at least I didn't go "000h n0eesss, u r teh nub" or somthing.

 

[Concept]

There must be a problem somewhere that's causing a bottleneck. My setup consists of an AMD 64 3200+, 1GB DDR, x800Pro.

Running both in 1280x1024, I get on average 60fps in CS: Source (using fraps), and with all settings: high, water: reflect all, 6xAA16xAF, 65fps in the VST.

With an XT you should be averaging over 70fps in both, even at 1600x1200. Perhaps it's a driver issue. Have you tried using the Overdrive function available to the XTs, or replacing Catalyst drivers with Omega ones instead?

 

[Skycat]

I just ran the VST on 1600x1200 with highest settings with 6 AA and 16 AF and OverDrive disabled. I got 65fps.
My spec:
AMD Althon XP 3200+ (XP 2500+ oc'ed to 2.3GHz, slightly faster than XP 3200+'s 2.2GHz)
1GB dual channel 3200 DDR ram
x800 xt pe (pro softmodded -> xt)
WindowsXP SP2
DirectX 9.0c
Catalyst 4.9 beta

How much fps do you get in CS:S on res 1600x1200 with highest settings with 6 AA and 16 AF? I am getting an avarenge of 40 with this comp:

x800 xt pe
3.06 Ghz
1024 Mb RAM

I just want to see if I'm getting what I should

 

[Concept]

Yeah? I'd have thought the XT would go slightly higher than that.

I can't try 1600x1200 for a fps comparison with my Pro because this TFT monitor won't reach that resolution.

Is your XT a soft-modded Vivo Pro? And are you running the clock and memory at the same rate as an XT?

 

[Nex321]

I am going to get my new mobo tomorrow which is one of the best(IC7 MAX3) and a new psu with 525w. I'm going to overclock my fsb to 200(I'll try) and my proccesor to 3.2 Ghz and then take a CSS test. Now this SHOULD fix my problem, I mean it will give me a good performence boost. If not......I'm going nuts

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

I am going to get my new mobo tomorrow which is one of the best(IC7 MAX3) and a new psu with 525w. I'm going to overclock my fsb to 200(I'll try) and my proccesor to 3.2 Ghz and then take a CSS test. Now this SHOULD fix my problem, I mean it will give me a good performence boost. If not......I'm going nuts

Dont expect all to much on that crappy/not-optimized engine .. I get about 40-60 fps on my specs .. running 6xAA and 4xAF, 1024x768.

The stress test gives me much more though ..

Lets hope valve optimize the engine in the near future..

 

[Nex321]

Dont expect all to much on that crappy/not-optimized engine .. I get about 40-60 fps on my specs .. running 6xAA and 4xAF, 1024x768.

The stress test gives me much more though ..

Lets hope valve optimize the engine in the near future..

I'm glad that you warned me

So I'll take a 3dmark03 test when I get those parts.

My current score: 11540

I'm hoping for 12000+ tomorrow

 

[Skycat]

Yes, mine is soft-modded vivo pro. And yes, I am running the clock and memory at the same spec as XT.
My 3DMark03 score is about 12k something.
I don't care too much about FPS as long as the game always stays above 45fps.

Yeah? I'd have thought the XT would go slightly higher than that.

I can't try 1600x1200 for a fps comparison with my Pro because this TFT monitor won't reach that resolution.

Is your XT a soft-modded Vivo Pro? And are you running the clock and memory at the same rate as an XT?

 

[Nex321]

ok, those parts will be here soon. Is it easy to install a new mobo? And do I need win xp cd to install it?

Because I don't have win xp cd all I have is press F10 when I boot the system and my windows will install it(win xp). If you know what I mean

 

[Nex321]

I JUST found out that its my proccessor and not mobo or psu! Great...........

oh well I guess I'll be better off when upgrading cpu in the future.

benchmark:

Before: 11540
After: 11900

it did though make some difference......

Haven't tried any games but downloading steam now and will try later

 

[Asus]

I only have a 6800GT but I do have a A64 3000+. I get 53FPS in the VST and 50-60 while playing on a CSS server with many enemies shooting @ 1600x1200 4xAA/16AF. My VST score is lower as expected since you have a X800XT and you even had yours at 6xAA. But the ingame FPS is different probably because your system will perform quite a bit different for handling other things besides the Graphics that your card handles so well.

