Overclock.net banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Firstly, this is my first post although Ive ben reading these forums for a few months because theyre quite informative. Ok, so I got a Radeon 9600xt Sapphire Atlantis 256 mb AGP for xmas, I had a Nvidia PCI Fx 5200, and my Need for Speed UG framerates were, well, horrid. So I installed my new Radeon, and loaded up NFSU, and holy crap, it made a MONUMENTAL difference, it ran at 30+ fps even with full settings. I also got NFSU 2 for xmas, but when I play it on tracks that dont have half the polygons of some of the ones in the first game, my frame rate drops to really irritating levels, almost unplayable in many many locations. It dosent make a difference wether I mess with the graphic settings, either, it still performs badly on lower settings. In fact, its not much better than with my old PCI card. Obviously, its really bothering me, cause I seee no reason why this could be happening. The second game is not that much more graphically intense. I even bought a cyclone blower fan and put it under the card, so it runs at about 39 celcius constantly. The only thing I can think of is that I only have 256 mb ram, which is the min. requirement. Will upgrading it to 512 or 1gb help the FPS? If not, what can I do??? Please help, it would be much appreciated!!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,363 Posts
welcome to the forum!!!!!!!!!

defently get 1gb of ram it will improve your gaming performance and your startup times

as for more fps get some dna 4.12 modded drivers

http://www.dna-drivers.nl/viewtopic.php?t=4608

they should help out a bit and in the d3d and opgl settings put quality settings on high performace and maybe try installing your monitors drivers

good luck!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,395 Posts
Yep, more RAM should help some. You shouldn't really run XP with less than 512MB of RAM unless you are doing only really basic stuff (i.e. not playing games).It is also possible that NFSU2 is stressing your processor out more than NFSU1 did, so your CPU may be a bottleneck. Sequels often have upgraded engines that require more CPU power. I don't know what the recommended specs for NFSU2 are, but your 1800MHz machine is on the relatively slow end of the scale these days, so it's a thought.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: X_EroC_X_LateM_X

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Ok, I found a great deal on a 1gb DDR stick. Would it be ok to buy all that on 1 stick? or should I buy 2x512? I plan on getting a heatspreader for it too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by VulcanDragon

Yep, more RAM should help some. You shouldn't really run XP with less than 512MB of RAM unless you are doing only really basic stuff (i.e. not playing games).It is also possible that NFSU2 is stressing your processor out more than NFSU1 did, so your CPU may be a bottleneck. Sequels often have upgraded engines that require more CPU power. I don't know what the recommended specs for NFSU2 are, but your 1800MHz machine is on the relatively slow end of the scale these days, so it's a thought.

hmmm I disagree, it's fine running it under 512mb of RAM hell I have a P133 running XP with 112mb of EDO RAM. I have another machine a K6-II 451mhz 192mb of PC100 RAM running XP and a AMD 2500+ 256 PC2700 mb of RAM running windows XP also a Celeron 1.2ghz 256mb PC133 ram running XP (all these play games just fine the 2500+ plays UT2k4 flawlessly and the K6 runs UT2k4 with low FPS) and a AMD 2200+ with 512 ram running it fine. So I beg to differ with "how much ram" is needed. I say 128mb to run game's fine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,395 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MrSmiley

hmmm I disagree, it's fine running it under 512mb of RAM hell I have a P133 running XP with 112mb of EDO RAM. I have another machine a K6-II 451mhz 192mb of PC100 RAM running XP and a AMD 2500+ 256 PC2700 mb of RAM running windows XP also a Celeron 1.2ghz 256mb PC133 ram running XP (all these play games just fine the 2500+ plays UT2k4 flawlessly and the K6 runs UT2k4 with low FPS) and a AMD 2200+ with 512 ram running it fine. So I beg to differ with "how much ram" is needed. I say 128mb to run game's fine.

What you are using (512 MB) is exactly what I said to use: not less than 512 MB. Will XP run with less? Sure it will. Microsoft's specs list the minimum recommended amount as 128MB. But anyone familiar with the history of Microsoft's minimum specs knows that they are a frickin' joke. The "real" minimum for XP is considered by most to be 256MB.

I started with 256MB in my old machine and was happy for quite a while. But then the games got bigger and there wasn't enough RAM left over after Windows ate its big chunk for the game to run well. I was told for a while that I would do better with more RAM, but I resisted thinking I was getting along just fine. But finally I broke down and upgraded to 648MB, and everything got noticeably faster. Not just a little, it was significant. Games, multitasking with normal apps, everything. Removing the paging file thrashing from common tasks speeds things up tremendously (which is, of course, a basic OS design principle).

