Should RTCW be "slow" on this system?

[BlueWeasel]

Here's my main rig:

P3 1ghz@1.33
512mb PC133
GF4 Ti4200 128mb w/ 30.82 drivers
Win2K

I never really got into RTCW, but I dug it out today and reinstalled in because I was bored. I am currently running it on medium settings (800x600) with alot of the eye candy disabled (shadows, dynamic lighting, etc.)

So far, I have seen several areas of noticeable slowdown during the single player game. Particularly on the outside areas, I have seen my FPS drop into the 30's. I know my system would not be considered "high-end" by today's standards. However, looking at when this game came out and because its based on the Q3A system, I would have expected better framerates on medium settings.

On average, what kind of framerates are you getting with your system?

 

[TheWart]

Hmm, that looks roughly about what you should be getting...Try it with 16bit textures if you already have not, and what sound settings do you have it at?

 

[apoppin]

I don't think yours should be that slow. When my 1.2Ghz Tualatin Celeron was at stock speeds - it played it fine with a Radeon 64DDR (and now much better with a Radeon 8500 at 1024x768 and finally that I'm O/C'd to 1.5Ghz, all hi-details and even some AA).

The ONLY thing I noticed it that it wouldn't play at all well on my Win2K machine but plays awesome with 98SE.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Wart: I am using 16b textures, and medium settings on sound.

Sheesh.....25 FPS on parts of the second stage in the single player campaign. I guess I was just expecting more with my system.

I know my bottleneck is my CPU and PC133 RAM, but will a system with a high end processor and PC2100+ memory really make that much of a difference?

Apoppin: That's interesting with it running slower on W2K. It's a good game, but not worthy enough for me to move back to Win98.

 

[jfall]

I dont think it should be that slow at all.. I have a gf2 gts and 256 ram and it runs perfect in 1024x768x32

 

[BlueWeasel]

Well, I played around with some more of the sound settings, and it seemed to have helped.

I am now in the Crypt stages of the single player game. Sometimes I see 100 FPS but then during firefights it can drop into the 30's.

The game is certainly playable, but I just wasn't expecting such large variances in FPS with my system.

Thanks for the help guys!!

 

[jfall]

Did you try it with the Det 40's?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Wart: I am using 16b textures, and medium settings on sound.

Sheesh.....25 FPS on parts of the second stage in the single player campaign. I guess I was just expecting more with my system.

I know my bottleneck is my CPU and PC133 RAM, but will a system with a high end processor and PC2100+ memory really make that much of a difference?

Apoppin: That's interesting with it running slower on W2K. It's a good game, but not worthy enough for me to move back to Win98.

If you are interested in "testing" this theory, simply create another small HD partition (Partition Magic) and install 98SE (or XP) and RtCW.

Also - somewhere - there is a website that compares the 'differences' between Nvidia drivers and their usefullness with certain games and O/Ss (maybe someone with a better memory can step in here). And some people here reported problems with the early Det 40s.

 

[MrBond]

I'm running it with nearly the same system (except its an athlon at 1.33) and XP, 1024x768, max everything, game runs fine. I don't count framerates though, but its not jerkey at all.

 

[TheWart]

The way you describe it, I keep thinking "sound issue" as it only seems to occur mainly in firefights....have you tried disabling sound all the way?

 

[BlueWeasel]

I'll give that a try Wart, but I have already lowered my sound to 11hz. This is with a TB Santa Cruz card, BTW

 

[Davegod]

that should be running rtcw ab fab. rtcw is heavily cpu-dependent and does require a fair bit more than Q3, but should be getting fine fps throughout. BTW check your HDD isnt badly in need of a defrag, sounds a bit pony but all the rtcw files are in pk3's - which are basically just .zip's - and a badly fragged hdd really doesnt help.

maybe try editing the wolfconfig.cfg to change r_picmip2 to 2 or 3 - character details will look worse but should reduce fps impact of character models onscreen.

 

[BFG10K]

RTCW is a very CPU limited game and your CPU is slowing you down. In the past I went from a 1.333 GHz TBird to a 2.0A GHz P4 and the difference in RTCW was massive, especially in the large outdoor areas. It was like getting a new video card.

Even now with a 2.666 GHz P4 with a Radeon 9700 Pro the CPU is still the bottleneck, even at 1600 x 1200 with 16x anisotropic.

Make sure you have the latest BIOS and chipset drivers for your system and they might help your performance. Also be sure to close any uneeded background programs and services.

I know my bottleneck is my CPU and PC133 RAM, but will a system with a high end processor and PC2100+ memory really make that much of a difference

Yes, the difference will be massive - easily twice the speed.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Thanks for the help guys...

 

[BlueWeasel]

BFG10K:

I never would have thought it, but you are exactly right. I get roughly the same FPS regardless if I am at 640, 800, or 1024 resolution. That little tidbit indicates that my CPU is holding me back.

I never would have thought it, but I guess its time for an upgrade...

 

[onza]

.

 

[jfall]

I dunno.. I use to run wolf just fine on my Tbird 800 with a gf2 .. and then I upgraded to an XP 1800 @ 1.64ghz and it didn't seem to make all that much difference. Just throwing this out there.. but maybe there is a problem with refresh rates? it seems strange that with a gf4 and 1.33ghz you'd have the same framerates @ lower resolutions.. I really don't think this is a cpu issue.. that system should be more then enough to run wolfenstein @ 1024 with everything on high

 

[BlueWeasel]

That's my though exactly Jfall....

I reinstalled WinXP on my system day and I am currently using the 41.09 drivers with little change in performance. I don't think its a refresh issue - I have vsync turned off and the latest version of NVrefresh.

One thing that makes me concerned is my scores using the default benchmark in 3DMark2000. I only get a score of 6500 at 1024x768x16 with a GF4. Considering how old 3DM2000 is, that score seems very low. I looked up similar systems in the 3DM database and they were getting 8500-9000 at 1024x768x32 in 3DMark2001. WTF?!?!

I usually don't put alot into 3Dmark performance, but those scores just seem WAY low.

*confused*

 

[BlueWeasel]

Something's definately up with my system. Check out the comparison of these 3DM2001 scores:

My system: P3 @ 1333mzh, GF4 Ti4200, 1024x768x32, WinXP - 3DMark2001 score = 6100

Other: P3 1.2 GHz at 1.3 GHz, 145 FSB, GF4 Ti4200, 1024x768x32, WinXP - 3DMark2001 score = 8900

Other: P3 @ 1132mhz, GF4 Ti4200, 1024x768x32, WinXP - 3DMark2001 score = 8500

My system is nowhere close to similar systems listed in the online database.

Any ideas?

 

[BlueWeasel]

*Update*

I was playing around with my BIOS settings and realized I had all of them set for stability. I was having a few problems with another game a while ago and thought it might have been the BIOS settings that was causing the lockups.

I changed them all to the optimized settings and my 3DM2001 score jumped to 8500. Play in RTCW is much smoother now and now my FPS doesn't seem to drop below 60 at anytime at 800x600.

 

[jfall]

Glad you got it figured out.. I knew it wasn't the CPU