New ATi drivers...

[Spamdini]

Hi this is a 2 part question post...

Ill list my system specs first so u know what your working with:

AMD Athlon 64 3500
MSI K8N Neo 2 Plat
1 gig Kingston ValueRAM
X800 XT
160 gig Seagate
17" Flat NEC/Mitsubishi (CRT)

1st- What would be the optimum settings for me in say cs:s, im looking at getting 100 fps constant? I think 1024 is a well suited res btw so if u can set them to that it would be great. I have my settings right now at 1024x768 all game detail on high reflect world and all that, 2xAA and Trilinear. I know there is some tricky stuff pertaining to bottlenecking one part of your system that could cause lower fps or something along those lines which is y im asking for your guys help.

2nd- Whats the deal with the new ATi drivers should i upgrade to them, will they help me out, and do i need that control center thing to use them. (is the control center thing worth getting?)

thanks in advance

Spamdini

 

[McArra]

you want X800XT to play @1024??? Strange LOL!!

 

[Spamdini]

i dont know what that means, should i up the resolution?

will it give me better fps? can u or someone explain your comment?

 

[SkyBum]

What drivers are you currently using?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Well the whole point in owning a $500 graphics card is to be able to push the high resolutions, otherwise you'd be just as well of with a much cheaper card. Most of the benchmarks I've seen show that a 9800 Pro compares very favorably to the newest high end cards at lower resolutions (1024x768 for instance).

Also, higher resolutions should look better.

Your framerates will only be worse the higher the resolution you go, but I think an X800XT can push HL2 at some very nice fps even at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF. I believe its better than 60fps, which means it will still be quite smooth.

And yes you should usually use the latest drivers from the company (ATi in this case), especially since HL2 is a fairly new game and they'll make minor improvements to performance as they revise the drivers.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Spamdini
i dont know what that means, should i up the resolution?

will it give me better fps? can u or someone explain your comment?

He means using such a high-end card, at such a low-end res, is not using it to its full potential. At 1024x768, you could save some serious cash, and have near the same performance, with a much cheaper card. The low res bottlenecks the card, and it will run not much faster than a card half the price.

The only time it would run considerably faster, is if you really upped the AA/AF, or better yet, did that and increased the res. Which you probably cant do because of your monitor.

 

[Spamdini]

so i can get better fps if i raise my res say to 1280x1024? because lower res bottle neck the card.

i dont mind doing that, should i change any other settings? because at the settings i have at 1024 i sometimes stoop as low as 50

 

[darkswordsman17]

No, your framerates will only lower as you up resolution. What we're trying to say is that why buy a $500 graphics card when you can get almost the same performance out of a $200 card. At the resolution you're running, all cards are CPU limited, meaning one the faster cards will only be able to run as fast as the slower ones that are still CPU bound at that resolution.

There's something seriously wrong if your FPS drops as low as 50 at that resolution. They shouldn't ever drop below 100 with that card.

 

[Spamdini]

so then what can it be that is casuing it to drop so low?

if someone could help me out it would be great, i tried putting my res up to 1280x960 but my monitor only goes to 60 hrtz and i THINK its hurting my eyes.

What would Un bottleneck my video card?, when i map for css and i go into my map after making it i max out at 300 fps and then when i have players it seems to lower more but never below 150 or 100. so y is there such a difference in my games in official maps?...not map related.
i bought the card cause i plan on getting a bigger monitor and other things. the card i bought isnt the issue its y im not getting the fps i should be getting.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Thats an understandable reason for playing at lower resolutions.

Have you done a fresh install of XP since you've installed the card? If not, did you uninstall the old drivers and use Driver Cleaner to get rid of them fully? Could be part of the problem.

I'm too tired to think of much else at the moment. There'll be plenty of people to help you out tomorrow.

Oh, and sorry if it seemed like we were lambasting you for running at a lower resolution, its just nice to see people get their money's worth from what they buy.

 

[Spamdini]

k well yes i did do a fresh install so i didnt use driver cleaner, i guess ill use it tomorrow when i update my drivers. i have no spyware or any og that crap running in the background. what fps should i be getting at 1024x768 with 2x AA and trilinear? just so i have an idea. my specs are at top post but for those of you only just joining us:

AMD Athlon 64 3500
MSI K8N Neo 2 Plat
1 gig Kingston ValueRAM
X800 XT
160 gig Seagate
17" Flat NEC/Mitsubishi (CRT)

im really stuck so if anyone can help it would be great.

 

[SkyBum]

60hz??? No wonder your eyes are hurting. Anything less than 85 bugs the hell out of me.

If your frames drop down below 100 at times, dont sweat it. No card sustains peak framerates all the time. I honestly doubt you could tell the difference between 75 and 100 fps.

I agree you should crank up the res though, my rig is pretty close is spec to yours and I'm running HL2 max everything (except af/aa) at 16x12. I get down to mid 60fps now and again but mostly around 100.

Don't sweat the FPS so much, you got plenty of horsepower for smooth gaming.....

 

[Spamdini]

all i want is to make sure im getting what i should be getting.

one more thing, the little slider in ur ati advanced settings do u keep it at performance or quality?

 

[Spamdini]

bump

 

[PurdueRy]

Leave the slides on there defaults and use the in game settings to control the quality. I don't understand why you are concerned about a drop to 50 FPS as this should be something you should not even be able to notice

EDITED: because I am stupid

 

[Ruroni]

Originally posted by: rleemhui
HE HAS A FLAT PANEL PEOPLE REEEEEAAAAAD.

60 Hz is fine. 1280 x 1024 is what you ALWAYS will want to run in.

Originally posted by: Spamdini
AMD Athlon 64 3500
MSI K8N Neo 2 Plat
1 gig Kingston ValueRAM
X800 XT
160 gig Seagate
17" Flat NEC/Mitsubishi (CRT)

Originally posted by: rleemhui
PEOPLE REEEEEAAAAAD.
Leave the slides on there defaults and use the in game settings to control the quality. I don't understand why you are concerned about a drop to 100 FPS as this should be something you should not even be able to notice

Originally posted by: Spamdini
so i can get better fps if i raise my res say to 1280x1024? at the settings i have at 1024 i sometimes stoop as low as 50

 

[PurdueRy]

whoops I guess in my post-haste to get out the door and down to lunch before it close I saw NEC and FLAT and assumed LCD. My bad

 

[Spamdini]

Ruroni i dont understand what ur trying to say cause there are too many quotes rofl, did u even type anything?

 

[Ruroni]

So... No answer as to why he's hitting 50fps @1024 and cannot sustain 100fps?
Raising the resolution, I doubt is going to increase his FPS to a steady 100fps or keep him out of hitting 50fps.

I doubt it's the quality of his components, as his system is fairly strong... Unless something is broken; in which case, how does he identify the faulty component?
Could it be his monitor?

There has to be someone who has the kind of expertise to answer this kind of question. Come out, come out, wherever you are...

 

[LTC8K6]

Run DXDIAG and check to see if AGP texture acceleration is enabled. Occasionally, ATI drivers fubar your AGP settings, leaving you stuck in PCI mode.

The CCC is not ready for prime time, use the drivers that don't include it.

 

[Spamdini]

i ran it and AGP texture acceleration IS enabled, anything else? what about fast write and all that?

 

[MisterChief]

Originally posted by: Spamdini
i dont know what that means, should i up the resolution?

Wow, nOOb. I'm sorry, but upping the resolution will have a NEGATIVE effect on your FPS.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Ruroni

Originally posted by: rleemhui
HE HAS A FLAT PANEL PEOPLE REEEEEAAAAAD.

60 Hz is fine. 1280 x 1024 is what you ALWAYS will want to run in.

Originally posted by: Spamdini
AMD Athlon 64 3500
MSI K8N Neo 2 Plat
1 gig Kingston ValueRAM
X800 XT
160 gig Seagate
17" Flat NEC/Mitsubishi (CRT)

Originally posted by: rleemhui
PEOPLE REEEEEAAAAAD.
Leave the slides on there defaults and use the in game settings to control the quality. I don't understand why you are concerned about a drop to 100 FPS as this should be something you should not even be able to notice

Originally posted by: Spamdini
so i can get better fps if i raise my res say to 1280x1024? at the settings i have at 1024 i sometimes stoop as low as 50

If it was an LCD then 60Hz would be fine, but he's running a CRT, so thats pretty bad (I don't think anything lower than 85 would be too good on a CRT).

Hmm. Try some different drivers and see what you get. You might've already said this, but what version of drivers are you using now?

 

[Spamdini]

k first the reason i asked if upping my res would help is because i am new to all this and i read something about not pushing the high end video cards enough causing them to run at less than par so sorry for trying to clarify.

i am running the newest ATi drivers. and i was running the 4.12 ones yesterday.
and yes i ran driver cleaner before installing new ones.

 

[Spamdini]

i think i may have seen an increase but it seems in cs:s when im say in the middle of dust outside and there are lik 7 dead bodies i hover down to 50-60.

shouldnt i still be up at 100..?