slow framerate with GeForce 4 Ti 4200!!!

Wow where have you been shopping?
on newegg.com you can get crucial, corsiar, and kingston pc2600, 3200 , and i believe even higher, 512mbs for $50s. Check em out.

hehe..i dunno..i never shop online or anything..
the places i normally buy parts from are locally
www.ncix.com is one place i buy things from because they have a store in my area. But I'm pretty sure the high end corsair stuff is VERY expensive regardless where you get it from. Of course they have their cheaper stuff too, but the good stuff is $$$!

I have'nt done recent research on that so i cant say much. When i want to buy another processor i'll find something close enough lol
Im always gonna be building computers, just for a hobby, so I'll always will be spending money, not caring, and getting better, no problem, i love it. But as for up to date, ( back on the athlon xp 1700+ ) the way it's been bought, it's still pretty current AND dont be suprised if it can hang with a close 3.6 ghz Overclock of a p4. There is one story of someone OCing it somewhere into the 3 ghz's. But i dont think that was for a everyday use, just for show , that it can reach that high.

True true, the processor IS still relatively current and is not THAT slow. However, for most high end graphics cards, you will not get the performance you will see if you pair it up with a faster processor. I think a radeon 9800 pro needs around a p4 3.0Ghz, or an athlon 3000+ before it can really shine since at our speeds the cpu will probably bottleneck it.
But you know what's really sad? I just set up my dad's new P4 2.8Ghz (o/c'd to 3.09) system today. Pretty much top of the line peripherals and stuff. His system seems NO faster than mine in Windows at all. The only time I'd see a diff is if I ran games.

Maybe you can help me out with this, i have heard of dual channel ddr , and know it increases speeds, but help me out with what is it exactly? same for ASync/Sync Ocing the FSB, Havent read up to know this part on OC'ing actually yet. Doing just small increments on OCing , nothing big till my ram is better.
From what i knew of also, only the Pentium chips can lock the pci/agp slots , amd is out of luck.

Yeah I have a feeling it's only Intel stuff that can lock pci/agp speeds too. Sucks.

I can't really explain Dual DDR too well because I don't understand it too well myself. But I know the jist of it: Dual Channel DDR is just pairing up identical sticks of DDR in the correct memory slots on your motherboard if supported (normally slots 1,3 or 2,4). Originally it didn't do much and people only thought it would help Integrated Graphics Chips for onboard motherboards by relieving memory sharing and bottlenecking between the IGP and the system. However, it is now widely shown to increase overall performance as well (5-10%). Not great, but the performance increase IS there.
In order for dual channel to work, it is best used when both your front side bus and memory are running at identical speeds. Therefore, for the new Athlon XP's and P4 2.4C's and up, since they use a 200mhz fsb, it is best to get DDR400 as that runs at 200mhz as well internally before being doubled. Generally if you run asyncronously (eg. fsb 200, mem 133(DDR2100)), performance is worse than running syncronously (fsb 200, mem 200).

*Edit*
I just changed the settings, damn, i thouht the cfg would be alittle bigger than that.

haha..yeah it's not like quake3 and those games. It'd be cool if it were more customizable though!

Damn, we made this an official Computer tech topic huh?

Holy crap, take a scrollback and look at the damage we caused, just 2 people. sorry coldkevin

I know eh?haha..I'm surprised they haven't moved it yet. Maybe we should start our own thread in the General Talk forum.

hehe..i dunno..i never shop online or anything..
the places i normally buy parts from are locally
www.ncix.com is one place i buy things from because they have a store in my area. But I'm pretty sure the high end corsair stuff is VERY expensive regardless where you get it from. Of course they have their cheaper stuff too, but the good stuff is $$$!

I guess so, still newegg.com has GREAT prices. who wouldnt snatch up a stick of 512mb pc2700 or pc3200 for $50-$60s?
Actually i wouldnt, i passed it up and got a stick of 256mb samsung pc 2100 at a local store around the corner, cause i didnt want to wait for it to be shipped in mail. I hate waiting on mail orders. I almost killed myself waiting on my new mobo, cpu, and heatsink. then when i seen the fed ex truck out the window, i almost fell out of my seat.

True true, the processor IS still relatively current and is not THAT slow.

"not that slow"?
I love my speeds!

However, for most high end graphics cards, you will not get the performance you will see if you pair it up with a faster processor. I think a radeon 9800 pro needs around a p4 3.0Ghz, or an athlon 3000+ before it can really shine since at our speeds the cpu will probably bottleneck it.

yeah i seen the benchmarks on my card compared to systems with higher end cpu's. between that and ram, im gettin shit scored compared to there's. I mean, it's decent, good. but i need better.

But you know what's really sad? I just set up my dad's new P4 2.8Ghz (o/c'd to 3.09) system today. Pretty much top of the line peripherals and stuff. His system seems NO faster than mine in Windows at all. The only time I'd see a diff is if I ran games.

yep, in windows there isnt really too much to be handle once you get the bare minimum. once you get enough ram and speed to handle the windows xp eye candy, and services, everything else is cake.
my programs opens in a flash once in ram. still not in ram it's pretty swift.
We have accomplished microsofts speed test for windows. something that was impossible on a pentium 2 processor lol.

