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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |