A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Ati Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Weird solution to Halo performance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 21st 03, 09:15 AM
zlo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weird solution to Halo performance

This game has been running like crap on my system. It hasn't even been
playable at 800x600, or 1024x768. I've heard about issues with AA so i
always turn it off. My system is 1.2 athlon, 512DDR, 9700pro, 4x agp.
Well i thought i would do something really stupid, out of boredom. I bumped
it up to 1600x1200 to see how low i could go with my framerate. I could let
it sit, and just watch the screen at 16x12 and dream about what it would be
like to see it move smoothly at such a nice res. Low and behold, it runs a
100% better at 1600x1200! Why??? It's actually playable now, and if i had a
faster cpu, i bet it would run even smoother all the time. It's really
awesome to finally see this game in hi res, but i don't understand why it
runs so much better at 1600x1200 than 800x600. The only thing i can think of
is that by raising the res, it's telling the card to take more of the load
rather than the cpu? With the exclusion of AA and AF, this is true of my
other games too. I get better framerates at 1600x1200 than i do at 1024x768.



  #2  
Old October 21st 03, 09:44 AM
Inglo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10/21/2003 1:15 AM zlo befouled our nation with:

This game has been running like crap on my system. It hasn't even been
playable at 800x600, or 1024x768. I've heard about issues with AA so i
always turn it off. My system is 1.2 athlon, 512DDR, 9700pro, 4x agp.
Well i thought i would do something really stupid, out of boredom. I bumped
it up to 1600x1200 to see how low i could go with my framerate. I could let
it sit, and just watch the screen at 16x12 and dream about what it would be
like to see it move smoothly at such a nice res. Low and behold, it runs a
100% better at 1600x1200! Why??? It's actually playable now, and if i had a
faster cpu, i bet it would run even smoother all the time. It's really
awesome to finally see this game in hi res, but i don't understand why it
runs so much better at 1600x1200 than 800x600. The only thing i can think of
is that by raising the res, it's telling the card to take more of the load
rather than the cpu? With the exclusion of AA and AF, this is true of my
other games too. I get better framerates at 1600x1200 than i do at 1024x768.





I doubt if its 100% better or really much better at all, but you're
describing a CPU bottleneck precisely. I don't know really know what
happens when you combine a card like that and a processor that slow, it
does remind me back when I had a Voodoo3 running on a 300 MHz Celeron,
games ran a little faster at 1280x1024 than they did at 800x600 or at
least it felt that way.

Running Halo at 1600x1200 sure as hell isn't faster on my system. :-P

--
"I thought I had an appetite for destruction, but all I wanted was a club sandwich."

Steve [Inglo]

  #3  
Old October 21st 03, 10:23 AM
Sparrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I"m not sure that's possible. At higher resolution, the cpu is working just
as hard, but the framerate cape becomes the video card, not the cpu as is
with lower resolutions. It would be possible to get the same framerate when
going from a lower to a higher resolution. Which is I think what's happening
in your case since you have a very fast video card but a slow cpu. Try
runnning fraps in the background while playing to check you fps. Getting
higher framerates at higher res. is extremely unlikely
"zlo" wrote in message
. net...
This game has been running like crap on my system. It hasn't even been
playable at 800x600, or 1024x768. I've heard about issues with AA so i
always turn it off. My system is 1.2 athlon, 512DDR, 9700pro, 4x agp.
Well i thought i would do something really stupid, out of boredom. I

bumped
it up to 1600x1200 to see how low i could go with my framerate. I could

let
it sit, and just watch the screen at 16x12 and dream about what it would

be
like to see it move smoothly at such a nice res. Low and behold, it runs a
100% better at 1600x1200! Why??? It's actually playable now, and if i had

a
faster cpu, i bet it would run even smoother all the time. It's really
awesome to finally see this game in hi res, but i don't understand why it
runs so much better at 1600x1200 than 800x600. The only thing i can think

of
is that by raising the res, it's telling the card to take more of the load
rather than the cpu? With the exclusion of AA and AF, this is true of my
other games too. I get better framerates at 1600x1200 than i do at

1024x768.





  #4  
Old October 21st 03, 10:52 AM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

zlo wrote:
This game has been running like crap on my system. It hasn't even been
playable at 800x600, or 1024x768. I've heard about issues with AA so i
always turn it off. My system is 1.2 athlon, 512DDR, 9700pro, 4x agp.


