Bad GF4 Ti performance

[zimmie6576]

Okay, I am starting to get a bit concerned about this. I know I have asked a similar question before, but no responses worked. Here goes. I have recently (last month) purchases a GeForce 4 Ti 4600, upgrading my original Radeon 64 Meg DDR. So far, I have been pretty happy with its performance, but I don't think that it is performing how it should. Looking here (link borrowed from spanky007 from another thread), I am seeing Quake 3 benchmark scores with a GeForce 2 Ultra (albeit overclocked, I think) much higher than I get with my GF4 on a comparable system (mine is Athlon 1.2 GHZ, 512 MEG PC-133 RAM). No matter what I do, I can only get 100 FPS (+ about 1-2 FPS). On the linked page, scores of about 140 FPS are achieved with the same speed processor I have (at 1024x768x16), and 123 FPS at 1024x768x32, which is what I run at.

I have tried the following: disabling vsync, making sure FSAA is off, making sure ansiotropic filtering is off, using "seta max_fps 0" and "seta commax_fps 0" (I'm not sure if I just typed those commands correctly, though I did enter them correctly in the console) to uncap my FPS, and I have changed resolutions, details, color depths, etc. I still get the same FPS rating, the highest I've gotten is 102 FPS. I don't think I'm getting my refresh rate, since that is at 85 HZ.

Hopefully, someone can help. If my GF4 is underperforming here it is probably underperforming in other games too, and maybe I can remedy it.

 

[crypto1300]

zimmie6576,

I think that you're most likely CPU &/or memory bound with your current games. As a experiment why don't you try using a very low resolution like 640x480x16bpp to see what types of scores you get. If they don't deviate much from one another you'll know for sure whether you're CPU/memory bound with your current games.

Quake 3 likes alot of CPU power & memory bandwidth, so I'll bet that your low scores are due to your current CPU/memory configuration.



<< On the linked page, scores of about 140 FPS are achieved with the same speed processor I have (at 1024x768x16), and 123 FPS at 1024x768x32, which is what I run at. >>



It is possible that they are not enabling sound for benchmarking purposes. Disabling sound can greatly increase fps in Quake 3 & any other highly CPU stressful games.

I just took a look at the site you linked, and they are definitely not using a sound card at all.

 

[CableDude]

I'm sure you have V-Sync enabled. Make sure to disable it for OpenGL (and D3d..) and you should be fine. 🙂

 

[CubicZirconia]

<< I'm sure you have V-Sync enabled. Make sure to disable it for OpenGL (and D3d..) and you should be fine. >>



If the monitor refresh rate is really 85 hz then there is no way vsync could be the problem. He wouldn't get more than 85 fps.

 

[zimmie6576]

V-sync was disabled to begin with. I wen and disabled sound (using "seta s_initsound 0"), and reran the benchmark. Now, I'm getting 130 - 140 FPS on the High Quality settings at 1024x768. Thanks for the sound suggestion. I never even thought of that.

 

[crypto1300]

No problem, it kinda sucks that websites do benchmarks without sound & don't really make it 100% clear. Many people have had the same benchmark score comparison problem. Most Quake 3 engine games like Jedi Knight 2 & Return to Castle Wolfenstein exhibit the same drop in fps when sound is enabled. Even the Serious Sam engine games exhibit this as well.

 

[CableDude]

<<

<< I'm sure you have V-Sync enabled. Make sure to disable it for OpenGL (and D3d..) and you should be fine. >>



If the monitor refresh rate is really 85 hz then there is no way vsync could be the problem. He wouldn't get more than 85 fps. >>





Oops, didn't notice the 85 hz...😱

 

[BFG10K]

Even though you've fixed the problem you should still check that you've correctly remove all traces of your previous video card and that you have the latest chipset drivers and BIOS for your system?. You can have all sorts problems if you haven't done those things.