Yeah I have a feeling it's only Intel stuff that can lock pci/agp speeds too. Sucks.

yeah i read a article on that one.

I can't really explain Dual DDR too well because I don't understand it too well myself. But I know the jist of it: Dual Channel DDR is just pairing up identical sticks of DDR in the correct memory slots on your motherboard if supported (normally slots 1,3 or 2,4). Originally it didn't do much and people only thought it would help Integrated Graphics Chips for onboard motherboards by relieving memory sharing and bottlenecking between the IGP and the system. However, it is now widely shown to increase overall performance as well (5-10%). Not great, but the performance increase IS there.
In order for dual channel to work, it is best used when both your front side bus and memory are running at identical speeds. Therefore, for the new Athlon XP's and P4 2.4C's and up, since they use a 200mhz fsb, it is best to get DDR400 as that runs at 200mhz as well internally before being doubled. Generally if you run asyncronously (eg. fsb 200, mem 133(DDR2100)), performance is worse than running syncronously (fsb 200, mem 200).

Gotcha. well, i only have 2 ddr slots, so that prob counts me out of most of that huh? i think you said something similiar in one of those gabillion word posts above lol. So there isn't much penalty for me running async.
Like i said, ima get another motherboard in a few months, knowing me though , it will be another 3-4 weeks and i'll go and get a new one lol.
That was a interesting read bout synching mem, i like it.
I bought pc 2100 wich was also what my board was advertised supported.
currently @i believe 145fsb with it. hmmm.

I know eh?haha..I'm surprised they haven't moved it yet. Maybe we should start our own thread in the General Talk forum.

Maybe we should of lol. then we'll run out of subject to talk about i bet.


k my next post will be more related....

So in nba live , i did the fps counter. turns out i got like 28 fps with everything maxed. you were pretty close on the thought ya said.
But still i can do all that , and i cant believe others could BARELY run this card with the game, still not there blame, EA's probs. I thought this card was tested with the game they said in the readme though.

Im working now on tweaking my card settings and stuff.

Also people, Raise the Game priority for increased improvement.
the way i do it, is run the game, ALT TAB, out of it, open up task manager, ( right click on the task bar and click "task manager" , or do the button combinations of"ctrl" "alt" "del" <--- xp and windows 2000 only! lmao ), then find the game nba live 2003.exe and right click on it and put "set priority" to the choice of what you like. i usually put "high", but if thats instable, goto "above normal". Ima experiment later and put "Real Time" see what freaks out lol.

i just Oced my clock to 250/621 still no artifacts. wow.

Gotcha. well, i only have 2 ddr slots, so that prob counts me out of most of that huh? i think you said something similiar in one of those gabillion word posts above lol. So there isn't much penalty for me running async.

hehe yeah. I've o/c my 1800+ by raising my fsb to 140 before. The mem was still running at 133 but my computer was still faster overall, so i think running async isn't that big a deal for us.

Maybe we should of lol. then we'll run out of subject to talk about i bet.

yeah it doesn't seem like many ppl on this forum do crazy things with their computers.

So in nba live , i did the fps counter. turns out i got like 28 fps with everything maxed. you were pretty close on the thought ya said.
But still i can do all that , and i cant believe others could BARELY run this card with the game, still not there blame, EA's probs. I thought this card was tested with the game they said in the readme though.

Yeah, I think some people are really unlucky and have SERIOUS incapability problems somewhere in their systems with this game. But honestly, don't you feel that even running at 28fps in this game is SUPER CHOPPY??..it's almost unbareable to me. I guess cuz this game is fast moving if it's not smooth it's terrible.

Also people, Raise the Game priority for increased improvement.
the way i do it, is run the game, ALT TAB, out of it, open up task manager, ( right click on the task bar and click "task manager" , or do the button combinations of"ctrl" "alt" "del" <--- xp and windows 2000 only! lmao ), then find the game nba live 2003.exe and right click on it and put "set priority" to the choice of what you like. i usually put "high", but if thats instable, goto "above normal". Ima experiment later and put "Real Time" see what freaks out lol.

Does that really work?..like do you seem to get better framerates like that?
Another way to speed the game up a lot is to turn down reflections. This game chokes like crazy when you turn it even on medium. Same with shadows. Bench detail should always be on low because there is very little difference.
Can anyone tell me what the difference between high detail characters and low detail ones?..cuz they still look pretty much the same for me and it's not worth the hit in framerate.

So in nba live , i did the fps counter. turns out i got like 28 fps with everything maxed. you were pretty close on the thought ya said.
But still i can do all that , and i cant believe others could BARELY run this card with the game, still not there blame, EA's probs. I thought this card was tested with the game they said in the readme though.

Yeah, I think some people are really unlucky and have SERIOUS incapability problems somewhere in their systems with this game. But honestly, don't you feel that even running at 28fps in this game is SUPER CHOPPY??..it's almost unbareable to me. I guess cuz this game is fast moving if it's not smooth it's terrible.

