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 » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FX5200 and fog problem



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 18th 03, 12:52 PM
Mario Kadastik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FX5200 and fog problem

Hello,

I have a Asus card with nVidia FX5200, PC2700 memory and Athlon XP 1700+
with WinXP+DX9 and 44.67 driver. I am having problems in games with fog
or smoke rendering. While the game runs smoothly at 1280x1024x32 and all
other effects (lens flare, rain, water animations) are just fine, then
whenever there is a bit smoke and I look through it, then I get around
3-5 fps. As soon as I look away from the smoke I have again normal FPS.
I have not detected this behaviour on any other effect, just the fog.

I have seen this issue on Battlefield 1942 patch 1.4 + road to rome and
on GTA Vice City.

Any ideas wether this is expected behaviour or a problem somewhere ? (I
don't remember having this problem with my GF4MX440 and this was a DX7
card).

Any help is appreciated,

Mario

  #2  
Old July 18th 03, 10:01 PM
John Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:52:19 +0300, Mario Kadastik
wrote:

Hello,

I have a Asus card with nVidia FX5200, PC2700 memory and Athlon XP 1700+
with WinXP+DX9 and 44.67 driver. I am having problems in games with fog
or smoke rendering. While the game runs smoothly at 1280x1024x32 and all
other effects (lens flare, rain, water animations) are just fine, then
whenever there is a bit smoke and I look through it, then I get around
3-5 fps. As soon as I look away from the smoke I have again normal FPS.
I have not detected this behaviour on any other effect, just the fog.

I have seen this issue on Battlefield 1942 patch 1.4 + road to rome and
on GTA Vice City.

Any ideas wether this is expected behaviour or a problem somewhere ?


Expected.........fog-effects hog GPU power.

(I
don't remember having this problem with my GF4MX440 and this was a DX7
card).

Any help is appreciated,

Mario


The FX5200 is a slow card. To get an exact comparison you need to
prune the effects back to those available on the MX440. Use NVtweak or
similar.

You probably should have considered a FX5200Ultra or better for your
chosen screen-resolution and game software (and your FPS tolerance-
threshold)..

You also may have purchased the 64-bit data-path variant of the FX5200
(non-Ultra).............same memory capacity (128Mbytes or 64Mbytes)
but less-expensive to manufacture..........

64-bit data-path == memory bandwidth 3.2Gbytes/sec
128-bit data-path == memory bandwidth 6.4GBytes/sec

Quite a few FX5200 (non-Ultra) manufacturers omit the memory bandwidth
on their specs and I challenge you to see that figure on the retail
box. Deliberate ?? Do not confuse 128-bit processing with 128-bit
data-path. If you do not see a clearly-stated memory bandwith spec. on
a manufacturer's data sheet, watch out..........

BTW, all FX5200ULTRA boards that I have come across clearly boast
their memory bandwidth, normally around 8.0Gbytes/sec --- and thus
definitely 128-bit data-bus, with the higher memory-clock speed.

Well-informed as to desired performance and actual video card specs
before purchase makes for greater happiness after purchase............

John Lewis



  #3  
Old July 19th 03, 12:15 AM
edde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is a known problem in Vice City, especially when frame limiter is off.


"Mario Kadastik" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I have a Asus card with nVidia FX5200, PC2700 memory and Athlon XP 1700+
with WinXP+DX9 and 44.67 driver. I am having problems in games with fog
or smoke rendering. While the game runs smoothly at 1280x1024x32 and all
other effects (lens flare, rain, water animations) are just fine, then
whenever there is a bit smoke and I look through it, then I get around
3-5 fps. As soon as I look away from the smoke I have again normal FPS.
I have not detected this behaviour on any other effect, just the fog.

I have seen this issue on Battlefield 1942 patch 1.4 + road to rome and
on GTA Vice City.

Any ideas wether this is expected behaviour or a problem somewhere ? (I
don't remember having this problem with my GF4MX440 and this was a DX7
card).

