Why are my games so slow?? UPDATE: should i o/c?

[gummiely]

edit: ok, seeing what i have below... do u guys think i should o/c? how much can i push it to(stably)? and will it have any significant difference? i want more speed!! =) but i can't afford to get a new cpu =(

btw i have an asus p3v4x mobo and antec 233watt p/s
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey guys.. i just recently installed a few games on the new pc i've been building. Here's what i have:

p2 350
guillemot geforce256 sdr
128 pc133 micron
kds av195tf
windows 2000

When i first installed Unreal Tourn., i was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by the awesome graphics... however, i was displeased to get only an eye-soring average of 15-20 fps, in practice mode. wtf?! Now i installed UT w/direct3d support, and i'm running in 16-bit mode, 800x600, and high skin details. I figure i should be getting at least 40fps. Am i wrong? What am i missing out on here? Could it be my directX version? I think i have version 5.0something, according to sisoftsandra2k. Should i be updating to 7.0a? Help me out fellas. =|

 

[Mem]

You should always use latest DirectX (7.oa current version) & try latest Detonator 3 drivers this should help a little also disable anything running in the background.Btw try the latest patch update for the game.

 

[Doggiedog]

On my 1Ghz Athlon Classic, 32MB GeForce DDR, Corsair 256MB PC133, Win2K system I get about 100fps at 1024x768 16 bit.

Your system doesn't seem that far off.

 

[gummiely]

actually.. i "should" already have directX ver 7.0 right? isn't it included with windows2000? where can i check this info on my system?

 

[Mem]

Well I think you have system infomation,under system tools on Win2000 so it should be under that(click tools tab & then DirectX diagnostics) I use Windows98 that is why I`m not sure about Windows2000.

 

[glen]

You are getting about the expected FPS in UT on your system. It is a hog. I don't get too much better.

 

[arthurb1]

Its that P2...UT is a CPU hog...

 

[snoogans]

Not too sure of the info here as I saw this "somewhere" on the web but I had heard anything under 500 mhz wouldn't push a GeFOrce all that well. Again, just a rumor...

I had a P2 400 w/ a GTS (bought the vid card first when I started to upgrade) and that's about what I got too. I couldn't set my arpeture over 16MB though and I'd also heard the first 440BX boards didn't support AGP too well.

Anyway, since upgrading, I'm getting 100+ fps but I upgraded all my components so I can't say what one thing helped my performance. Haven't tried UT yet...that's for Quake. Haven't played UT in forever so I chose not to reinstall it

 

[lumpyhed]

Go here for the page to get a new Opengl driver with muchos better performance than D3D, and it has S3TC support so you no longer have to use that second cd as a frisbee.

 

[Oreo]

If you haven´t patched it with the latest patch (4.28) then it´s not very strange that it runs so slow. It was really bad for the Geforce cards in the beginning, but with the latest patch it´s pretty fast actually.

 

[Oyeve]

Its win 2000. Really. Its not a gaming platform. Altho you can play UT on w2k you will not be playing it as it was intended to. Win98 dx7 seems to be the sweet spot. I shy away from dx7a because you cant reinstall an older version if you have to and if your dx7a files get corrupt tht system still thinks it has 7a installed and may not reinstall them.

 

[arthurb1]

You can reload 7.0a...I think. The version on the NFS5 CD will reinstall if you have a corrupted 7.0a (dunno what the version on the NFS5 CD is)

 

[Howard]

DirectX 8.0 build 143(?) is out... It's a beta though.

Do a search

 

[gummiely]

ok so i need to dl:

directX 7.0a (win95/98 only?) or 8.0 (beta??)
latest ut patch 4.28
"OpenGL renderer" as suggested by Lumpyhed

and... that should give me better fps?

 

[beer]

Windows 2000 is just as fast and stable as Win98 for gaming. I am running a Thunderbird 900, 128 MB RAM, Geforce1.

Anyways, download Win2K SP1. Win2K SP1 includes DirectX 7a. This is an important patch.

 

[gummiely]

by the way, should i be running in 16 or 32bit mode? do my windows video settings make a difference, or is it only affected by the mode within the game only?

also...

i have another pc, same cpu(pII 350), generic 128 pc133 ram, and a voodoo3 3000 card, on win2k.. and that system runs UT very nicely(~35 fps). now obviously, this card using glide, so the fps rates are better.. but still, i figure the geforce card should be faster.. right? but actually... come to think of it, i installed quake3, and the frames look pretty darn good. how can i do a timedemo to check the fps for quake3?

 

[gummiely]

maybe it's just me, but from what i hear, aren't there major bugs with win2k sp1? could someone confirm this?

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

well Nvidia video cards tend to prefer faster cpu's and unfortunately P2 350 is getting a bit long in the tooth. (remember the p2 350 was around the time of the original TNT (1) cards).
try and look at some of the older reviews Anand has posted for comparison.

 

[dawheat]

As someone said- UT is almost completely CPU limited. I'm guessing if you up the res to 1024 you'll get the exact same fps. That's b/c even at 800X600 your CPU is limiting your video card. A P2 350 really is pretty minimal to power a Geforce and especially UT. Your Q3 scores should be a lot higher as its not so CPU bound.

 

[BFG10K]

Your problem is your CPU. Unreal/UT/Deus Ex are almost entirely dependent on the CPU due to the way the engine is built.

well Nvidia video cards tend to prefer faster cpu's

This is false in the case of GeForce based boards.

 

[pRick]

It's your CPU bud. I have a 650MHz Pentium III Copperming and a Voodoo3 3000 - I get 60 frames per second thanks to GLide.

Even at lowest resolution, lowest texture details (So I know it is not my vidoe card), it gets kind of choppy in certain areas... until I overclock my processor in OpenGL mode. It is most definitely the processor.

If you want to actually USE your Geforce, then get a faster CPU. For gaming, the fastest thing you can get is always the best recommendation (aside from price). I strongly suggest a 700MHz or faster for gaming.

 

[pRick]

By the way - I also use Windows 2000. Games run just about as fast on Windows 2000 as they do on 98 - Depending on the game of course. Unreal Tournement is one of those games that runs only a few frames per second slower with 2000 than 98, so the performance difference between 2000 and 98 in this instance is nil.

 

[AngelOfDeath]

I'd say that you are against all odds 'cause you are running win2k on a P2-350 w/128. So you don't have that many resources left for fun and since UT likes your CPU sooo much I guess this is where it hangs the most. You vid-card is more than enough for todays games, but don't expect to much of heaven when you are running a P2-350 w/128mb on win2k.

AoD

 

[gummiely]

oh, alright.... =( i guess i just needed these 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and so on, opinions to confirm. thanks anyway, guys.. i do appreciate the honesty. i know the cpu is a grandma.(no offense to all the super-active grandma's out there) this pc is actually for my bro, so perhaps i'll upgrade his cpu at xmas time or something. =) but for now, i'll let him suffer a little... or i'll just have him play quake instead. =) thanks again!

 

[gummiely]

btw, does it make any difference in games if my windows display settings are set at 16 or 32-bit for color?