Yeah now that i look alittle closer, i do notice little jerks alot. I put the detail to low, and lowered the resolution to bout 800x600 16 bit, and i seen the difference of some smoother framerates. Then i slowly raised it.
Im at 45fps with 800x600 ( i could go up, but i notice the screen size is pretty perfect with the menus and all. also, i dont know if it's me, but 800x600 option menus look smaller than the higher modes, wtf, is this just me? check it out. ).
So yeah im at 800x600 around 45 fps with the detail @bout medium for most things. whats really buggin me is im turning anisoptric ( sp ) on and off, yet i dont see a fps decrease, and thats suppose to take a big performance hit from what i know.

I also just did some benchmarks with my card and overclocking tweaks,
i went to 290/610 on my oc now. in 3dmark2001se i see little i guess artifacts, but it's only on the test where the horse spins, im not sure bout that test though, cause that horsey is all f*cked up lol. i mean you can see through it and see like mess ups just by default. i guess its the art work however they made it, maybe they meant to make it that way ::shrugs::.
I lowered my mem clock and all of the ones thats not supposed to be there dissappeared. But i still feel like thats an inaccurate test to do.
but i did raise my mem clock up to 661 before windows went into 640x480 mode with a dialog box saying "windows has encountered a error, please save your settings and restart windows" so i hit my high with that. thats pretty high of reaching still though. but now im working on the core clock.
290 from 250 so far.

Does that really work?..like do you seem to get better framerates like that?[/quote]

yep,You deff get better performance because your raising the Importance to the attention the game uses. It's like telling windows to forget about anything else running in the background ( even if there isn't much ) and pay more attention to this right here.

Another way to speed the game up a lot is to turn down reflections. This game chokes like crazy when you turn it even on medium. Same with shadows. Bench detail should always be on low because there is very little difference.

i notice that there still looks to be the same amount of players on the bench when you change that setting lol. I like the reflections and i goto check up on the shadows. yeah, the detail in characters dont seem any different either lol. i guess mabye up close it matters?

Yeah now that i look alittle closer, i do notice little jerks alot. I put the detail to low, and lowered the resolution to bout 800x600 16 bit, and i seen the difference of some smoother framerates. Then i slowly raised it.
Im at 45fps with 800x600 ( i could go up, but i notice the screen size is pretty perfect with the menus and all. also, i dont know if it's me, but 800x600 option menus look smaller than the higher modes, wtf, is this just me? check it out. ).
So yeah im at 800x600 around 45 fps with the detail @bout medium for most things. whats really buggin me is im turning anisoptric ( sp ) on and off, yet i dont see a fps decrease, and thats suppose to take a big performance hit from what i know.

I've found these settings work the best on my system and the game stilll looks very good:

Player Detail: LOW
Bench Environment: LOW
Environment: MAX
Lighting: HIGH
Shadows: MED
Reflections: LOW
Crowd Animation: ON
Texture Detail: LOW
Resolution: 1024x768 OR 1280x1024 (very small performance hit of maybe 2 fps)
V-sync: ON
Triple Buffer (always choose this if you pick v-sync to avoid 'tearing' of textures)
Anisotropic Filtering

With these settings I can get the frame rate counter steady at 70fps with my rig. I'm pretty sure your geforce4 ti4200 can do the same because it is pretty much comparable to the radeon 9500pro when AA and AF are turned OFF. Honestly give it a try! It seems like I put a lot of things on low but they don't really impact the visuals that much and you get over 60fps AT ALL TIMES..which IMHO is excellent for such a fastpaced game.

As far as anisotropic filtering goes, for some reason in this game it doesn't make ANY difference at all in both performance and image quality. Anti-Aliasing definitely makes the court lines look much straighter though, but at a cost of performance.

I also just did some benchmarks with my card and overclocking tweaks,
i went to 290/610 on my oc now. in 3dmark2001se i see little i guess artifacts, but it's only on the test where the horse spins, im not sure bout that test though, cause that horsey is all f*cked up lol. i mean you can see through it and see like mess ups just by default. i guess its the art work however they made it, maybe they meant to make it that way ::shrugs::.
I lowered my mem clock and all of the ones thats not supposed to be there dissappeared. But i still feel like thats an inaccurate test to do.
but i did raise my mem clock up to 661 before windows went into 640x480 mode with a dialog box saying "windows has encountered a error, please save your settings and restart windows" so i hit my high with that. thats pretty high of reaching still though. but now im working on the core clock.
290 from 250 so far.

Hey what kinda 3dmark2001se scores do you get? I get max around 11,000 stock w/o overclocking anything. In 3dmark03 I get around 3500. I'm not obsessed like some people about this benchmark but just wondering how I stack up with your gfx card since i was thinking of getting a ti4200 before too.

i notice that there still looks to be the same amount of players on the bench when you change that setting lol. I like the reflections and i goto check up on the shadows. yeah, the detail in characters dont seem any different either lol. i guess mabye up close it matters?