CPU is pretty slow (in terms of cutting edge - I'm not sure what Halo
typically requires)

Well i thought i would do something really stupid, out of boredom. I
bumped it up to 1600x1200 to see how low i could go with my framerate. I
could let it sit, and just watch the screen at 16x12 and dream about what
it would be like to see it move smoothly at such a nice res. Low and
behold, it runs a 100% better at 1600x1200! Why??? It's actually playable
now, and if i had a faster cpu, i bet it would run even smoother all the
time.


Thats interesting to say the least. Did you ONLY change the resolution?
Did bumping the resolution that high disable something else (like, I
dunno... AA)

It's really awesome to finally see this game in hi res, but i don't
understand why it runs so much better at 1600x1200 than 800x600. The only
thing i can think of is that by raising the res, it's telling the card to
take more of the load rather than the cpu?


Nah, what the CPU does and what the GPU does is pretty clearly defined by
the drivers, regardless of resolution. I suspect that raising the
resolution disabled something else, that was causing the game to run slow.

With the exclusion of AA and
AF, this is true of my other games too. I get better framerates at
1600x1200 than i do at 1024x768.



That is odd. I always run at 1600x1200 so I can't say I've noticed :-)

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #5  
Old October 21st 03, 05:43 PM
Pluvious
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:23:51 -0400, "Sparrow" wrote:

I"m not sure that's possible. At higher resolution, the cpu is working just
as hard, but the framerate cape becomes the video card, not the cpu as is
with lower resolutions. It would be possible to get the same framerate when
going from a lower to a higher resolution. Which is I think what's happening
in your case since you have a very fast video card but a slow cpu. Try
runnning fraps in the background while playing to check you fps. Getting
higher framerates at higher res. is extremely unlikely



You can get a frame rate counter (built in) by hitting CTRL-F12.

Pluvious


"zlo" wrote in message
.net...
This game has been running like crap on my system. It hasn't even been
playable at 800x600, or 1024x768. I've heard about issues with AA so i
always turn it off. My system is 1.2 athlon, 512DDR, 9700pro, 4x agp.
Well i thought i would do something really stupid, out of boredom. I

bumped
it up to 1600x1200 to see how low i could go with my framerate. I could

let
it sit, and just watch the screen at 16x12 and dream about what it would

be
like to see it move smoothly at such a nice res. Low and behold, it runs a
100% better at 1600x1200! Why??? It's actually playable now, and if i had

a
faster cpu, i bet it would run even smoother all the time. It's really
awesome to finally see this game in hi res, but i don't understand why it
runs so much better at 1600x1200 than 800x600. The only thing i can think

of
is that by raising the res, it's telling the card to take more of the load
rather than the cpu? With the exclusion of AA and AF, this is true of my
other games too. I get better framerates at 1600x1200 than i do at

1024x768.





  #6  
Old October 22nd 03, 02:44 AM
zlo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i will try ctrl f12, because fraps will not work with my cpu. says it lacks
sse instructions or something.

--
www.geocities.com/mtb2k -my site
"Pluvious" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:23:51 -0400, "Sparrow"

wrote:

I"m not sure that's possible. At higher resolution, the cpu is working

just
as hard, but the framerate cape becomes the video card, not the cpu as is
with lower resolutions. It would be possible to get the same framerate

when
going from a lower to a higher resolution. Which is I think what's

happening
in your case since you have a very fast video card but a slow cpu. Try
runnning fraps in the background while playing to check you fps. Getting
higher framerates at higher res. is extremely unlikely



You can get a frame rate counter (built in) by hitting CTRL-F12.

Pluvious


"zlo" wrote in message
.net...
This game has been running like crap on my system. It hasn't even been
playable at 800x600, or 1024x768. I've heard about issues with AA so i
always turn it off. My system is 1.2 athlon, 512DDR, 9700pro, 4x agp.
Well i thought i would do something really stupid, out of boredom. I

bumped
it up to 1600x1200 to see how low i could go with my framerate. I could

let
it sit, and just watch the screen at 16x12 and dream about what it

would
be
like to see it move smoothly at such a nice res. Low and behold, it

runs a
100% better at 1600x1200! Why??? It's actually playable now, and if i

had
a
faster cpu, i bet it would run even smoother all the time. It's really
awesome to finally see this game in hi res, but i don't understand why

it
runs so much better at 1600x1200 than 800x600. The only thing i can

think
of
is that by raising the res, it's telling the card to take more of the

load
rather than the cpu? With the exclusion of AA and AF, this is true of

my
other games too. I get better framerates at 1600x1200 than i do at

1024x768.







