• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OK I fried my Radeon. Need new video card quick.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OK. This slowness with outdoor maps in UT2003 is getting me down. I'm seriously considering upgrading to a retail BUILT-BY-ATI 9500 Pro. I know my Celeron 1.4 is too slow, but I'm thinking I'll still get a significant increase with outdoor maps.

Also, this 9100 won't overclock at all past the 230 memory speed without getting artifacts, despite the 3.5 ns rating. The GPU hits 275 just fine though. I haven't tried any higher.
 
Its a waste of money, guy, the slowdown you don't like is from the lack of adequate L2 cache and a slow frontside bus. That Celeron of yours is not going to be able to push the raw data that UT2003 needs in order to ever smooth out the gameplay. Go read the reviews that benchmark with UT2003. You need a full-blown CPU for gaming, not a stripped down Celeron. I realize its the Taulitan, but even that old Celeron lost half of its associativity and as a result is severely hampered.

Bite the bullet and put your two or three hundred bucks into a motherboard and CPU, not the videocard.
 
Originally posted by: Eug
OK. This slowness with outdoor maps in UT2003 is getting me down. I'm seriously considering upgrading to a retail BUILT-BY-ATI 9500 Pro. I know my Celeron 1.4 is too slow, but I'm thinking I'll still get a significant increase with outdoor maps.

Also, this 9100 won't overclock at all past the 230 memory speed without getting artifacts, despite the 3.5 ns rating. The GPU hits 275 just fine though. I haven't tried any higher.
Click to expand...

230???? I'd have figured a *9100* which is supposed to be FASTER than an 8500 would have faster RAM than that!!! :Q
It's just an 8500LELE! :| Shame on those sellers! (Though that IS a decent core speed...)

If it was a local seller, maybe they'd take it back for something else.....
 
230 is the published spec at Sapphire, and a lot better than the 200 the 128 MB version does. I knew that when I bought it, but the surprising part is that it won't even o/c to 240 without artifacts. I thought 250 would be a lock and even 275 would be possible. Even my Radeon LE did around 190. I got it instead of the 8500 and 8500LE because it's actually cheaper than the LE around here and it's at a respectable store. I don't think a 9100 really is supposed to be faster than an 8500 though.

Anyways, I've started a new thread in the video section about this. The consensus seems to be that a 9500 pro might help, but of course (as I feared) a new CPU would help more.

I just don't feel like upgrading my whole computer yet again, simply to get better fps in one game. 😛 I don't play anything else except for QIII (and maybe some of the classic UT if I get the urge).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top