Yeah I only notice a diff in the cutscenes up close to the characters. You know for some reason the xbox version of this game looks MUCH smoother than the pc one even when I'm running at 60fps? Weird.

Hey what kinda 3dmark2001se scores do you get? I get max around 11,000 stock w/o overclocking anything. In 3dmark03 I get around 3500. I'm not obsessed like some people about this benchmark but just wondering how I stack up with your gfx card since i was thinking of getting a ti4200 before too.

K i think ima runnin into a few problems, first off i know something is bottlenecking me. I keep comparing my scores and most ti4200 cards are @ at least 11,000. im gettin 9605 the highest right now. i goto figure out whats up. i did jump up, before i was at i think 8000 something. hmm, i just reinstalled, but still thinking bout reinstalling again, then running it, are you on dx8 or 9? im on 9. im pretty sure my aa settings and all are off.
wierd.

Yeah I only notice a diff in the cutscenes up close to the characters. You know for some reason the xbox version of this game looks MUCH smoother than the pc one even when I'm running at 60fps? Weird.

on the cutscenes, i noticed there hands look like pancakes on low detail lmao. its a pretty ugly site up close. but if your above 1024x768 you dont notice too much the on court detail of the players, but try putting it in 800x600 or lower, the players get UGLY, it's annoying. i went back to the highest resolution the game allows now because like you said, there is a small frame rate difference. very small. im happy with that. you can easily get away with low detail at 1248x1024 ( i think thats it ). The player detail is a Big framerate killer. i think you said that in a post.
I noticed also, you dont even need shadows, if you got reflection on, you can see the shadows also through the reflection of the floor, heh funny huh?
texture details? for some reason it's shadowed out on my card! i know my card supports it, obviously.
mabye i can only pick that at the beggining of the game or something.
Enviroment, i have to high i think. when it's not on max though, you cant see the stairs detailed all the way.

my max right now is 45 with settings set, wtf am i doing wrong now? man.
jeez, i goto figure this out. i bet you money if i went to windows 2000 id get higher. i ran gta vice city in that and it ran sooo smooth, so did enemy territory. but i dont want 2000, i want the cool windows xp interface lol.
time to go rack my brain alittle.....

here this should work correctly..
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6757733

K i think ima runnin into a few problems, first off i know something is bottlenecking me. I keep comparing my scores and most ti4200 cards are @ at least 11,000. im gettin 9605 the highest right now. i goto figure out whats up. i did jump up, before i was at i think 8000 something. hmm, i just reinstalled, but still thinking bout reinstalling again, then running it, are you on dx8 or 9? im on 9. im pretty sure my aa settings and all are off.
wierd.

hmm...actually I don't think your scores are that far off from what you should be getting. Did you ever go to the online compare thing at futuremark.com after you benchmarked? You can compare with other people at your processor speed using the same graphics card. Honestly 3dmark2001 is not a very good graphics card benchmark, because your scores inflate like hell once you get a faster cpu. I wouldn't be surprised if people with athlon 1700+'s get around your score with ti4200's. Keep in mind though that lots of people o/c your card like crazy and are not at stock so #'s can be very deceiving.
I'm using dx9a. Did you update to the newest Detonator drivers before benchmarking?

here's mine:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6434092
The thing reads my graphics card as a Radeon 9700 because I unlocked my graphics card bios by flashing it.

on the cutscenes, i noticed there hands look like pancakes on low detail lmao. its a pretty ugly site up close. but if your above 1024x768 you dont notice too much the on court detail of the players, but try putting it in 800x600 or lower, the players get UGLY, it's annoying. i went back to the highest resolution the game allows now because like you said, there is a small frame rate difference. very small. im happy with that. you can easily get away with low detail at 1248x1024 ( i think thats it ). The player detail is a Big framerate killer. i think you said that in a post.

hehe try my details on 1280x1024!..they work alright..

I noticed also, you dont even need shadows, if you got reflection on, you can see the shadows also through the reflection of the floor, heh funny huh?

oh yeah those look really nice. But reflections are big framerate killers!..holy crap. I turn them on medium and turn off shadows and I'm down to about 56fps (~15fps less) compared to shadows medium and reflection low where i get 70 constant.

texture details? for some reason it's shadowed out on my card! i know my card supports it, obviously.
mabye i can only pick that at the beggining of the game or something.

Oh yeah you can't change texture details while you're in the middle of a game. You have to be at the main menu before you can change it.

Enviroment, i have to high i think. when it's not on max though, you cant see the stairs detailed all the way.

I like it on max because there's a few subtle differences, such as a colored balcony on the left side of the court and also a gatorade bucket and some refs sitting on the sidelines (wtf are they doing THERE?)

my max right now is 45 with settings set, wtf am i doing wrong now? man.
jeez, i goto figure this out. i bet you money if i went to windows 2000 id get higher. i ran gta vice city in that and it ran sooo smooth, so did enemy territory. but i dont want 2000, i want the cool windows xp interface lol.
time to go rack my brain alittle.....

hmm?...you get 45 with what settings? I'm sure you could get better than that.

