• 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.

XP1600 + GF3ti200 = 177fps .. wtf?

A

Akerman

Member
Arg.. I just got my hercules gf3 ti200, installed newest drivers (21.85), installed the tweaker and disabled vsync & AA, and started up
q3 to run a timedemo-test.. With a fresh install of 1.30 I got 177.0 fps in the Fastest setting... what the.. is wrong?
My friend gets 250-300 on the same system, except he has an XP1800 and a geforce256!!!

Specs:
Epox 8kha+, GF3 Ti200, 512 Crucial DDR, IBM 7200 HD (60GXP), live! player 5.1, on a Philips 109P20 19" trinitron..

Settings:
100hz screen frequency, and no overclocking on anything, windows 2000 with all updates.

 
he also tested at the fastest setting = 512*384 in 16bit.. Q3 decides all the settings for maximum performance, and they are the same on all computers.
 
You make it sound like 177 is a bad thing. 🙂 maybe you should install your 4-in1s again... but don't take my word for it since i don't have an AMD system.
 
177 is a very bad thing with this system.. when my friend gets 250-300 with exactly the same computer if you count out the cpu and video card...
 
Does he have the same sound card as you? If so are you guys using the same driver versions for it? Are you both on win2k? The only thing I could think of if all of that is the same is maybe some system settings are different on both of yours. Especially if both comps are identical except graphics card and cpu. Do you by chance have an xp? If so did you do a fresh install of win2k with your xp? Those added sse instructions give a nice boost in fps.
 
Bench again on both machines @ 1024x768. 512x384 isn't a common resolution, and the drivers may not perform as well at this res (rumour has it that nvidia optimized for high speed at hires at the expense of speed in lower resolutions in some detonators).

Greg
 


<< 177 is a very bad thing with this system.. when my friend gets 250-300 with exactly the same computer if you count out the cpu and video card... >>



Have you seen your friend benchmark his system in person ? otherwise I think he might be exagerating a little. 177fps seems fine to me.

My q3 benchmark @ 1600x1200 HQ = 101.fps and thats with 1.4@1.533 Tbird/Gf3.
 
hmm... well just tested with 3dmark2001, got a score of 7253, that's pretty nice isn't it? that was with cpu@1530 mhz and GF3 at 200/460....

Q3 HQ 1600*1200 = 103.1 fps
 


<< My friend gets 250-300 on the same system, except he has an XP1800 and a geforce256!!! >>


250 FPS with a GF256?
Im assuming you mean a GeForce SDR/DDR here?

I have a GF DDR, and there's no way to score 250+ FPS unless you set your res to like 320x240x8 or play without textures, or some other wierd $hit.
 


<< so who cares once you get past like 40 you cant tell why does it matter so much? >>



WRONG!

I have no clue why this is so persistent, but it simply isn't true.

I've playe Q3A at 130+ fps and I've played it at 40-50, & there is a HUGE difference. Gameplay at 130+ is absolutely liquid, gameplay at 40-50 is NOT.

I might, however, accept an argument that you won't see a difference past the refresh rate of the monitor.

Few more things;

1) 250-300 fps on an original GF is BS
2) 640x480 is CPU limited, not fill rate limited (if a video card can do 100+ fps at 1280x1024 (or 960 really) it should be able to do 400+ at 640x480, so the limiting factor is the CPU). A faster CPU will make a definite difference in low res benchmarks.

Viper GTS
 
you know the world is a different place when there are people who complain at having 177 fps for quake3... remember the good old days when we get by with 40 plus fps? sigh those where the days...

Voodoo power!
 
ooh... big man with 177fps complaining!!! GRRR!!!
who cares if there's a 75fps difference at low resolutions??? you gonna play at 640x480? NO!
will you see a difference if your monitor refreshes at 85hz and your videocard generates double that? NO!

don't mind me, it's my jealousy talking again!
and its justified jealousy too... I run Q3A at 30fps 800x600 with everything off.

YOU BASTARD! 🙂
 


<< 177 is a very bad thing with this system.. when my friend gets 250-300 with exactly the same computer if you count out the cpu and video card... >>



*sirens* Moron alert, Moron alert! *sirens*
 


<< 177 is a very bad thing with this system.. when my friend gets 250-300 with exactly the same computer if you count out the cpu and video card... >>




Yuo = SCU*. Nope, make that ESCU**.


*Stupid Computer User

**EXTREMELY Stupid Computer User



<< he also tested at the fastest setting = 512*384 in 16bit.. Q3 decides all the settings for maximum performance, and they are the same on all computers. >>




Dude, are you 12?

Ever seen a computer before?

Didn't think so.
 
Don't bust the guys' (things) -- he's only wondering why his benchmark is a lot lower.. My guess is that it's one of a couple of possibilities:

1. Your friend is a liar..
2. You didn't timedemo the same demo..
3. You are running under a different OS..
4. Your video driver settings aren't the same..
5. You didn't setup Q3 in the same manner -- or he had it set differently than he says..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top