 

[Nex321]

Ok I have done some tests in CS:S and all I can say that I'm very very happy! This is what I wanted

Stress test(everything maxed out):

Before: 58 fps
After: 74 fps

In CS:S 1600x1200, Max settings, 16 AF and 6 AA, Reflect all:

Before: 35 fps (avarenge)
After: 50 fps (avarenge)

Before fps: 18-50
After Fps: 35-75

w00t

 

[Jack_Karverboy]

This is weird!

AMD Athlon 2500+ 1.8 Ghz
5900 128 mb
512 mb RAM

I get 70-75 fps in sress test with max settings

 

[Champ]

I only have a 6800GT but I do have a A64 3000+. I get 53FPS in the VST and 50-60 while playing on a CSS server with many enemies shooting @ 1600x1200 4xAA/16AF. My VST score is lower as expected since you have a X800XT and you even had yours at 6xAA. But the ingame FPS is different probably because your system will perform quite a bit different for handling other things besides the Graphics that your card handles so well.

Don't you like the 6800GT Asus? I have one on order, but I want to make sure it's good when I'm spending 400$ on it plus 25% (MOMS - Danish tax)
All the reviews say the GT is better than the X800 Pro!

Oh and congrats with your moderator status!
We now have a hardware moderator!

 

[Nex321]

Don't you like the 6800GT Asus? I have one on order, but I want to make sure it's good when I'm spending 400$ on it plus 25% (MOMS - Danish tax)
All the reviews say the GT is better than the X800 Pro!

Oh and congrats with your moderator status!
We now have a hardware moderator!

I can answer this for him

Yes, 6800 GT is better than X800 pro and it can be overclocked to ultra speed easy. It has 16 Pipes and supports PS 3.0 while x800 pro has 12 and PS 2.0b. You save atleast $100 on it.

My final thoughts: Yes definitly worth it

Edit: if we're talking about HL2 and cards on stock speeds. I think X800 PRO even beats 6800 ULTRA but thats only in HL2. Same with doom 3, 6800 GT beats x800 xt(I think)

 

[Champ]

Thank ye. Not really news to me, but it's good to be know that the majority prefers the GT.

 

[solideliquid]

1600.1200 AA/AF x6/x8
2004-09-11 20:24:30 - hl2
Frames: 2803 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 46.717 - Min: 28 - Max: 72

2004-09-11 20:25:39 - hl2
Frames: 2766 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 46.100 - Min: 19 - Max: 73

2004-09-11 20:28:41 - hl2
Frames: 1899 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 31.650 - Min: 25 - Max: 52

That is from fraps, that last entry is with V-sync ON, all the others above are Vsync OFF.

 

[solideliquid]

I have tried many settings on 1600x1200 and I think that AA above x2 is a waste (and means lower fps).

 

[Concept]

For the forum poster that was interested in the x800Pro results... I've noticed some very interesting things going on in Source since the last update. In the VST I'm getting on average about 10-15 fps more (avg 80 in 1280x1040 with every setting maxed, including AA/AF/V-Sync), which is confusing because I don't know which benchmarking results to take as legitimate. Either the VST before the update or the one after.

On Fraps I also tend to get an average of 73fps in CS: Source.

Now, this could be a mixture of the update and the recently released official version of Catalyst 4.9 working together, but I'm surprised there'd be such a performance boost for a few minor tweaks. Unless Valve has done something to better take advantage of the x800Pro. I just don't know.

I'll see if I can email Valve later get an answer or a better indication as to what version of the VST is better representative of how the final version of Source will perform in Half-Life 2. I'd like to think I'd get 80fps with settings maxed at 1280x1040 with the x800Pro, but a part of me is slightly sceptical at present.

I'd loved to be proved wrong though.

 

[Subatomic]

Heh, on Joint Ops with everything on highest, and 2xAA It looks ridiculous (many jaggies) but when I put it on 6x it looks eXtremely beautiful. I definatly think it is worth it, even though I get 15-45FPS.

 

[venturon]

Heh, on Joint Ops with everything on highest, and 2xAA It looks ridiculous (many jaggies) but when I put it on 6x it looks eXtremely beautiful. I definatly think it is worth it, even though I get 15-45FPS.

Depends what resolution you run it at as to how much you notice the difference. At 1600x1200 I don't think the difference between 4 and 6xAA would be very noticable.

 

[TheHitman5]

Don't feel bad. I got an average of 20-30 with 1024x768, minimum graphics and no AA or AF. X800, AMD64, 1GB ram and so on.

