Disappointing Performance with 6800NU and DOOM3

[tshock22]

I recently upgraded my vidcard to a BFG 6800NU with the hopes of getting good doom3 performance. However, my results have been less than I anticipated.

My system is:

amd xp2100+ at stock speed
kt266a based MB
6800NU w/ 61.77 drivers
512 DDR ram running at PC2100 levels
WinXP w/ SP1
DirectX 9.0c


I knew my cpu would be holding my doom 3 fps down, but according to the following I should still score between 46 and 47 fps on timedemo 1 with my machine:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...oc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

However, I can only max at ~37 fps (~30 first run, then jumps to ~37 on subsequent runs). Whether I run at 640x480 low quality or 1280x1024 highQ+2xAA, I score 36-37 on timedemo 1. While this looks like a definite cpu bottleneck, I should still score nearer to the 46+ fps that was achieved in the article above. I realize they were using a 6800 ultra, but the extra kick from the 6800ultra over the 6800NU should be minimized when running 640x480 low quality as I have tried.

My 3dMark03 scores and my Aquamark scores seem to be well in range to other users with identical setups. My cpu and memory tests in sandra2004 were right on the money for a 2100+/kt266a chipset.

I realize my cpu is holding me back regardless, but I won't be able to upgrade to an athlon64 for a few more weeks and would like to maximize my doom3 enjoyment until then. Anyone have any suggestions to what may be holding my doom3 performance back?

 

[nick1985]

its your CPU/motherboard thats holding you back. a kt266 with a 6800?! .....what were you thinking?

 

[CU]

I get the same Doom III scores as you with my new BFG 6800nu. I did use rivatuner to disable fastwrites though. It was the only way I could play at high quality even though the timedemo ran fine it would stutter during game play with it enabled. I think our cpu's are just showing their age.

 

[tshock22]

I realize my cpu is a dud, and I plan to upgrade. I was just wondering how in the world the article benched at 46 fps and I can only get 37. Another 9fps would be a godsend to me while I save up for my new cpu.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: tshock22
I realize my cpu is a dud, and I plan to upgrade. I was just wondering how in the world the article benched at 46 fps and I can only get 37. Another 9fps would be a godsend to me while I save up for my new cpu.

From the link you posted, they use a 6800Ultra to get 46 fps; you've got a plain 6800, and there's a pretty significant speed gap between the two of them.

But yeah, you're CPU limited big time with the 2100+. Upgrade to an A64 or P4 for best results.

 

[tshock22]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: tshock22
I realize my cpu is a dud, and I plan to upgrade. I was just wondering how in the world the article benched at 46 fps and I can only get 37. Another 9fps would be a godsend to me while I save up for my new cpu.

From the link you posted, they use a 6800Ultra to get 46 fps; you've got a plain 6800, and there's a pretty significant speed gap between the two of them.

But yeah, you're CPU limited big time with the 2100+. Upgrade to an A64 or P4 for best results.

I realize they used a 6800 ultra, but I can't hit above 37 even at 640x480 low quality, while they were able to hit 46 at 1280x1024 high quality.

 

[CU]

Try overclocking your gpu or cpu alittle and see what that gives you at different resolutions. I am at work now or I would do it. Although I suspect the cpu is holding it back at 640x480 low quality.

 

[Acanthus]

CPU and memory bandwidth limited.

You could also use another 512MB of memory.

Its just an aging system with a modern vid card for the most part.

 

[HumblePie]

There are wayyy too many variables here. First off, besides the fact that the link was using an Ultra vs you using a non-ultra, there are also differences in bios's for those vid cards. Top that off with the fact you are using a crappy motherboard, of which may not have the best bios or drivers for and things can be bad.

Also, since your tests are CLEARLY showing a CPU limitation, that means anything that hogs the CPU's time is going to steal your frames. You could be running all sorts of difference processes in the background from spyware, viruses, or anything else. This is a good indication that something else might be flaking out entirely on your computer. The culprit isn't the vid card, the culprit is something else in your system.