Any help is appreciated,

Mario



  #4  
Old July 19th 03, 10:44 AM
Mario Kadastik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello,

John Lewis wrote:

Expected.........fog-effects hog GPU power.

Well shouldn't lens flare and a lot of polygons also hog gpu power?
I'm not having any fps slowdown while fightinh with tens of japanese
that have a lot of tanks and naval support with explosions and lens
flare effects (sunset and so on). But when I look quite near at a tank
that is smoking, then I get 3-5 fps. That shouldn't be GPU performance
problem.

(I
don't remember having this problem with my GF4MX440 and this was a DX7
card).


The FX5200 is a slow card. To get an exact comparison you need to
prune the effects back to those available on the MX440. Use NVtweak or
similar.

where might I get NVtweak?

You probably should have considered a FX5200Ultra or better for your
chosen screen-resolution and game software (and your FPS tolerance-
threshold)..


Well actually the situation was that I had my MX440 and was quite happy
with it (normal FPS in games and quite enough features to play games
currently available. Also did play GTA Vice City and BF1942 and don't
remember having problems with smoke).

But when it got fried around a month ago (I got periodic 10sek pauses
while gaming and so every 30-60 sek) I decided not to replace it with
the same card but to do an upgrade that wouldn't cost anything big. My
only necessity was that the card should have tv-out (quite standard
these days) and would be better than the one I had. As I practically
didn't have to pay anything for the FX5200 (40$) I decided to go for it
as it was a DX9 compatible card and all other cards would have given me
a bigger price difference (and I wasn't interested in high end cards as
I didn't see any need for such an investment currently).

You also may have purchased the 64-bit data-path variant of the FX5200
(non-Ultra).............same memory capacity (128Mbytes or 64Mbytes)
but less-expensive to manufacture..........

64-bit data-path == memory bandwidth 3.2Gbytes/sec
128-bit data-path == memory bandwidth 6.4GBytes/sec

Quite a few FX5200 (non-Ultra) manufacturers omit the memory bandwidth
on their specs and I challenge you to see that figure on the retail
box. Deliberate ?? Do not confuse 128-bit processing with 128-bit
data-path. If you do not see a clearly-stated memory bandwith spec. on
a manufacturer's data sheet, watch out..........

Well it's an ASUS V9520/Magic/T 128MB card. I don't have the box around
so I can't tell wether it's 64 bit or 128bit or if that is sai anywhere
at all But I don't think my MX440 was a 128 bit card.

Oh and if it helps then I'm running it at AGP 4x as mu mobo doesn't
support AGP 8x.

Well-informed as to desired performance and actual video card specs
before purchase makes for greater happiness after purchase............


Well I read about the FX5200 and it seemed to satisfy all my
requirements and I knew that it was a budget card, but hey MX440 was
also a budget card so I didn't expect it to be worse than MX440 at some
aspects.

I still consider that I might have something a bit wrong as my 3dmark03
score is 860 without clocking and with some tuning I cat run at 940. At
the same time I see people having with quite the same configuration
scores from 800 - 1500. I can't quite get how the difference is so big?
I saw that some of the high end scores were with AGP 8x so I guessed
that this might be the issue, but I also found a score of 1300 with
quite the same settings and conf I had except he had memory clock at
405MHz and I have at 333MHz (maximum by asus tweak utility is 360MHz so
I can't quite understand how people get a lot more???)

So I'm a bit disappointed in the performance compared to others. Might
it be a problem with the card or is there a small thing I haven't
noticed yet?

I wouldn't be complaining if the card would be performing as it does for
others as I know it's a budget card. But as it seems to be
underperforming then I do tend to ask for help.

Just for help here are my specs:

OS: Win XP (without SP1)
driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
mobo: ASUS A7VK333
mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
default benchmark reso: defaul (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)
if you want any more details, then just ask.

Mario

  #5  
Old July 19th 03, 02:43 PM
FX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:44:31 +0300, Mario Kadastik
wrote:

-Hello,
-
-John Lewis wrote:


The FX5200 is a slow card. To get an exact comparison you need to
prune the effects back to those available on the MX440. Use NVtweak or
similar.
where might I get NVtweak?

