Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: eagl on August 23, 2004, 06:17:20 PM
-
First off, this is NOT a gripe or complaint. I'm happy with the new vid card I got and AH2 looks nice and is playable. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a gripe session. I put this in general discussion instead of hardware/software because it's not really aimed at any hardware in particular, and I already confirmed by reading a few virtually ignored threads that some others have noticed something similiar. Anyhow...
Has anyone noticed that AH2 framerates seem to be cpu limited? I've been playing around with 2 different vid cards on my system and it seems like I can use wildly different graphics settings and get very little change in framerates. Here's what I started with and what I did. I'm also curious as to if HT is coding exclusively on intel processors and maybe inadvertently using intel specific instructions so AMD systems get handicapped, because my results were a bit unexpected. Or maybe my system just sucks, but I'm not sure about that.
First, system specs.
AMD Athlon XP 2000+ "thoroughbred", 1.67 ghz, 133mhz FSB
512 meg DDR 266
SB Audigy2 ZS
windows XP Home
The rest of the system doesn't really matter much, except that it's all high quality components and stable. The AGP bus is confirmed working at 4x.
I started with a GF4-4200 and noticed something odd - at 1024x768, I got essentially the same framerates using no FSAA and 2x FSAA. In AH1, running 2x FSAA would usually result in a 30% or more framerate drop at the same resolution. Further experimentation with FSAA and ansio/mipmap filter settings seemed to show that I could really work the video card or just let it loaf along, and my framerates stayed almost the same. The only way to get better framerates was to change the sliders, but even then it was tough to get consistent framerates over 30 when near fields.
I just got a nice new Nvidia 6800 GT today and installed it. I tested it first with doom3 and it worked exactly as you'd expect - much better image quality, double the framerate even with higher resolution and detail set, everything about it was better. Then I tried AH2 and got...
No improvement. I think I might have gotten 3 fps more. Again, I ran through some tests changing resolutions, fiddling with FSAA and ansio settings, and again it seems like AH2 is badly cpu limited. My shiny new 6800 GT gets me barely 30 fps sitting in the tower with all three of the sliders set in the exact center and a resolution to 1024x768, which is about what my GF4-4200 would get me.
Another oddity - When running AH1, I could alt-tab out to the system and when back at the desktop, things seemed to respond normally. Windows would pop up quickly, I could check email and browse the web with AH1 running happily in the background. I could even surf the web or check email with an AH h2h host running and nobody in the arena (full with me and 7 others) noticed any warps at all. But when I alt-tab out of AH2, the system responds very very sluggishly. Even bringing up folder views takes 10-15 seconds. AH2 is clearly hogging the cpu far more than AH1 did.
So what's the big bottleneck here? Are all the new graphics features being offloaded to the cpu? Since dropping all the sliders is the only thing that increases framerate, even more so than dropping resolution, is all that detail being produced by the cpu instead of the video card?
Is it an AMD vs. Intel issue, using SSE2 or whatever instructions? Are the compiler flags set to P4 uber alles? :)
Inquiring minds want to know, especially before they spend money on new hardware. If it's an AMD vs. Intel issue, knowing that beforehand could prevent spending a whole lot of coin on another ineffective upgrade.
-
What I do know is that after seeing AthlonXP, Pentium4 and Athlon64 benchmarks my next planned upgrade switched from an AthlonXP 3200+ to an Athlon64 3500+ or 3800+. There is just no comparison.
The players with Athlon64s seem to get great framerates, so I don't think this is an Intel vs AMD issue.
-
Frame rate is not CPU limited its operating system/monitor limited. You can't generate FPS faster than your monitor will refresh. Windows XP limits FPS to 75/sec for this reason. You can overide that setting but "V-sync" will still limit you to your refresh rate (usually 65-85 FPS). If you turn V-sync off then you'll show FPS in the 100-300 range....BUT....your monitor will only show every 2nd third or fourth frame...or worse hangup/CTDT etc.
All of the newer cards are basically VPU's with a vast majority of rendering onboard the card. The true bottlenecks are in the system memory (2100 vs 3200 for ex) and in the "front side bus" 266 vs 800 or even 1600+ in new AMD socket 939 boards. However this all goes back to your monitor...currently the "true" bottleneck.
-
Hmmm rereading your post you've got other issues. I run a Ti-4200 on a similiar system and I'm pegged at 75 FPS under almost all conditions...in a low furball over a big base I'll drop a bit...but never enough to really notice (lets guess 48-55 FPS)...you have some type of driver/resource issue I think....
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What I do know is that after seeing AthlonXP, Pentium4 and Athlon64 benchmarks my next planned upgrade switched from an AthlonXP 3200+ to an Athlon64 3500+ or 3800+. There is just no comparison.
The players with Athlon64s seem to get great framerates, so I don't think this is an Intel vs AMD issue.
hehe....
Me to, was pricing stuff today wondering if it makes sense yet...
-
humble
if im correct i think he is asking if AH is a game that needs a fast cpu to render good framerates and not just a good graphics card.
eagl?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
humble
if im correct i think he is asking if AH is a game that needs a fast cpu to render good framerates and not just a good graphics card.
eagl?
If I'm correct the decision on what resources to use is controlled by the vidio card not the "program". The "VPU" handles all it can internally and off loads what it cant to the CPU...I'm not a techie but I don't see enough "eyecandy" to cause a massive bottleneck. Since he has a very modest frame rate I'd guess eagl has some other issues to resolve...
-
Originally posted by eagl
First, system specs.
AMD Athlon XP 2000+ "thoroughbred", 1.67 ghz, 133mhz FSB
512 meg DDR 266
SB Audigy2 ZS
windows XP Home
The rest of the system doesn't really matter much, except that it's all high quality components and stable. The AGP bus is confirmed working at 4x.
This is my exact baseline system with the exceptions noted below:
1. I have 1GB RAM DDR 266.
2. I have an ATI Radeon 9800 XT (256MB Ram) with all AA/AS stuff turned off.
3. I am using Omega's optimized drivers for my card and it is running at 8x AGP.
I am loading all textures directly onto Video card with the AH2 video setup option - this eliminated all "stutters" for me. I am generally setup with all 3 graphics sliders set to midway point in-game. I get 50-60 FPS near the ground and if in dogfight up high ( I set sliders to max performance rather than detail, then), I get 100FPS (and yes, my screen refresh rate "hertz" is set higher to allow true frame rate of 100 in-game).
Yes, CPU seems to be important (at least on "lower end" machines like ours ?) - which is why I am using FSAutoStart by Ken Salter. This is a nice utility that helps "shutdown" processes clogging up the CPU that are not necessary for the game. After you exit the game, FS restarts those processes and you are back to where you want to be. As the name implies, he wrote it for Flight Simulator folks, but it can be used for just about anything. I have used this for 3 months now and, overall, I have probably been "disco'd" less, had fewer VOX dropouts and smoother rides in AH2. Check it out at http://www.fs-gs.com/downloads.htm
-
Humble,
I have my refresh rate set to 85, but in the tower I'm getting 25-30 fps, nowhere near the monitor refresh rate limit. You say a "similiar" system... intel or AMD processor?
The amd vs. intel thing could still be an issue even though the new athlon 64 processors are doing so well, because that's a whole new generation of cpu and it incorporates the P4's instructions where the athlon XP's don't. I've run across many examples where products compiled with pentium 4's in mind simply run like crap on athlon XP processors. Since the athlon 64 was made after the P4, the athlon 64 can handle those instructions just fine.
When I installed the new card, here's the steps I took -
Uninstalled nvidia drivers
ran detonator destroyer
went into device manager and removed old vid card
shut down, swapped out vid cards
booted up, cancelled out of windows hardware installer
ran latest nvidia detonator driver installer
rebooted a couple times while getting things set up
tried doom3, it works like a champ (very fast, smooth, great image quality) except for tiny pauses during HD accesses, but I don't see those pauses in AH.
Tried AH2, and had my disappointing results.
I'm willing to admit my computer or configuration might be the problem but it's the same config that gave me such great results in AH1 and such consistent results in AH2 as far as seeming to be cpu limited instead of video limited. My mobo is an ABIT KR7A with the VIA KT266A chipset and although earlier versions of the via chipset had severe problems, I never saw the stability or gross performance problems so I don't think that's the problem. I've run this system for over a year with quite good and consistent results. With the GF4-4200 card, I could get 3dmark2001 scores over 10,000 which doesn't mean anything except that my system was performing almost exactly as it *should* given the hardware I have and the scores other people report.
