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

wrote in message
...
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.
Even with nothing running in the background for both operating systems.
Older games like Q3A and their mods are smooth, but then they are old
games.

What is the bottleneck? 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.

It's the 8x aniso. It really drops framerates to 1/3 or so compared with no
aniso. I can't run any more than 2x aniso when I run 2x FSAA, or games gets
real sluggish. I don't see much difference between 2x and 8x (and 4x) anyway
2x is good for me.

Generals is also a polygon-rich game which means it takes a bigger hit when
running FSAA because of the edge-AA-only technology.

Upgrading to Ti4600 won't give you much gain because it's only memory/clock
that is increased. Newer models such as FX has better algorithms for
calculating aniso (and FSAA?) which gives much more than simple memory/gpu
clocking can do. This can be seen in benchmarks, when an FX card can be as
fast as a Ti card in no FSAA/no aniso, but when enabling FSAA/aniso it takes
less of a performance hit.

Having said that, my recent upgrade to an Athlon XP 2100+, Leadtek Ti4200
and Hitachi CML174 is the best I have done ever. All to the low price of $50
for the CPU, $140 for the Leadtek and $420 for the TFT...

/M

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.
( )

PRIVATE1964 wrote:
I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I can run

Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high resolutions at
1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17" CRT
monitor.


the game settings maxed out at 1024x768, 2XAA, 4XAF, but there might be a
couple of places where the framerate might dip below 42fps. I want the graphics
to be the best they can, with a good framerate. To me that is 42fps or higher.
Also the visual difference between 8XAF and 4XAF is slight, but the fps hit is
high. I tested this with screenshots from Wolf3D. Going to a newer FX card
might help with higher AA and AF settings, as someone mentioned but the
increase in framerate won't be all that much. Also I believe wold3d is very cpu
dependent. The only way your gonna see a very high improvement would be to get
one of the latest cards like the 5900 or ATI 9700/9800 radeon, but then your
cpu would be a big bottleneck for cpu dependent games.

Yeah, I wonder if it is even worth upgrading my video card.
--
"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.
( )

Martin Eriksson wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.
Even with nothing running in the background for both operating systems.
Older games like Q3A and their mods are smooth, but then they are old
games.

What is the bottleneck? 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.

It's the 8x aniso. It really drops framerates to 1/3 or so compared with no
aniso. I can't run any more than 2x aniso when I run 2x FSAA, or games gets
real sluggish. I don't see much difference between 2x and 8x (and 4x) anyway
2x is good for me.

Really? I see differences with 8X vs. 2X especially in Battlefield 1942 if
I look at a distance.


Generals is also a polygon-rich game which means it takes a bigger hit when
running FSAA because of the edge-AA-only technology.

Doesn't it also use anisotropic when looking far away?


Upgrading to Ti4600 won't give you much gain because it's only memory/clock
that is increased. Newer models such as FX has better algorithms for
calculating aniso (and FSAA?) which gives much more than simple memory/gpu
clocking can do. This can be seen in benchmarks, when an FX card can be as
fast as a Ti card in no FSAA/no aniso, but when enabling FSAA/aniso it takes
less of a performance hit.

Having said that, my recent upgrade to an Athlon XP 2100+, Leadtek Ti4200
and Hitachi CML174 is the best I have done ever. All to the low price of $50
for the CPU, $140 for the Leadtek and $420 for the TFT...

What's TFT? I think I paid 250 bucks for LeadTek WinFast A250 VIVO
last year. The new ATI All-In-Wonder is almost 400 bucks. Ouch!
--
"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
...
PRIVATE1964 wrote:
I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I
can run

Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high
resolutions at
1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17"
CRT
monitor.


Heh, i'm the opposite - everything's too small and hard to see on those
resolutions.

Mind you, I only have a 14'' monitor, so 800x600 is pretty much the best I
can do anyway (coupled with the low refresh rate of my monitor).

wrote:
[snip]

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.

If you're that picky, you should aim for card at least something like
Radeon 9700 Pro. Anything lower than that you have to compromise. You
get what you pay for.

wrote in message
...
Martin Eriksson wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.
Even with nothing running in the background for both operating
systems.
Older games like Q3A and their mods are smooth, but then they are old
games.

What is the bottleneck? 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.

It's the 8x aniso. It really drops framerates to 1/3 or so compared with
no
aniso. I can't run any more than 2x aniso when I run 2x FSAA, or games
gets
real sluggish. I don't see much difference between 2x and 8x (and 4x)
anyway
2x is good for me.

Really? I see differences with 8X vs. 2X especially in Battlefield 1942 if
I look at a distance.

I'm sure you do =) it's just that it doesn't bother me as much as loosing 2x
FSAA for instance. Try 4x AF (anisotropic), might be the "golden middle" you
are looking for.



Generals is also a polygon-rich game which means it takes a bigger hit
when
running FSAA because of the edge-AA-only technology.

Doesn't it also use anisotropic when looking far away?

Do you mean "Generals" in general (no phun intended) or the FSAA algorithm?
I don't think FSAA uses anisotropic if you don't force it/use it in some
settings.

Upgrading to Ti4600 won't give you much gain because it's only
memory/clock
that is increased. Newer models such as FX has better algorithms for
calculating aniso (and FSAA?) which gives much more than simple
memory/gpu
clocking can do. This can be seen in benchmarks, when an FX card can be
as
fast as a Ti card in no FSAA/no aniso, but when enabling FSAA/aniso it
takes
less of a performance hit.

Having said that, my recent upgrade to an Athlon XP 2100+, Leadtek
Ti4200
and Hitachi CML174 is the best I have done ever. All to the low price of
$50
for the CPU, $140 for the Leadtek and $420 for the TFT...

What's TFT? I think I paid 250 bucks for LeadTek WinFast A250 VIVO
last year. The new ATI All-In-Wonder is almost 400 bucks. Ouch!

Ah, the Hitachi CML174 is a TFT LCD monitor, really nice. As for the card I
don't use either VI or VO abilities so I got away cheaper (uh well my card
does have a video-out port but most have).

/M

k y l e wrote:
wrote in message
...
PRIVATE1964 wrote:
I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I
can run

Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high
resolutions at
1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17"
CRT
monitor.


Heh, i'm the opposite - everything's too small and hard to see on those
resolutions.

Mind you, I only have a 14'' monitor, so 800x600 is pretty much the best I
can do anyway (coupled with the low refresh rate of my monitor).

Ah, 14". Yes, I remember those. You should get a bigger screen.
--
"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.
( )

"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.

Yeah, the GeForce3 Ti500 was a screamer, and is still decently (is that even
a word??) fast. It's one of those "special" chips/card combinations that
just works VERY well together. The 4280 (an 8X Ti4200) is a good card for
the bucks and the Ti4600 is better IMHO than the Ti4800 because of the price
difference. The Ti4800SE is just an 8X Ti4400 but the price would make you
think it's something special.

Ron

"Dr. J" wrote in message
om...
"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.