Uh thats really low for an A64 and x800...

 

[Asus]

Uh thats really low for an A64 and x800...

It's called FUD.

 

[RussianEmpire]

Heh, just becuse the X800 XT is the fastest card out there right now doesn't mean it's like an "almighty superbeing". You expect it to be a bazillion (yes a bazillion) times better than the previous generation?
But of course, soon the X850 will come out (oh yes, 512MB graphics card baby) and you'll really see a performance boost.

:naughty:

fastest??? 6800 Ultra is faster just not in half life 2

 

[[Matt]]

I used to love this site and the helpfull people on it... now there just too much hostility... Stop the hate!

btw... a 3.06GHz pentium 4 isnt all that compared to todays high end PC's as its a b core running on a 533MHz bus and as such will be much slower than a c core running at 3GHz on an 800MHz bus. I would hazard a guess that the 3.06GHz b core is also a little slower than a 2.8GHz c core.

As such the scores you are getting are very respectable and represent a typical score for your setup simply because the x800xt is bieng held back by the CPU. The simple test to discover wether this is the case is to run at a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) and test it against both slower and faster machines running at the same resolution with the same card.

 

[[Matt]]

fastest??? 6800 Ultra is faster just not in half life 2

Actually the x800xt is faster in the majority of benchmarks if you read several reviews and benchmarks. The only benchmark where the 6800 shines is in doom 3 but that doesnt matter one bit as the game in benchmarked using timedemo's that DONT have the 60fps frame limiter. When you get ingame however both cards hit the 60fps cap and stay there unless you run at an unrealistic 1600x1200 with full Aniso filtering and Anti aliasing. Even then the x800xt hits the 60 fps cap with ease at times although not quite as often as the 6800u. If you run the game at a more realistic 1280x1024 with 2x AF and 4x FSAA both cards will run at 60fps all the time.

p.s. im not an ATI fanboy as the machine im typing this on has an nvidia card as its beating heart!

 

[Nex321]

I used to love this site and the helpfull people on it... now there just too much hostility... Stop the hate!

btw... a 3.06GHz pentium 4 isnt all that compared to todays high end PC's as its a b core running on a 533MHz bus and as such will be much slower than a c core running at 3GHz on an 800MHz bus. I would hazard a guess that the 3.06GHz b core is also a little slower than a 2.8GHz c core.

As such the scores you are getting are very respectable and represent a typical score for your setup simply because the x800xt is bieng held back by the CPU. The simple test to discover wether this is the case is to run at a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) and test it against both slower and faster machines running at the same resolution with the same card.

Yes 3.06 is crappy now compared to the others thats why I overclocked it to 3.36 ghz. I guess now its just as good as a modern 3 Ghz

 

[Nex321]

you think a 3.4c can be overclocked to 4.2 ghz on air cooling?

 

[GreasedNeut]

Heh, just becuse the X800 XT is the fastest card out there right now doesn't mean it's like an "almighty superbeing". You expect it to be a bazillion (yes a bazillion) times better than the previous generation?
But of course, soon the X850 will come out (oh yes, 512MB graphics card baby) and you'll really see a performance boost.

:naughty:

i doubt it

 

[blackeye]

I think we will se little to none performance increase with 512 cards using this generation of chips. They are not fast enough to fully utilize 512mb's of memory. That and the only game that supports 512mb's of memory is doom3 (which can still be run in ultra settings on a 256 card)
512 mb videocards are just something to drool over for the next year untill the true next generation cards are released which will be better equiped to handle 512mbs.
Oh and did I mention it will probably cost another $100 just to buy a 512 card even if they are released?

 

[blahblahblah]

I think we will se little to none performance increase with 512 cards using this generation of chips. They are not fast enough to fully utilize 512mb's of memory. That and the only game that supports 512mb's of memory is doom3 (which can still be run in ultra settings on a 256 card)
512 mb videocards are just something to drool over for the next year untill the true next generation cards are released which will be better equiped to handle 512mbs.
Oh and did I mention it will probably cost another $100 just to buy a 512 card even if they are released?

No 512 chips this year people.

http://theinquirer.net/?article=18355

 

[blackeye]

Ya I read about that. I can still hope though.
I wouldnt buy one I just want to see the benchmarks.

 

[Nex321]

Ok its back *almost* to normal now, My fps dropped to 69 fps from 74 fps in VST and in game I get 40 fps avarenge from 50 avarenge. I was about to destroy my pc.