I'll run some benchmarks and toss them in here. They don't mean much except that a really poor benchmark score would point towards some sort of system problem.
edit - 3dmark2001SE - 12706, 2000 pts higher than my best score with the GF4-4200
3dmark2003 - 9215
So the basic benchmarks don't seem too far off what I'd expect... Nothing to brag about but not grossly low, right?
-
Eagl, I agree. I've seen similar results on similar rigs. AH2 on another 1.5ghz AMD with the same 9600xt performs decent after tweaking the sliders a ton (in game).
On my AMD 64 rig, framerates soar with the very same 9600xt. But at the same time, the bane of my system are trees and lots of them. Bases, heavy aircraft presence doesn't seem to have a large effect.
Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to test anything with a higher performing vid card. I assume that it is the bottleneck with a 64bit CPU.
Doom3 and AH2 are vastly different games graphically. Many shaders are present in Doom, it's an indoor, small environment with plenty of textures. AH2 is 'outdoor' with a vast area to draw. Many textures here as well. Throw in a bunch of monsters or aircraft and you'll get slowdowns with relatively slower rigs. Above all, both games have entirely different engines.
btw, Doom 3 rocks even with a 9600xt.
-
I fired up AH1 just to see what I'd get, and at 1280x1024 it's pretty much pegged at my refresh rate of 85.
-
A final test
Loaded up the game, 1280x1024, 2x FSAA, and same results - 25ish fps in the tower and any time either trees or buildings were in view. So I tried something different. In this test, I was in an area of rolling hills, a bit of a mountain on one side, and some water in there too, near a small field and town.
Looking at ground with both trees and buildings visible - 25 fps
Looking at ground with only trees visible, no bldgs - 40 fps
looking at ground with only bldgs visible, no trees - 40 fps
looking at ground with no trees or bldgs visible - 70 fps
So I tried something - I turned the first 2 sliders all the way up to the max, and turned the bottom one to the min. That way nothing but buildings at the airfield and towns would show up if I climbed some. I climbed up a bit and flew away from the field and town until only some of the buildings showed up, but no trees, and then I did another test - if I turned and looked out so the buildings were just barely at the edge of the screen but still visible waaay far away, I got 44 fps. If I added a tiny bit of rudder so the bldgs disappeared outside the edge of the screen, the framerate immediately jumped to around 70 fps. So even with the buildings very very far away, really only a cluster of dots, they're still sucking around 30% of the framerate.
And I can adjust my resolution up as high as I want, add FSAA and all that, and my framerates remain the same. That really sounds like it's cpu limited.
I know AH2 is nothing like doom3, it's just weird how the framerates change so dramatically like that even when looking at objects that are far away. The buildings and trees each eat about 30% of the terrain-only framerate.
I think I'll just end up running with all the sliders almost full right, the resolution at 1280x1024, and 2x or 4x FSAA. Ansiotropic filtering seems to make the trees shimmer but if I turn the sliders down, the trees disappear so maybe I'll turn some ansio on too. And hopefully HT can find some way to transfer some of the cpu load onto the vid cards so the buildings and trees don't kill framerate at all resolutions :)
-
I'm running a XP 2200+ on a Gigabyte 8xagp board with 512 DDR(pc2700)mem and a PNY Ti-4200 VC. My MB is a much better one, is a 400 FSB board. Think it runs at 266 with my chip...but not really sure. Other than that system not to far off. Certainly not by as much as your FPS indicates...
Also went back and checked...my FPS not as good as I thought.
In "1st" tower bout 42 FPS...a bit better if I go out to a field ~47FPS. Normally pegged out in flight/combat at 75 FPS with dips to 40-50 FPS down in the weeds at worst....
-
What resolution? What texture size? Where are your sliders again?
You're likely running 333mhz FSB (166x2) instead of 266, but I'm not positive because it's possible to make AMD cpus run at all sorts of odd FSB/multiplier combinations and you can even run your memory asynchronously from the cpu bus on some mobos which can either help or hurt depending on the application or game you're trying to run.
It's possible you're making up the performance on both the additional cpu and FSB speed. 133/266 memory is PC2100 if I recall correctly.
I've rechecked, and I'm not running anything in the background that would account for any measurable cpu load.
-
With a 2200+ he'll be running at 266mhz on his FSB.
-
Karnak, Ive got an Intel P4 3.2GHz and a much worse video card than you, Geforce FX 5200 128MB. I get around 80-100FPS on the runway, and around 40 with full smoke and things. Thats at 1024x768 (I think 768) resolution.