  #7  
Old October 22nd 03, 03:14 AM
JAD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

you are aware that (in your prior post) that MAYA and all that other expensive software was never meant to be installed in
conjunction with 'games', There are subtle changes made to various system and driver files.


"zlo" wrote in message . net...
This game has been running like crap on my system. It hasn't even been
playable at 800x600, or 1024x768. I've heard about issues with AA so i
always turn it off. My system is 1.2 athlon, 512DDR, 9700pro, 4x agp.
Well i thought i would do something really stupid, out of boredom. I bumped
it up to 1600x1200 to see how low i could go with my framerate. I could let
it sit, and just watch the screen at 16x12 and dream about what it would be
like to see it move smoothly at such a nice res. Low and behold, it runs a
100% better at 1600x1200! Why??? It's actually playable now, and if i had a
faster cpu, i bet it would run even smoother all the time. It's really
awesome to finally see this game in hi res, but i don't understand why it
runs so much better at 1600x1200 than 800x600. The only thing i can think of
is that by raising the res, it's telling the card to take more of the load
rather than the cpu? With the exclusion of AA and AF, this is true of my
other games too. I get better framerates at 1600x1200 than i do at 1024x768.





  #8  
Old October 22nd 03, 03:41 PM
JAD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

when you install MAYA (non bootleg) will tell you in the beginning of the install that there will be changes made to your system. I
cannot give specifics as I do not own that software. However, during my training at college, we had the option to use whichever
software we wanted on a new bank of machines. We took the initiative to install the software ourselves, that's when I discovered
this. I did not do the virtual dub install, but through the grapevine heard that games stopped running exceptionally after the
software was installed. All this makes sense as this software is normally installed and hardly ANYTHING else, in the work
environment. It is not printed on the web page(at least not anywhere I have found) but it does discuss it briefly in the install
manual that comes with the software. I know I know black & white is the only way you'll except this....well I don't have it, but I
can tell you through experience with the software, this is true... these kids have no business having that SW ITFP. It can only be
ripped off, And as a retired professional I resent the fact that they do....even Adobe and their release of 'essentials' ****ed me
off.

Take it the way you will, I rarely post things that I cannot prove, but this is one time that my experience will have to do....





"Ben Pope" wrote in message ...
JAD wrote:
you are aware that (in your prior post) that MAYA and all that other
expensive software was never meant to be installed in conjunction with
'games', There are subtle changes made to various system and driver
files.


Hmm... not sure what you mean by that. Do you have any specifics?

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...




  #9  
Old October 22nd 03, 04:06 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JAD wrote:
when you install MAYA (non bootleg) will tell you in the beginning of the
install that there will be changes made to your system. I cannot give
specifics as I do not own that software. However, during my training at
college, we had the option to use whichever software we wanted on a new
bank of machines. We took the initiative to install the software
ourselves, that's when I discovered this. I did not do the virtual dub
install, but through the grapevine heard that games stopped running
exceptionally after the software was installed. All this makes sense as
this software is normally installed and hardly ANYTHING else, in the work
environment. It is not printed on the web page(at least not anywhere I
have found) but it does discuss it briefly in the install manual that
comes with the software. I know I know black & white is the only way
you'll except this....well I don't have it, but I can tell you through
experience with the software, this is true... these kids have no business
having that SW ITFP. It can only be ripped off, And as a retired
professional I resent the fact that they do....even Adobe and their
release of 'essentials' ****ed me off.

Take it the way you will, I rarely post things that I cannot prove, but
this is one time that my experience will have to do....



Well off-hand I can see no reason to directly modify system files that would
affect game performance.

I suspect that in certain situations whats happening is that it's
introducing a layer in the drivers that is adding some kind of functionality
but slowing down the rendering overall. Who knows... anything is possible.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Laptop Performance Revelation Ron Reaugh General 6 September 19th 04 10:43 PM
AIX versus SUN and Linux, best price performance ? Frank van de Pol General 0 January 28th 04 09:19 PM
2D performance ATI compared to Matrox Jo Vermeulen General 17 January 14th 04 07:25 PM
LS 2000/Vue Scan Halo and low contrast??? Mark Durrenberger Scanners 6 November 12th 03 12:37 PM
help. inadequate 9700 pro performance zlo Ati Videocards 3 August 31st 03 03:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.