Windows xp is hands-down better than 2000 for games. I also hope your'e not running in 98..haha..nba live 2003 hates win98.
Vice City is awesome. I can play at 1280x1024 with 4XAA and 4XAF and it's smooth as silk as long as framelimiter is off.

oh hey remember our discussion about power supplies?
I found this link that "calculates" it for you in general. Not sure how accurate it is. For me it recommends 275Watt psu.

http://www.jscustompcs.com/power_supply/

Your Recommended Minimum Power Supply is 221 Watts!!*

Heh, i tryed runnin my graphics card on a 250 watt psu i think it was, and my monitor would blink off and on. i at least needed close to a 300watt min im guessing from there site/and my 350watt min it says on the box it came in. that might be accurate for my other devices to run, but the Ti 4200 isn't have'n it. lol.

for my drivers and all, there all updated, and stuff.
I was *Very* aware that lots of people Oc there cards on the test, in fact i noticed tonight that they dont show ( unless the users put it down ) the core and memory clock speeds of the graphics card. i try and put em down on mines.
btw, wich comparisom did you get? you got the one rated at 9065 on my link right?

i also noticed sorta how it jumps and dives pretty quick depending on what cpu they have. but yeah i compared mines to others, thats where i got the 11,000 comment from. but true i should remember always they OC like cats running wild lol. im happy i got it up the way i did, cause like i said i was around 8000 or something before.

Our cards look pretty close in comparison cool. Radeons deff are good cards now, that modding sh*t is crazy. make a non pro a pro lol.

hehe try my details on 1280x1024!..they work alright..

i think thats the res i meant and...

But reflections are big framerate killers!..holy crap. I turn them on medium and turn off shadows and I'm down to about 56fps (~15fps less) compared to shadows medium and reflection low where i get 70 constant.

i think thats why my rates are low, i got em on medium or higher and i dont wont to lower it cause i like how they look. i *did* turn them off, and WHOA! it picked up HEAVILY on speed/fluid movements. Just got kinda ugly lookin to me lol. wait a minute, thats was in lights, oh yeah hehe.
yeah , lemme goto low, and tell ya what i get.

I like it on max because there's a few subtle differences, such as a colored balcony on the left side of the court and also a gatorade bucket and some refs sitting on the sidelines (wtf are they doing THERE?)

haha, i noticed that lol. i miss the old dayz of refs actually running along side the court *sighs*. i guess it was too much to animate the guy sitting on the ground with the camera too.



i forget what exactly i had all my settings too but....
Resolution: Doesnt matter
pretty much seemed any settings on the left column did'nt make a big difference.
on the right column settings...

Player Detail: Low on a resolution higher than 800x600

Enviroment: High

Bench players : Low

Reflections: High ( i think, kept going back and forth from that and medium i believe )

Shadows: Off ( gonna switch to what ya have )

Lights : High

crowd animations: on

Windows xp is hands-down better than 2000 for games. I also hope your'e not running in 98..haha..nba live 2003 hates win98.

I learned *QUICK* not to run games on windows 98! lol
gta vice city would get sooo choppy when i picked up speeds on streets with music.


btw, i ran into a cool program/screensaver where you can see awesome reflections , graphics for your card, this program is like WHOA! ....

http://www.driverheaven.net/saver/

there's abunch of cool stuff to check here...
http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthrea ... did=189553

Windows xp is hands-down better than 2000 for games. I also hope your'e not running in 98..haha..nba live 2003 hates win98.

I used to run Live 2k3 on Win 98 and it ran pretty well. That was on my old PC as well. My old PC was like this-

P4 1.7 Ghz
640 MB SDRAM
64 MB GeForce2 Mx400

It'd run games such as Madden 2k3, AVP II, UT 2003 and GTA III quite well too, but I never had any problems with it.

Now with my new PC, I had Win Xp Pro at first, but it didn't like my video card for strange reason, so I went back to Win 2000.

My new PC stands as-

AMD XP3000
1024 DDR Ram @ 400Mhz
ATI Radeon 9700 128 Mb

and amazingly it's still a lil choppy, in both Win XP Pro and Win 2000 w/ SP4.

Plus, I got a GeForce4 Ti 4200 off a friend who no longer needed it so I added that to my old PC. What I don't get is how the old PC runs more smooth than the new one.

computers can confuse the crap out of ya at times lol.
I can run games like Gta 3 vice city with high details and stuff, but when i run Enemy Territory, it runs smooth, but when it loads the game up the first time for each map it loads for about a minute and i have to wait. im still trying to figure out why it does that. on windows 2000 it did'nt do that. heh. it was alot worser untill i defrag my computer, and faster when i formatted and installed again.

btw, nice system, both actually isn't too bad. the older one would fit like a younger brother or some one easily.

Heh, i tryed runnin my graphics card on a 250 watt psu i think it was, and my monitor would blink off and on. i at least needed close to a 300watt min im guessing from there site/and my 350watt min it says on the box it came in. that might be accurate for my other devices to run, but the Ti 4200 isn't have'n it. lol.