I do think that your processor is limiting you, but its not only that. Your memory is rather sluggish for todays standards. You also will realize how much better your FRs could be if you add another 128MB of memory or so. When I run AHII, it says I use around 600MBs of memory during the game. So, I gather that with enough memory I can get better FPS.
So on your next upgrade, you may want to get 128MB of memory or so and a new processor.
But, dont take my word on it. I know slim to nil about computers.
-
Originally posted by United
You also will realize how much better your FRs could be if you add another 128MB of memory or so. When I run AHII, it says I use around 600MBs of memory during the game. So, I gather that with enough memory I can get better FPS.
I agree.
If you take a look at my PC specs posted earlier, I have the identical processor, FSB speed, etc... using XP Home Edition. The key difference is that I have 1GB of RAM (which helps out XP quite a bit) to his 512MB, and my FPS are lots better than his on the ground and in the air.
Eagl, try the cheapest thing first... another stick of 512MB.
-
Originally posted by Hyrax81st
I agree.
If you take a look at my PC specs posted earlier, I have the identical processor, FSB speed, etc... using XP Home Edition. The key difference is that I have 1GB of RAM (which helps out XP quite a bit) to his 512MB, and my FPS are lots better than his on the ground and in the air.
Eagl, try the cheapest thing first... another stick of 512MB.
Yeah, ive got a mid-range video card, but with 2gigs of RAM it pretty much makes up for it.
-
AH2 seems to be mainly limited by system memory considerations. By this I'm referring both to quantity of memory and to bandwidth/latency. On my system I've noticed that AH2 is using close to 600 MB of system memory. It's probably one of the few games out there that would benefit from having more than 512 MB of system memory. That's also the reason why your system feels sluggish when you Alt-tab out of AH2, I'll bet you have no more available ram and you are swapping to the hard drive.
The Athlon 64 performs well in games because of its on-die memory controller. Typical memory latency on an Athlon 64 is about half of either the Athlon XP and Pentium 4. SSE2 instruction support is no doubt a benefit, but it's the reduced memory latency that makes the biggest difference from a gaming standpoint. Also, remember than an AGP mode transfer between graphics card to or from system memory does not involve the CPU directly. The on-die memory controller on the Athlon 64 in combination with its 1600 MHz effective (Socket 754) or 2 GHz effective (Socket 939) link to the Northbridge (which is where the AGP controller is located) does have an real impact in cases where the video card does not have sufficient onboard memory and must use system memory.
Just as a sidenote, the primary reason why the Prescott P4 is slower than the Northwood P4 for gaming is that its L2 cache requires an extra clock cycle to access, which has the effect of increasing L2 cache latency by 25%. The fact that the L2 cache size on Prescott is 1 MB, versus 512kB, cannot make up for this. (Why did Intel do this? It gives Prescott a bit more clockspeed headroom to allow a few more speed bumps until the P4s replacement is released in '05.) Look at Commanche 4 benchmarks between Northwood and Prescott to see what I'm talking about...
-
Originally posted by eagl
What resolution? What texture size? Where are your sliders again?
You're likely running 333mhz FSB (166x2) instead of 266, but I'm not positive because it's possible to make AMD cpus run at all sorts of odd FSB/multiplier combinations and you can even run your memory asynchronously from the cpu bus on some mobos which can either help or hurt depending on the application or game you're trying to run.
It's possible you're making up the performance on both the additional cpu and FSB speed. 133/266 memory is PC2100 if I recall correctly.
I've rechecked, and I'm not running anything in the background that would account for any measurable cpu load.
Texture and sliders are at default, resolution is pretty high...well above default but not 1200x1600 (I'll check tonight). The gigabyte board I have allows alot of overclocking options. So I can change just about every variable. The T1-4200 also overclocks easily. I'll doulbe check to see if I have anything OC'd. I fooled with it but since the game performance is just fine I think I just reset to default. I have 5-6 systems at home so I'll double my memory tonight and see what happens...also play with the OC settings and see what difference their is...
-
Originally posted by United
Karnak, Ive got an Intel P4 3.2GHz and a much worse video card than you, Geforce FX 5200 128MB. I get around 80-100FPS on the runway, and around 40 with full smoke and things. Thats at 1024x768 (I think 768) resolution.
