Gf2 MX400 pci
Tags:
-
Graphics Cards
- PCI
-
Overclocking
Last response: in Overclocking
ramboswar
April 1, 2002 1:16:03 AM
well im stuck with this card and its horrible but i nd some help. I play counter strike on it and i get horrible frame rates of like 10 to 15 sometimes even lower its really bad. Is their anything i can do to get better frame rates and will tweaking help at all. Im stuck with pci cuz i got an hp last year and its really bad with a 700 mhz celeron. I will be building a new comp soon hopefully but i nd to get some help soon with my crappy card. btw i have the game playing at a small screen size to.
More about : gf2 mx400 pci
Quetzacoatl
April 1, 2002 1:45:13 AM
700Mhz Celeron Cumine and a Geforce2 Mx 64MB PCI...oh gods I haven't ran on a system that bad since I first got a Riva Tnt...Well, first of all, get some kind of overclocking utility. Go to http://guru3d.com/rivatuner/ to download rivatuner, or just do a search. Lets see...PCI Gf2Mx...you can probably get the core to somewhere around 200 and the memory up to about 183, 200 if you are very lucky (good memory on chip). Other than that, you should switch the settings of Counter-Strike to very low level. No more than 800x600 resolution, 16 bits, and generally low settings. Other than that, you may want to buy some more SDRAM...that usually helps.
"When there's a will, there's a way."
"When there's a will, there's a way."
ramboswar
April 1, 2002 2:54:30 AM
Related resources
- power consumption... 16MB TNT vs GF2 MX400 - Forum
- VisionTek GF2 MX400 Problem - Forum
- Texture corruption using GF2 MX400 in 2x and w/VIA chipset.. - Forum
- GF4 MX440 Vs GF2 MX400 - Forum
- Chaintech G-F2 MX400 - Forum
Quetzacoatl
April 1, 2002 4:16:03 AM
Try to get your mem speed up to 183Mhz, if you can, go 200Mhz. Make sure you manually turned off anti-aliasing, that will kill your performance easily. Core clock isn't as important as memory, so leave it at 200Mhz. Bottom line, get your memory as high as possible.
"When there's a will, there's a way."
"When there's a will, there's a way."
10GHZ
April 1, 2002 6:39:20 AM
Quetzacoatl
April 1, 2002 3:14:22 PM
svol
April 1, 2002 4:32:48 PM
svol
April 1, 2002 4:38:52 PM
For your information I OC'ed my ASUS GeForce2 MX AGP from 175/166 MHz (GPU/mem) to 225/205 MHz. So if you have a quality card you can OC it pretty high. Just increase it a couple of MHz a time and test if you don't get strange screens (2D problems), missing textures, or crash black screens when loading a 3D game.
<b>THGC:</b> before: :frown:
, after: :smile: :cool: .
<b>THGC:</b> before: :frown:
, after: :smile: :cool: .
Quetzacoatl
April 1, 2002 5:12:47 PM
svol
April 1, 2002 5:25:16 PM
ramboswar
April 1, 2002 11:16:38 PM
Quetzacoatl
April 1, 2002 11:57:21 PM
ramboswar
April 2, 2002 2:08:33 AM
Quetzacoatl
April 2, 2002 3:04:57 AM
Quetzacoatl
April 2, 2002 11:42:22 PM
ramboswar
April 3, 2002 1:52:36 AM
One problem is that the numbers lie! Look at the specs, the chip is the same, so the numbers for the ship are the same. But the chip can only use what is fed to it! This was the main reason the full version TNT2, with it's 128-bit memory path, beet the MX200, with a 64-bit memory path. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link!
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Quetzacoatl
April 3, 2002 7:30:48 PM
Even with the newest cards people are still finding AGP4x to provide minimal gains over AGP2x. Although AGP2x is only 4 times as fast as PCI, AGP has other features that help boost performance, like direct memory access and the fact that it doesn't have to share buswidth with the IDE controller, drives, soundcard, etc.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Quetzacoatl
April 3, 2002 11:09:31 PM
"Even with the newest cards people are still finding AGP4x to provide minimal gains over AGP2x. Although AGP2x is only 4 times as fast as PCI, AGP has other features that help boost performance, like direct memory access and the fact that it doesn't have to share buswidth with the IDE controller, drives, soundcard, etc."