 

[nitromullet]

The Athlon XP setup in that test is running on an nForce2 Ultra mobo, and you have a VIA KT266 mobo. There is about 2 yrs of development on the mobo tested compared to your's, plus the FSB on the nForce2 Ultra is higher. Not to mention that they are testing a 6800 Ultra, and you have a vanilla 6800. You think those people spending $200+ more than you on their video cards are complete idiots...? There is a diffference.

That being said, good choice on the card. You'll be happy when you get a new cpu/mobo.

 

[BFG10K]

I realize they used a 6800 ultra, but I can't hit above 37 even at 640x480 low quality,

That's a classic text-book example of a CPU limitation. Either that or you've got vsync enabled.

 

[CTrain]

If you want to gain a quick ~7fps, disable shadow in your advance options.
To my eyes, the graphic still look awesome. I don't hardly notice not seeing the shadows at all.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: CTrain
If you want to gain a quick ~7fps, disable shadow in your advance options.
To my eyes, the graphic still look awesome. I don't hardly notice not seeing the shadows at all.

If he is actually limmited by his CPU then he actually needs to turn all the details he can before compromising his 37fps max.

 

[Delorian]

Get a new cpu/mb/ram and problem solved. You can't put a 6800 in an aged system and try to get it to run full speed. For the rest of your system, consider yourself lucky to get 37fps.

Go at least to a barton clocked at 200fsb with at least 512 mb pc3200, you'll notice a big difference in your frame rate. I mean the minimum requirements are a 1.5 Ghz w/384 mb ram. With a minimum system you will get a minimum frame rate.

If you don't have any dough to spend, at least try to OC your system. PC2100 is pretty easy to OC and the 2100+ should hit around 2.0 Ghz giving you a 150 FSB or so.

 

[tshock22]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
The Athlon XP setup in that test is running on an nForce2 Ultra mobo, and you have a VIA KT266 mobo. There is about 2 yrs of development on the mobo tested compared to your's, plus the FSB on the nForce2 Ultra is higher. Not to mention that they are testing a 6800 Ultra, and you have a vanilla 6800. You think those people spending $200+ more than you on their video cards are complete idiots...? There is a diffference.

That being said, good choice on the card. You'll be happy when you get a new cpu/mobo.

Point taken on the motherboard. I don't think they were running at a higher bus than 266 in the test for the XP2100. They may have been running dual channel memory, however.

The 6800 vs 6800 ultra probably did account for a few fps. For the most part, the 6800 probably was having no problem whatsoever keeping up with my poor cpu. But there may have been some points in the demo where my cpu was able to generate 100+ fps but the 6800nu couldn't keep up where the 6800ultra could have. A few cases like this and we have 2-3 fps difference, at least.

 

[CVSiN]

lol.. get off the crack...
bottom line your system sucks.. and your card isnt a GT or an Ultra which what was used to generate those numbers..
get off the crack spend some cash if you want performance..
all the debate in the world isnt going to get those frames..

 

[tshock22]

Originally posted by: CVSiN
lol.. get off the crack...
bottom line your system sucks.. and your card isnt a GT or an Ultra which what was used to generate those numbers..
get off the crack spend some cash if you want performance..
all the debate in the world isnt going to get those frames..

The debate, in this case, is for myself to understand why the 10 fps discrepency occurred. Through this thread I learned that information. So, instead of spouting off at the mouth and saying 'spend more cash/get off the crack', it would be wise to understand the actual question which was posed.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: tshock22

Originally posted by: CVSiN
lol.. get off the crack...
bottom line your system sucks.. and your card isnt a GT or an Ultra which what was used to generate those numbers..
get off the crack spend some cash if you want performance..
all the debate in the world isnt going to get those frames..

The debate, in this case, is for myself to understand why the 10 fps discrepency occurred. Through this thread I learned that information. So, instead of spouting off at the mouth and saying 'spend more cash/get off the crack', it would be wise to understand the actual question which was posed.

What question was there? you bought a baseline card... you have a shitpot computer and you want better performance by just buying the card..
well TFB...

idiot..