Interesting. I have an old PII 300 in my living room being used as basically a vcd/realmedia/avi player on my tv. I use my old Radeon 9000 card's s-video out to output my pic to the tv. The weird thing is, every now and then i turn on that computer and i get NO picture at all. The psu is definitely < 300watts. I wonder if that could be why I get no picture. After I turn the computer on and off like 10 times i finally get something to show. Never happened before with my OLD OLD geforce2mx400's tv out. Whatcha think?

for my drivers and all, there all updated, and stuff.
I was *Very* aware that lots of people Oc there cards on the test, in fact i noticed tonight that they dont show ( unless the users put it down ) the core and memory clock speeds of the graphics card. i try and put em down on mines.
btw, wich comparisom did you get? you got the one rated at 9065 on my link right?

yup that's the comparison link you gave me!

i also noticed sorta how it jumps and dives pretty quick depending on what cpu they have. but yeah i compared mines to others, thats where i got the 11,000 comment from. but true i should remember always they OC like cats running wild lol. im happy i got it up the way i did, cause like i said i was around 8000 or something before.

As far as what you should be getting, I still think your score is about right..maybe a couple hundred short of avg. When I'm logged into futuremark and I click on "3d processor comparison" on the left pane, it shows that with my cpu and a Ti4200 get around 9900 3dmarks based on the compiled avg of their database. Since ppl overclock this card like crazy, this leads me to believe your score is not too far off!

Our cards look pretty close in comparison cool. Radeons deff are good cards now, that modding sh*t is crazy. make a non pro a pro lol.

Yeah the 9500pro falls somewhere between the ti4200 and ti4400 w/o FSAA or AF. But when those are turned on, ALL the Geforce4's are waaaaay behind.
If i was serious enough about overclocking and voltage modding I could turn my 9500pro to ALMOST the speeds of a 9700pro. I've seen it done before, no joke.

haha, i noticed that lol. i miss the old dayz of refs actually running along side the court *sighs*. i guess it was too much to animate the guy sitting on the ground with the camera too.

That's EA for u! Taking out things that should not be removed. Such as the in-game save option. ugh.

I learned *QUICK* not to run games on windows 98! lol
gta vice city would get sooo choppy when i picked up speeds on streets with music.

Oh yeah just a tip for Vice City. The game has a framerate limiter where when turned on it caps the fps to 30. However, by turning it off you can release the cap. I've noticed that if i do this then objects pop up out of no where when driving and stuff. To fix this problem run the game in win98 compatibility mode using WinXP. Surprisingly enough this actually fixes it.

Last edited by bishibashiboy on Tue Jul 15, 2003 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I used to run Live 2k3 on Win 98 and it ran pretty well. That was on my old PC as well. My old PC was like this-

P4 1.7 Ghz
640 MB SDRAM
64 MB GeForce2 Mx400

It'd run games such as Madden 2k3, AVP II, UT 2003 and GTA III quite well too, but I never had any problems with it.

Now with my new PC, I had Win Xp Pro at first, but it didn't like my video card for strange reason, so I went back to Win 2000.

That's REALLY strange. I've never seen anyone with problems with the Radeon 9700 not liking winxp. Did you d/l the newest Catalyst 3.5's? Very stable.

My new PC stands as-

AMD XP3000
1024 DDR Ram @ 400Mhz
ATI Radeon 9700 128 Mb

and amazingly it's still a lil choppy, in both Win XP Pro and Win 2000 w/ SP4.

Plus, I got a GeForce4 Ti 4200 off a friend who no longer needed it so I added that to my old PC. What I don't get is how the old PC runs more smooth than the new one.

Damn nice system. I wouldn't mind having that one.
What games are still choppy??
There's definitely a problem with your drivers or something. There is NO way a 9700 can be outpaced by a Ti4200. Did you do a clean install of XP? Did you make sure FSAA and AF are off? Maybe you should RMA your Radeon...or just give it to me!

Heh, i tryed runnin my graphics card on a 250 watt psu i think it was, and my monitor would blink off and on. i at least needed close to a 300watt min im guessing from there site/and my 350watt min it says on the box it came in. that might be accurate for my other devices to run, but the Ti 4200 isn't have'n it. lol.

Interesting. I have an old PII 300 in my living room being used as basically a vcd/realmedia/avi player on my tv. I use my old Radeon 9000 card's s-video out to output my pic to the tv. The weird thing is, every now and then i turn on that computer and i get NO picture at all. The psu is definitely < 300watts. I wonder if that could be why I get no picture. After I turn the computer on and off like 10 times i finally get something to show. Never happened before with my OLD OLD geforce2mx400's tv out. Whatcha think?

Damn , computers generate so many problems from different people.
With my card, soon as i installed a fresh copy of windows, ( i thought i needed to reinstall windows for some reason ), it got to the end of the install screen and it would do it, then in windows started right away. i changed my resolution higher, refresh rate the highest, then downloaded latest drivers. it stopped and only occured when i was playing games ( pretty much meant it was gettin to hot ). so check of course you got all your updated drivers, make sure that card is compatible with that older board. and of course make sure your at the recommended watts it says on the radeon box.

i also noticed sorta how it jumps and dives pretty quick depending on what cpu they have. but yeah i compared mines to others, thats where i got the 11,000 comment from. but true i should remember always they OC like cats running wild lol. im happy i got it up the way i did, cause like i said i was around 8000 or something before.

