How smooth is your AMD Athlon 2200+ with a GeForce4 Ti4200?

wrote:

Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm.../computers.txt ... I am using
the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.

In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use 1024x768
resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (in
Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses 1152x864 resolution.

I ran Wolfenstain under RH 7.2 using a P4 1.3GHz with 128MB RDRAM and a
64MB NVidia GeForce3 Ti 500 at a resolution of 1280x1024 and it was very
smooth, only dropping slightly at times. I had anisotropic filtering
off and no AA.

What is the bottleneck?

I noticed you have two different types/speed RAM in your machine.
Trying removing one and see how that works. 256Mb RAM is be enough to
work with Wolfenstein to make a comparison.

I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great and
ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I also
had the video card since October 2002.

I have a Ti4600 and it wasn't the huge improvement over the Ti500 that I
expected.

What do you think? Thank you in advance.

My only are thoughts are to make sure that your settings are optimised
in the BIOS.

Also, make sure your CPU is running at the speed it should be.
Sometimes your BIOS can be a problem, in which case it will need to be
flashed.

I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D with only
2XAA and 4XAF@800x600 all quality settings maxed out in the game. On the forest
map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house by the
lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the whole game.
I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna gain that
much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your gonna have
to live with lower AA and AF settings

PRIVATE1964 wrote:
I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D with only
2XAA and 4XAF@800x600 all quality settings maxed out in the game. On the forest
map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house by the
lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the whole game.
I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna gain that
much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your gonna have
to live with lower AA and AF settings

Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so pixelly
even with a 17" monitor.
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

wrote:
PRIVATE1964 wrote:
I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D with only
2XAA and 4XAF@800x600 all quality settings maxed out in the game. On the forest
map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house by the
lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the whole game.
I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna gain that
much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your gonna have
to live with lower AA and AF settings

Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so pixelly
even with a 17" monitor.

Do you think GeForce FX card will be a big difference?
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

wrote in message
...
wrote:
PRIVATE1964 wrote:
I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D
with only
2XAA and 4XAF@800x600 all quality settings maxed out in the game. On
the forest
map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house
by the
lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the
whole game.
I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna
gain that
much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your
gonna have
to live with lower AA and AF settings

Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so
pixelly
even with a 17" monitor.

Do you think GeForce FX card will be a big difference?
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

As long as it isnt an FX5200 there might be a marginal AA improvement
because of the DX9 support (and other features nobody ever finds)

Why do you need the AA so high, i either have it on 2x or off on my MX440
and ET runs fine and looks ok at 1024

I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D
with only
2XAA and 4XAF@800x600 all quality settings maxed out in the game. On
the forest
map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house
by the
lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the
whole game.
I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna
gain that
much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your
gonna have
to live with lower AA and AF settings

Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so
pixelly
even with a 17" monitor.

As long as it isnt an FX5200 there might be a marginal AA improvement
because of the DX9 support (and other features nobody ever finds)

Why do you need the AA so high, i either have it on 2x or off on my MX440
and ET runs fine and looks ok at 1024

Because the jagged edges and lines annoy me. I am just picky.
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

White Spirit wrote:
wrote:

Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm.../computers.txt ... I am using
the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.

In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use 1024x768
resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (in
Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses 1152x864 resolution.

I ran Wolfenstain under RH 7.2 using a P4 1.3GHz with 128MB RDRAM and a
64MB NVidia GeForce3 Ti 500 at a resolution of 1280x1024 and it was very
smooth, only dropping slightly at times. I had anisotropic filtering
off and no AA.

Is this RTCW:ET or the original? The original was smooth. The newer one (ET)
got a little choppy. This is with 2X AA and 8X Anisotrophic.


What is the bottleneck?

I noticed you have two different types/speed RAM in your machine.
Trying removing one and see how that works. 256Mb RAM is be enough to
work with Wolfenstein to make a comparison.

I used to have 512 MB of RAM before adding another 512 MB. It was the same.


I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great and
ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I also
had the video card since October 2002.

I have a Ti4600 and it wasn't the huge improvement over the Ti500 that I
expected.

Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
Faster model than Ti4200?


What do you think? Thank you in advance.

My only are thoughts are to make sure that your settings are optimised
in the BIOS.

They are with Optimal setting. I don't know about BIOS to tweak it nor
do I want to overclock anything.


Also, make sure your CPU is running at the speed it should be.
Sometimes your BIOS can be a problem, in which case it will need to be
flashed.

I already have the newest BIOS.
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

wrote:

Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
Faster model than Ti4200?

It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.

I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should have.

The Ti4200 should be faster.

"White Spirit" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
Faster model than Ti4200?

It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.

I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should
have.

The Ti4200 should be faster.


If you can even find ti500's around now, they're still (imho) the best bang
for the buck. They're almost the same pace as a 4200 and generally 40%
cheaper. I have a PNY ti500 and just run it stock, quite slick.

Next upgrade will likely be a shift over to the ATI side of things, I
haven't tried their newer line of cards for quite sometime.

"TheSingingCat" wrote in message ...
"White Spirit" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
Faster model than Ti4200?

It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.

I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should
have.

The Ti4200 should be faster.


If you can even find ti500's around now, they're still (imho) the best bang
for the buck. They're almost the same pace as a 4200 and generally 40%
cheaper. I have a PNY ti500 and just run it stock, quite slick.

Next upgrade will likely be a shift over to the ATI side of things, I
haven't tried their newer line of cards for quite sometime.

While I am an NVidia hater for their incompatibilities with the early
cards and VIA chipsets, not to mention their horrid treatment of
VooDoo owners, I must say I am impressed with the price/performence of
the PNY Verto ti500 64D. It is even faster than my 8500DV (It is
supposed to be lol) With a powerful enough computer, this card
shines. I am going to try and stick with ATI for their features and
new power, but the GeForce3 still has life if found cheep.