So if you are really satisfied with the performance of 128MB in an XP machine, you are a very patient person. And you are unique, I have never seen such a claim before. The universal response I have seen for years has been 512MB or more.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
thats a sure fire way to hep with FPS


but once yo have all that extra ram this will help even more

Increase your agp aperature size..
heres how

go into your bios...
to do this hit delete when your computers booting...
Look for Agp settings...
Look for agp arperature size...
set your agp arperature size to half of your total memory...
Ex.. if you have 1024mb [1gig] set the aperature size to 512mb
Ex.. if you have 512mb of ram set the aperature size to 256mb

this will allow your video card to set aside memory for graphics textures and such. therefor allowing your computer to load those files faster, and in the end you will see faster FPS

in fact this is the only way you can run doom3 in ultra quality mode.
Due to the fact that ultra quality requires 512mb of memory to run ...
and curently there isnt a video card with 512mb of ram


i hope this helps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Actually 64MB is the minimum to run Windows XP, but as you said, it is common knowledge that 256MB is the REAL minimum. I would never recommend running anything LESS THAN 512MB!! If you want true performance, you need 1GB. That is the sweet spot.

Now Back to the mans question. You are probably seeing poor performance because of your motherboard only supporting AGP 4X. While in some cases this might not be too much of a performance difference, it still hurts some. I agree with Vulcan that your processor is bottlenecking. I see in your system specs that you have an Athlon; is it an Atlon XP or and old Athlon?? That could also be part of the prob. I would also recommend using the DNA/Omega drivers instead of the ATI ones. Those are horrid.

You need to remember that while newer games might not seem much differenct, but there are absolutely major changes in the engine. Things like shaders and volumetric fog, which were probably not in the previous game, take up tons of your precious CPU/GPU cycles.

Your best bet is to check you BIOS and make sure that you are running in at least 4x mode, 8x if your Mobo supports it (I doubt it) and upgrade to 1GB of RAM. This will help, but not markedly. If I was in your situation, I would think about moving on to an Athlon64 w/1GB of RAM.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,395 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by shermstix

Actually 64MB is the minimum to run Windows XP,

Yeah, you're right. My bad.


Heck, I wouldn't even run Windows ME with only 64 MB, much less XP...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,363 Posts
just to correct you spooked you dont set the agp aperture to half your memory this is what it says in rojakpot's bios opt guide

"Please note that the AGP aperture is merely address space, not actual physical memory in use. Although it is very common to hear people recommending that the AGP aperture size should be half the size of system memory, that is wrong!

The requirement for AGP memory space shrinks as the graphics card's local memory increases in size. This is because the graphics card will have more local memory to dedicate to texture storage. So, if you upgrade to a graphics card with more memory, you shouldn't be "deceived" into thinking that you will need even more AGP memory! On the contrary, a smaller AGP memory space will be required.

It is recommended that you keep the AGP aperture around 64MB to 128MB in size, even if your graphics card has a lot of onboard memory. This allows flexibility in the event that you actually need extra memory for texture storage. It will also keep the GART (Graphics Address Relocation Table) within a reasonable size."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by ThE_GeNeRaL

just to correct you spooked you dont set the agp aperture to half your memory this is what it says in rojakpot's bios opt guide

"Please note that the AGP aperture is merely address space, not actual physical memory in use. Although it is very common to hear people recommending that the AGP aperture size should be half the size of system memory, that is wrong!

The requirement for AGP memory space shrinks as the graphics card's local memory increases in size. This is because the graphics card will have more local memory to dedicate to texture storage. So, if you upgrade to a graphics card with more memory, you shouldn't be "deceived" into thinking that you will need even more AGP memory! On the contrary, a smaller AGP memory space will be required.

It is recommended that you keep the AGP aperture around 64MB to 128MB in size, even if your graphics card has a lot of onboard memory. This allows flexibility in the event that you actually need extra memory for texture storage. It will also keep the GART (Graphics Address Relocation Table) within a reasonable size."


first i wouldn't even run Windows ME

Second-try lowering the res, get 512MB RAM at the lowest, also get the latest drivers for everything.

third Overclock
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Ok, I will be getting 1gb of DDR soon, but 1 more question: Will installing the omega/any other drivers than the ati/sapphire have any chance of damaging my stuff? if not, Ill go get them ASAP. And, thanks for all the help, you guys are great!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by X_EroC_X_LateM_X

Ok, I will be getting 1gb of DDR soon, but 1 more question: Will installing the omega/any other drivers than the ati/sapphire have any chance of damaging my stuff? if not, Ill go get them ASAP. And, thanks for all the help, you guys are great!!!

Nope, the driver won't hurt your gear. Get the Omegas or DNAs and you will love them!! Enjoy....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
^^^If you dont mind me asking, which do u think are better? Ill DL them as soon as you give me a hint, since they wont ruin my stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by X_EroC_X_LateM_X

^^^If you dont mind me asking, which do u think are better? Ill DL them as soon as you give me a hint, since they wont ruin my stuff.

Both are good, but some people have better luck with the Omegas. I would say try the Omegas and if you feel that the performance isn't that great, use driver cleaner and try the DNAs. Ohh, BTW, run driver cleaner before you install any new driver.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top