I do think that your processor is limiting you, but its not only that. Your memory is rather sluggish for todays standards. You also will realize how much better your FRs could be if you add another 128MB of memory or so. When I run AHII, it says I use around 600MBs of memory during the game. So, I gather that with enough memory I can get better FPS.
So on your next upgrade, you may want to get 128MB of memory or so and a new processor.
But, dont take my word on it. I know slim to nil about computers.
:confused:
Are you sure this was directed at me?
I've got an AthlonXP 1800+, 512mb DDR266 and a GeForce4 Ti4600 128mb. My frame rates are OK, but I like better than OK. This is the first time in this thread that I have listed my hardware or mentioned my framerates.
My computer is nearly three years old and will be older than that when I have enough money. This is the first major upgrade I've contemplated since I put it together in October, 2001.
-
Couple of thing to keep in mind if you are trying to compare frame rates.
Use the same map, and field.
You can go to similar fields of same config on the same map and get widely varying frame rates.
As an example on NDisles map i went to 2 large fields, at A11 i was getting 43 fps and at A33 102 fps.
Also it would be best to compare with all the sliders set to either max or min.
Using default is not good for comparisons. Default for one card is not likely the same for all cards.
-
I ran a few tests on AH2 to try and figure out why everyone was griping about framerates. My conclusion: The trees are the big framerate killers.
I conducted my test by changing vid settings and returning to the same field, runway and aircraft and comparing the fps. I found that changing the game resolution, max texture size, preloading of memory onto system memory and/or vid card memory, detail level, object display size level, killing background processes (using FSautostart), all had only a minor (<5%) effect on frame rate.
However, changing the ground detail display range from max to min changed the framerate from approx 30 to almost 50. I also noted that my framerates were pretty much maxed when looking around at towns, field objects and smoke but as soon as I looked at a hill with lots of trees my fps would drop from 70 (monitor limited) to mid 30's.
What's up with the trees? Why are they such a huge performance drain?
I also noticed that if I alt-tab out of AH2, my system is running like a dog even though over 300MB of memory is still free...
My rig is a P4 2.4 with HT, 1024MB RAM, WinXP, ATI Radeon 9600 vid card with 128MB RAM, latest ATI catalyst drivers, Dx9b.
I think I'll hold off a little longer on resubbing until AH2 is more than a slower version of AH1... ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
:confused:
Are you sure this was directed at me?
Whoops!! Sorry about that, I must have seen your name beside last reply and thought you started the post. It was meant for eagl, not you.
Again, sorry.:)
-
Blue Mako, that's pretty much what I'm seeing too.
I think I'll just have to run the sliders down to almost nothing and do my best to ignore the ground :)
-
eagl
I don't understand why the trees should be such a drain on performance.
I run FS2004 and LOMAC fine (albeit with some tweaking) with the same rig which should mean that it should be able to easily handle anything AH2 demands...
-
I have the same processor, mobo, sound card, and video card as eagl (I do have 1 Gig of memory though) and I see similar framerates when the trees pop into view. Are the intel guys that are around the same speed seeing the same slowdown? I think all the slowdown threads that I have read have been from those of us running AMD processors.
aqua
-
yes ahii is cpu limited, but with that new gfx card you can probably up the quality and fsaa settings and still get the same fps with it off...
-
I recently went from a gf3 ti200 to a 5900xt 256 gold edition gainward (480/750) on a pentium 4 2.8 (overclocked to 3.1 ghz). My fps went no where.
Why?
Cause I increased the texture size. At 256 I get those monster fps, but at 512 and 1024 I get CRAP for fps. 512 is more than playable 20-75, 1024 is not 8-75 fps. I think there is still some streamlining to be done at HTC with this.
How many of you guys are running 256? how many 512? how many 1024, and what are the fps differences caused by that?
-
Same scenario as eagl's EXACTLY
P4-2.5
1gig DDR333
ATI 9800pro
ECS L4S5A mainboard
although it consistently shows 23 - 30 frames, I'm certain the video card is having no trouble whatsoever. When rotating about a viewpoint (taking a huge chunk of terrain and spinning it) there is absolutely no jittery motion at all - smooth as silk.
Doesn't matter if vidcard settings are maxed or not - same frames always. My research has led me to believe that these new modern video cards capable of AGP8x just don't like some older motherboards and are limited by the mainboards AGP.