As far as what you should be getting, I still think your score is about right..maybe a couple hundred short of avg. When I'm logged into futuremark and I click on "3d processor comparison" on the left pane, it shows that with my cpu and a Ti4200 get around 9900 3dmarks based on the compiled avg of their database. Since ppl overclock this card like crazy, this leads me to believe your score is not too far off! i didnt think to check the 3d processor comparison, i beleive ya since you checked that out and stuff. cool.

Our cards look pretty close in comparison cool. Radeons deff are good cards now, that modding sh*t is crazy. make a non pro a pro lol.

Yeah the 9500pro falls somewhere between the ti4200 and ti4400 w/o FSAA or AF. But when those are turned on, ALL the Geforce4's are waaaaay behind.
If i was serious enough about overclocking and voltage modding I could turn my 9500pro to ALMOST the speeds of a 9700pro. I've seen it done before, no joke. time and time, i keep thinking bout getting a newer radeon.
I just never had a nvidia/geforce card before, and i heard so much hype about them, now i have one to live the legend. lol.

I learned *QUICK* not to run games on windows 98! lol
gta vice city would get sooo choppy when i picked up speeds on streets with music.

Oh yeah just a tip for Vice City. The game has a framerate limiter where when turned on it caps the fps to 30. However, by turning it off you can release the cap. I've noticed that if i do this then objects pop up out of no where when driving and stuff. To fix this problem run the game in win98 compatibility mode using WinXP. Surprisingly enough this actually fixes it.

thanks

Damn , computers generate so many problems from different people.
With my card, soon as i installed a fresh copy of windows, ( i thought i needed to reinstall windows for some reason ), it got to the end of the install screen and it would do it, then in windows started right away. i changed my resolution higher, refresh rate the highest, then downloaded latest drivers. it stopped and only occured when i was playing games ( pretty much meant it was gettin to hot ). so check of course you got all your updated drivers, make sure that card is compatible with that older board. and of course make sure your at the recommended watts it says on the radeon box.

yeah true. I dunno..maybe it's time i junked that system.

I just never had a nvidia/geforce card before, and i heard so much hype about them, now i have one to live the legend. lol.

yeah those are basically the ONLY 3d-solutions now. Too bad. More competition is normally better for us end-users.

Honestly i think people should just give up on this version of Live. Live 2004 sounds to be infinitely better than this one, and it looks like it might actually deliver this time. Hopefully it'll run on most people's systems w/o too many problems. Afterall, a Geforce4 Ti should have been able to run almost anything this year no problem. EA just screwed up royally with the coding in this game. There's no reason why we get such pathetic framerates at max details, when almost EVERY other game out can be run at max details. Unreal Tournament is much more complex and more detailed than Live 2003, and it runs very well on most mid-range systems. Hopefully EA can learn from their mistakes and make 2004 a lot more hardware friendly. Just my lil rant.

Id never junk a computer, unless ya just mean throw the parts in a old computer.

But yeah EA messed up, i hope they know it. Id play another basketball for PC if there was one lol. the latest and only 2003 game is nba live. so im stuck playin this till the next one, jeez, what a game to have in your collection huh?


I been stuck on enemy territory lateyl alot. They just came out with new maps too that players made.

Hey, bishbashiboy, just thought id tell ya i hit 10,000 with 3dmark2001 tonight!
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6773753
some of them bastards also "Cheat" by going in 640/480 mode

Hey, bishbashiboy, just thought id tell ya i hit 10,000 with 3dmark2001 tonight!
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6773753
some of them bastards also "Cheat" by going in 640/480 mode

haha nice nice..how'd you pull it off?
i can see you bumped your fsb by at least 1mhz...but i dont' think that'd make that big a difference!haha

i also noticed you're running dx8.1 and win98 again...
why the switch????

hey i 've never tried running in 640x480..haha i wonder what i'll get!

Yep, that was my test, i wanted to see what i got in windows 98 and with directx 8, i switched too dx9 and it was very little performance, about a few points higher. dx9 card would excel better of course.

Believe it or not, you do get about a few hundred increase from raising the fsb! i did it a few times, i had like 140 or something, and i increased it, and the scored jumped right on up, it kept makin me soo bad want to go higher.

Im now on windows 2000 pro, windows 98 was too unstable, at first it was because i had agp fast writes enabled wich caused instability, i read it on sites, and they all said the same, plus there isnt too big of a increase from whats being said. ima try reenable it and see if i get higher or lower, im thinking thats why i got lower scores before i'll see. but this is what i get with windows 2000
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6775308

since i have the stability i can go up a few more mhz on the fsb now
im sooo addicted! need higher scores!

Yep, that was my test, i wanted to see what i got in windows 98 and with directx 8, i switched too dx9 and it was very little performance, about a few points higher. dx9 card would excel better of course.

