Very low frame rates with Saphire 9100

[videobruce]

I just upgraded (?) from a GeForce2 MX400 (Asus V7100DC) to a Sapphire 9100.

The FPS with the nVidia was 65, now, with the 9100 they are 16! This was running Preformance Test V4 at the 1024x767x16 85Hz setting max. textures (same test on both cards).

Epox 8RDA
2x 256 Crucial PC2700
Win 2k w/sp3
nForce2 V2.03 UDP
Catalist V3.1 (also tried V 7.83 from Sapphire which I think is the same thing)

Everything stock, no overclocking. This is on a fresh install of 2k

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well a lot of problem stems from the fact that the Rad9100 is NOT a rebadged Rad8500 like many people thought, in fact it isn't even as good as most Rad8500LE. Sapphire's Rad9100 come at 250/230 for 64MB and 250/200 for 128MB, not good but even so should be better than any GF2. Ensure you have all AA & AF off to test, Rad9100 are very god at AF but suck at AA. FWIW what CPU are you running?

 

[videobruce]

2100b

 

[BoberFett]

The 9100 is the same thing as the 8500. Just because it's a different clockspeed doesn't mean it's a different GPU.

The GeForce2 MX400 is no match for a 9100. I was running a GeForce2 GTS and put a PowerColor 9100 in my machine clocked at 250/183. It nearly doubled my performance. So something about your setup is wrong.

 

[daction]

"the Rad9100 is NOT a rebadged Rad8500 like many people thought, in fact it isn't even as good as most Rad8500LE"

You're confusing the 9000 with the 9100, the 9000 actually had a slightly different core than the 8500 (1 texture per pass as opposed to 2) but with the 9100 it is infact a rebadged 8500, same core.

 

[videobruce]

Looked at DX Diag and all ok.

 

[videobruce]

It is just the 3d scores that are low.
2d are fine.

 

[Eug]

Did you delete every trace of your old drivers?

 

[AnAndAustin]

The Rad9100 is generally more of a Rad8500LELE than anywhere near a Rad8500. Of course the technology is pretty much identical (unlike Rad9000PRO) but clock speeds really suffer under Rad9100 and you can often end up with a card 30% slower than a Rad8500. Bearing in mind that the std clocks of Rad8500 and 8500LE were 275/275 and 250/250 (obviously these varied by manu), take a look...

Elsa - www.elsa.com - no Rad9100
FIC - www.fic.com.tw - no Rad9100
Hercules (Guillemot) - http://europe.hercules.com/index_products.php?t=1 - no Rad9100
High Tech - http://www.hightech.com.hk/html/VGA.htm - no Rad9100
Jetway - http://www.jetway.com.tw/evisn/index.html - no Rad9100
Supergrace (Super) - http://www.supergrace.com/OurProducts.asp?CategoryID=2 - no Rad9100
Tyan - http://www.tyan.com/products/html/graphics_cards.html - no Rad9100
Wistron - http://www.wistron.com/index.html - no Rad9100
Xelo - www.xelo.net - no Rad9100
Yuan - http://www.yuan.com.tw/ - no Rad9100 BUT suggest they will be offering Rad9200

Connect3D - http://www.connect3d.com/products/products_radeon_9100.htm - 250/240 **NOTE: changed to 250/200 06 March 2003**
Gigabyte - http://www.giga-byte.com/products/agp_index.htm - 64MB (B3) & 128MB (C3) ver but no mention of clocks
Joytech (Apollo) - http://www.joytech.com/apollo9100.htm - no mention of clocks BUT quote, "Memory Configurations:128MB/64MB with fastest DDR memory"
PowerColor (part of CP Tech) - http://www.cptech.com.tw/powercolor/web/product_inside.asp?prd_id=RADEON9100 - ?/250 (RAM at 250mhz DDR)
Sapphire (Triton) - http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/9100.asp - 64MB=250/230 & 128MB=250/200
Unitech - http://www.unitech-na.com/ - *** site is down ***
Visiontek - www.visiontek.com - closed BUT March 2003 - 250/250 (WOW!) and may be releasing a PCI version too!

As a side note there are 1 or 2 games which run very well on the GF2 core but for some reason suffer on the Rad8500/9100 core, however it certainly seems as though there's something more killing your perf.

 

[videobruce]

I wrote to the software company and this was the correspondence:

"If I uncheck the 'Wireframe Mode' the FPS goes from 16 to 200!
If it is checked no matter what resolution I am in it always comes up 16!"


"I think the explanation is simple. Your video card drivers are creating
(rendering) the 3D scene in software and not hardware. You don't seem to
have hardware acceleration for line mode.

We have a P4 3Ghz with Radeon 7500 with two LCD screens attached. On the
left screen we get about 440 fps for the simple test. On the right screen we
only get 29fps. This is the difference of having hardware support. There is
not much you can do about it, except swap drivers and hope. On the other
hand there are not too many applications using wire frame mode so there is
no need to worry too much about it. Games don't use it much but 3D design
programs do."

I'm starting a new thread on this since it seems to be another issue.

 

[HappyNic]

Did you remove all nivida drivers before installing the new ATI radeon drivers? (very important question)

Did you have direct x 9 install when you install the new ATI CAT 3.1 driver? if not you should install dx9 first

What is this Performance Test v4 that you're talking about? Is it a gaming test? directx3d, opengl?

Did you also uncheck the 'Wireframe Mode' when you were testing with the GeForce2 MX400?
If not perhaps your GeForce2 MX400 was too slow to even perform the test at the 'Wireframe Mode' checked setting so the test program automatic adjust the test to not 'Wireframe Mode' ?
example:'Wireframe Mode uncheck, Radeon 9100 = 200fps Geforce2 Mx = 65fps?
'Wireframe Mode check, Radeon 9100 = 16fps Geforce2 Mx = 0-2fps?


What was your main usage of your old Geforce2 Mx400 card, and what will your new ATI 9100 be mainly use for?

I for one thinks there's no way a 9100 will lose out to a Geforce2 mx.