Does anyone else run an ECSL4S5A with a 9800, 6800 card???
g
-
im runing a old pentium 4. 1.4 gig with 384mb ram bus memory,,,400mb front side bus intel 850 chip set,,geforce 5200 ultra asylum 256mb
my frame rate is anywere from 40 too 100 frames a sec,,counting on whats going on,,i never seen it dip below 40 frames a sec<~~think it hit 39 during a heavy bomber attack,,lol,,sounds like somthing going on,,because most of you got cpu's that should torch on my machine,,lol,aces runs nice and smooth,,and im lacking memory that you all have,,even know my machine is upgradible to 3 gig's<~~nice thing about dual channel ram:)
-
Just wanted to add my specs to the comparison.Becuase im not have any problems with FPS on my below average system.
Amd 2500+ mmx 1,8 GHZ
384 mb Ram
128mb GF4 MX integrated GPU
Display mode 1024x768(32 bit)(72Hz)
With all sliders on default,terrain mippmaping unchecked.Im getting solid 35-72 Fps with the exeption of big bomb drops(it will go down to low 20s).
Set the sliders 25% to the right will get me 45-72 Fps steady,oh and im runnin at 256 textures.
-
hyena what texture are you running? I am going to have to guess its 256.
-
I agree that the Trees are the FPS killers. I have a P4 2.8, 1 gig DDR400, FX5900 Ultra 128m, I run 1600x1200 resolution with 512 textures and all sliders at max except for trees which I set at minimum unless I'm looking for GV's (which is not very often). I'm usually at the monotor refresh of 72 fps unless I turn trees up and it runs 30-38 fps, but the trees kind of "shimmer" and the frame rate actually appears to my eye to be much worse than the 30-38 fps shown. Its some kind of effect with the way the trees are shown, but dont know much about that stuff.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
im runing a old pentium 4. 1.4 gig with 384mb ram bus memory,,,400mb front side bus intel 850 chip set,,geforce 5200 ultra asylum 256mb
my frame rate is anywere from 40 too 100 frames a sec,,counting on whats going on,,i never seen it dip below 40 frames a sec<~~think it hit 39 during a heavy bomber attack,,lol,,sounds like somthing going on,,because most of you got cpu's that should torch on my machine,,lol,aces runs nice and smooth,,and im lacking memory that you all have,,even know my machine is upgradible to 3 gig's<~~nice thing about dual channel ram:)
Do you run vsync on or off?
We have VERY similar systems (almost exactly) but you got a bit more RDRAM. If all i gota do is drop 90.00 on new RDRAM I wanna know.
-
hyena what texture are you running? I am going to have to guess its 256.
im runing true color 32bit,,got a nice flat screen monitor<~~couldnt tell much diffrence between true color and high color on frame rates,but i may be wrong,,been working fine on true,,i havent run 256 color sence my old 200 meg cyrix
offline the game runs about 80fps no less,,untill i get low,,but doesnt drop past 50,,online it crawls down to about 40,,too 100 freakishly,,lol,,but allways smooth as butter,,i never had a proublem with frame rate,,i am using rdram pc800 chips<~~im thinking about moving up to a gig atleast,,but my machine also runs doom 3 good,,i didnt think it would run that great,,sence the reqirments are above my machine,,i think a 1.5 gig,,but seems to run great on my machine so far{crossing fingers that some level dont tear it up},,lol but i just got that game last week
as for the vsync,,ill have to check on that,,i havent checked my aces high 3d settings in a while,,lol
-
Originally posted by hyena426
as for the vsync,,ill have to check on that,,i havent checked my aces high 3d settings in a while,,lol
The 256 was in refrence to an AH setting. When you launch AH click video options, and see what your texture size is.
The Vsync is a Video Card setting, and can be found in Display properties (you can right click desktop, select properties. OR go to the controll panel and select display) Settings tab--> click ADVANCED--> click GForce FX5200. Tab--> Then select OpenGL settings.
You'll find VERTICLE SYNC in a window towards the bottom. Tell me if it's ALWAYS OFF, ON BY DEFAULT, or OFF BY DEFAULT.
I also run PC800 RDRAM, and the main diff btween us is a bit more ram on your part.
Please lemme know what your vsync setting is.