Believe it or not, you do get about a few hundred increase from raising the fsb! i did it a few times, i had like 140 or something, and i increased it, and the scored jumped right on up, it kept makin me soo bad want to go higher.

Im now on windows 2000 pro, windows 98 was too unstable, at first it was because i had agp fast writes enabled wich caused instability, i read it on sites, and they all said the same, plus there isnt too big of a increase from whats being said. ima try reenable it and see if i get higher or lower, im thinking thats why i got lower scores before i'll see. but this is what i get with windows 2000
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6775308

since i have the stability i can go up a few more mhz on the fsb now
im sooo addicted! need higher scores!

hehe honestly, i think if you re-install winxp your score will either stay the same as it is now in 2000 or go up slightly. Normally reinstalling an operating system produces better results since there's a lot less junk.

As far as i know, increases in fsb GREATLY influence your score in 3dmark2001. But honestly, I don't think the score in this benchmark is the be-all and end-all that tells you how good/bad your system is when it comes to running games. It's kinda old and in the end, even jumping 1000 points in the benchmark means at most 5% in real-world games. I like looking more at texture fill-rates (single and double) and shader speeds in this test. Those are important and really show how good or bad your card is. Shader speed is especially important since ALL the new dx9 games will require fast shader speed (HL2, Deus Ex2..etc) as well as the big one: DOOM3 (although it uses opengl). In the end, you probably won't be keeping your cpu that long anyways, since upgrades are so cheap compared to the new graphics cards out.

Oh and just as a side-note, you know how they calculate the scores right? You only need to run tests 1-4 (the game tests) to generate a score. So you can really cut down on your benchmarking speed by just running those tests.

I figured something like that. cool.
its cool just to have your name up on 3dmark close to the tops or whatever. feels sort of like ya got some power to ya stuff. so far im sticking with windows 2000, im so addicted to xp, see how long i can stay. i hook the gui up so its nice and fancy, i get jealous over xps interface. got cool icons from icon packager and windows blinds. .terminator 3 skin is phat, the way the words light up, the futuristic look of the letters, and it feels like your in a metal frame, cause when you minimize the window, it does a heavy clicking sound of metal closing.

My card made me happy tonight though lol i just got the new evga leaked drivers, supposebly final whql drivers though. i didnt test em out with benchmarkin been going nuts with music, but will in about a few minutes. see what i get.

so back on the nba live framerate talk...

I put Texture details to low
player detail - medium ( i cant go any lower than that, cause the players really start lookin fake with pancake hands and deformed faces, even in 1240x1024 mode my current resolution running at )
lighting - High
Reflections - Low ( although when in game ima kick it up and forget about the loss of about 4 fps )
Shadows - Medium ( just right )
Enviroment - Max
Bench Players - low
Crowd animation - on

Aniso- off, but i seen no effect with it on.
triplebufer - off , but i seen no difference with it on, mabye it's just me.
v-sync - off

with these settings i get 50fps around, and great graphics detail .
i make sure i go know lower than 50. if i kick the reflections up like i said, id get bout 45, 46 fps. wich wont really matter when i stop counting the fps with the counter.

at times with these settings it jumps to 70 fps, in game, not replays. lol

so back on the nba live framerate talk...

I put Texture details to low
player detail - medium ( i cant go any lower than that, cause the players really start lookin fake with pancake hands and deformed faces, even in 1240x1024 mode my current resolution running at )
lighting - High
Reflections - Low ( although when in game ima kick it up and forget about the loss of about 4 fps )
Shadows - Medium ( just right )
Enviroment - Max
Bench Players - low
Crowd animation - on

Aniso- off, but i seen no effect with it on.
triplebufer - off , but i seen no difference with it on, mabye it's just me.
v-sync - off

with these settings i get 50fps around, and great graphics detail .
i make sure i go know lower than 50. if i kick the reflections up like i said, id get bout 45, 46 fps. wich wont really matter when i stop counting the fps with the counter.

at times with these settings it jumps to 70 fps, in game, not replays. lol

Hey!! those are my settings!haha
but yeah, everything is same except the player detail. I don't really care about their "pancake" hands. I never play the game up-close anyways (always using press view), so it never really bugs me if the players aren't as detailed. The detailing is so subtle anyways, so blah, I'd rather keep my framerate up.
Too bad I can't find a way to get the game to run fast with reflections on. It really does look a lot better with them on medium or high.

Oh as for triple buffer, it only needs to be turned on when V-sync is off. It's used to reduce the 'tearing' you see when action moves very fast since it gives the to-be-displayed image one more buffer to hold the upcoming images. That way, you won't see ugly 'tearing' (that ugly refresh that occurs when it seems like images are just pasted on top of each other really quick due to the fact you're running your game higher than the vertical refresh of your monitor).

I think the goal with this game is to keep the fps above 60 at all times. Anything less than that, and you can see choppiness in this game. It's very noticeable for some reason compared to other games, when the fps drop to 50 or even 40. At 30 it's basically unplayable.