-
You probably should have considered a FX5200Ultra or better for your
chosen screen-resolution and game software (and your FPS tolerance-
threshold)..

-
Well actually the situation was that I had my MX440 and was quite happy
with it (normal FPS in games and quite enough features to play games
currently available. Also did play GTA Vice City and BF1942 and don't
-remember having problems with smoke).

-
-But when it got fried around a month ago (I got periodic 10sek pauses
while gaming and so every 30-60 sek) I decided not to replace it with
the same card but to do an upgrade that wouldn't cost anything big. My
only necessity was that the card should have tv-out (quite standard
these days) and would be better than the one I had. As I practically
didn't have to pay anything for the FX5200 (40$) I decided to go for it
as it was a DX9 compatible card and all other cards would have given me
a bigger price difference (and I wasn't interested in high end cards as
I didn't see any need for such an investment currently).

-
You also may have purchased the 64-bit data-path variant of the FX5200
(non-Ultra).............same memory capacity (128Mbytes or 64Mbytes)
but less-expensive to manufacture..........


64-bit data-path == memory bandwidth 3.2Gbytes/sec
128-bit data-path == memory bandwidth 6.4GBytes/sec

Quite a few FX5200 (non-Ultra) manufacturers omit the memory bandwidth
on their specs and I challenge you to see that figure on the retail
box. Deliberate ?? Do not confuse 128-bit processing with 128-bit
a manufacturer's data sheet, watch out..........
Well it's an ASUS V9520/Magic/T 128MB card. I don't have the box around
so I can't tell wether it's 64 bit or 128bit or if that is sai anywhere
at all But I don't think my MX440 was a 128 bit card.

-
Oh and if it helps then I'm running it at AGP 4x as mu mobo doesn't
support AGP 8x.

Well-informed as to desired performance and actual video card specs
before purchase makes for greater happiness after purchase............

-
Well I read about the FX5200 and it seemed to satisfy all my
requirements and I knew that it was a budget card, but hey MX440 was
also a budget card so I didn't expect it to be worse than MX440 at some
aspects.

-
-I still consider that I might have something a bit wrong as my 3dmark03

..-score is 860 without clocking and with some tuning I cat run at 940. At
-the same time I see people having with quite the same configuration
-scores from 800 - 1500. I can't quite get how the difference is so big?
-I saw that some of the high end scores were with AGP 8x so I guessed
-that this might be the issue, but I also found a score of 1300 with
-quite the same settings and conf I had except he had memory clock at
-405MHz and I have at 333MHz (maximum by asus tweak utility is 360MHz so
-I can't quite understand how people get a lot more???)

-
-So I'm a bit disappointed in the performance compared to others. Might
-it be a problem with the card or is there a small thing I haven't
-noticed yet?

-
-I wouldn't be complaining if the card would be performing as it does for
.-others as I know it's a budget card. But as it seems to be
.-underperforming then I do tend to ask for help.

-
.-Just for help here are my specs:

-
-OS: Win XP (without SP1)
-driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
-mobo: ASUS A7VK333
-mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
-video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
-my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
-default benchmark reso: defaul (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)

-if you want any more details, then just ask.

-
Mario




http://www.oldi.ru/review/video/gffx/gffx.htm
in other words your asus v9520 fx5200 magic t card is as 64bits
version--- it as 2 bank of memory each side of the card...
U shoulf replace that be a TD version witch is a 128 bits version and
a lot more of feature like dvd support wire and game.
Plus have seen thatit's memory chip was set to 400mghz and was build to
operate at 500mghz. So i would say it a video card that will surely be
overclocable. the difference betwen these card is about 10-20 $$$

But like u say if you satisfy with a 860 point wich (was about the score i
had till a change) is to me the maximum of what you can get from it ...
keep it.

if you upgrade to the td version i'm sure u will get from it like
1000-1100 at 3dmark03

Plus notice that at future mark the fx5200 td and videosuite are not
specifie, They are faster to, that's mean that it will have higher score.


 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.