-
awww i see,,i miss understood,,and its set on 1024,,will i get better frames at 512 or 256?,,i never tried,,lol
vsync says its on by default:)
and im not sure how much it will help,,but i could tell a big diffrence when i added that 128megs to my 256on my boot up time and most games
-
Originally posted by hyena426
awww i see,,i miss understood,,and its set on 1024,,will i get better frames at 512 or 256?,,i never tried,,lol
vsync says its on by default:)
and im not sure how much it will help,,but i could tell a big diffrence when i added that 128megs to my 256on my boot up time and most games
t/y for the confirmation that most my flying woe's are due to my lack of ram.
-
ehhh, I would not put to much weight on that. I went from 512 to 1gig and noticed little to no difference. According to hyenas numbers his 1.4 gig with 384mb is outperforming a 3.0p4 with 1gig ram and a better video card (on a very clean and streamlined system to boot). I think there are many many factors affecting fps.
-
I just replaced my old GF-II 32mb vid carf with FX5200 128 mb.
my CPU is pentium 4 1GHz, and 512 mb RAM.
on other games frame rate improvement is much more pronounced than in AH. The major effect is that I can turn up level of detail without loosing FPS, but it hardly raised the maximum FPS I can get on lowest setting.
My feel is that CPU power is important in AH for frame rates, especially for high resolutions (my brother's machines achives better frame rates in 1200x1000 than mine - he has GF 3 card but 2Ghz CPU).
Bozon
-
Update -
The current map seems to be better for my framerates plus I turned the vis range waaaay down (about 15% from minimum) while leaving the top 2 sliders near midpoint. With those settings (1280x1024 and 512 texture size) I can usually maintain over 30 fps even over smoky fields during attacks. In the air away from fields and not at low alt, I'm getting 50+ fps in most places.
The nice thing about the 6800GT is that I'm able to run those settings and add in 4x FSAA and 2x ansio at 1280x1024 and the framerates only drop a tiny bit.
-
1.4 gig with 384mb is outperforming a 3.0p4 with 1gig ram and a better video card (on a very clean and streamlined system to boot). I think there are many many factors affecting fps.
cc,,seems that way,,i have no idea why,,even my buddies athlon is a 1.9 gig,,with a 9700 pro,,i allways seem to have a faster frame rate than him on aces high atleast,i have no idea why,,is it because i got better front side bus maybe? but i dout i have a faster front side bus that a 3.0 gig computer im sure,,lol
my system has allways run very clean,,and im even using the most dreaded windows me,,its never crashed on me,,or gave me a proublem,,but i do run alot of security on this machine,,firewall i run all the time,,virus protection<~~only run it when im signing off to check for things,lol and ad aware to keep my machine runing happy,,even with firewall on,,im still runing at 94%cpu power,,which aint too bad i dont think:)
just checked my video memory on aces high,,it said,,264.2 using 29.2
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
ehhh, I would not put to much weight on that. I went from 512 to 1gig and noticed little to no difference. According to hyenas numbers his 1.4 gig with 384mb is outperforming a 3.0p4 with 1gig ram and a better video card (on a very clean and streamlined system to boot). I think there are many many factors affecting fps.
One thing to consider it his TYPE of ram. 128mb of RDRAM is close to 512mb of SDRAM. 384mb of RDRAM is then well over a gig worth of SDRAM, AND it was designed specifically for the Pent4 he is usin'.
-
YEah, and the wankel is twice as good as an inline four.
If rdram was twice as good as ddr400 people would actually buy rdram. I can believe that rdram was twice as fast as 133, which was its competitor when rdram was designed.
-
So does this match up? I ran it all with 1024 textures too, but it made no difference. I was suprised at that.
(http://mysite.verizon.net/~kjard/1.jpg)
(http://mysite.verizon.net/~kjard/2.jpg)
(http://mysite.verizon.net/~kjard/3.jpg)
-
What does your setup and frames look like on the runway?
-
AH has always been CPU dependent you could have the latest and greatest graphics card and it won't help any if you still have a low grade CPU.
Unfortunetly AH graphics aren't able to make the use of the latest GPU's. I assume AH2 isn't any different.
...-Gixer
-
It's my understanding that DX-9 games (AHII) are more graphics card dependant, DX-8 games (AHI) are more cpu dependant.
In other words, AHII FPS is more affected by the type of Vid Card than by the speed of the CPU.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
It's my understanding that DX-9 games (AHII) are more graphics card dependant, DX-8 games (AHI) are more cpu dependant.
In other words, AHII FPS is more affected by the type of Vid Card than by the speed of the CPU.
nope ;)