This is probably a bad analogy, so try to bear with me. Is it that PCI devices are like RDRAM in a sense that they have to all be working in a single channel, sorta like the serial requirement of RDRAM? In that same sense, does this lag cause the PCI to be slower than AGP just by the other devices slowing it down?
"Even with the newest cards people are still finding AGP4x to provide minimal gains over AGP2x"
Does this mean video cards will have to evolve before we can get to a faster AGP bus like the 8x?
"When there's a will, there's a way."
This is probably a bad analogy, so try to bear with me. Is it that PCI devices are like RDRAM in a sense that they have to all be working in a single channel, sorta like the serial requirement of RDRAM? In that same sense, does this lag cause the PCI to be slower than AGP just by the other devices slowing it down?
"Even with the newest cards people are still finding AGP4x to provide minimal gains over AGP2x"
Does this mean video cards will have to evolve before we can get to a faster AGP bus like the 8x?
"When there's a will, there's a way."
Quetzacoatl
April 4, 2002 3:04:52 AM
phsstpok
April 4, 2002 4:16:43 AM
As already mentioned, the big bottleneck is the PCI bus.
To improve performance you need to minimize the amount textures stored in system memory and limit the textures to video card's memory. You can do this by setting the PCI memory to the minimum amounts. In display properties under advanced settings you will see options for OpenGL and Direct3D. In one of these (I forget which) you can set the PCI memory to just 5 MB. In the other you can set it to zero. These two settings will pretty much restrict all your textures to local video card memory. This will improve performance as long as all the textures will fit in that video memory but will decrease the amount of textures that can be stored. With a 32MB video card, resolution could be limited to 800x600 or lower depending on the game, otherwise the game will run out of texture memory. With a 64 MB MX400 this should not be a problem with most games. 1024x768 might be possible. I say "might be possible" because much data still must be passed to the video card, even if all the textures are stored in the video cards memory. This information includes vertex information as well as new textures (as scenes change). The amount vertex information is the same for all resolutions but textures are larger for higher resolutions requiring more memory.
To limit the amount of memory used (and allow games to run with just local video memory) keep the resolution low enough. Using 16-bit textures instead of 32-bit textures will also save memory. Using 16-bit colors instead of 32-bit colors will greatly cut the amount of memory needed, in fact by half, but will also greatly degrade visual quality. All of these will also improve performance.
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 04/04/02 00:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
To improve performance you need to minimize the amount textures stored in system memory and limit the textures to video card's memory. You can do this by setting the PCI memory to the minimum amounts. In display properties under advanced settings you will see options for OpenGL and Direct3D. In one of these (I forget which) you can set the PCI memory to just 5 MB. In the other you can set it to zero. These two settings will pretty much restrict all your textures to local video card memory. This will improve performance as long as all the textures will fit in that video memory but will decrease the amount of textures that can be stored. With a 32MB video card, resolution could be limited to 800x600 or lower depending on the game, otherwise the game will run out of texture memory. With a 64 MB MX400 this should not be a problem with most games. 1024x768 might be possible. I say "might be possible" because much data still must be passed to the video card, even if all the textures are stored in the video cards memory. This information includes vertex information as well as new textures (as scenes change). The amount vertex information is the same for all resolutions but textures are larger for higher resolutions requiring more memory.
To limit the amount of memory used (and allow games to run with just local video memory) keep the resolution low enough. Using 16-bit textures instead of 32-bit textures will also save memory. Using 16-bit colors instead of 32-bit colors will greatly cut the amount of memory needed, in fact by half, but will also greatly degrade visual quality. All of these will also improve performance.
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 04/04/02 00:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
uraniborg
April 14, 2002 3:09:48 PM
I benchmarked my Gf2 mx400 AGP with 2AA on and it was horrible. i normally get around 3050 3D marks on 3Dmark2001, but with 2AA i got 1689! awful.
but... i got up to 3267 marks o'c at 220/220.
<b>uraniborg
<font color=purple>"Brilliant thinkers have often met violent opposition from mediocre minds."
but... i got up to 3267 marks o'c at 220/220.
<b>uraniborg
<font color=purple>"Brilliant thinkers have often met violent opposition from mediocre minds."
Quetzacoatl
April 14, 2002 4:09:47 PM
Related resources
- overclocking gf2 mx400 Forum
- What are the best drivers (GF2 MX400)?? Forum
- Safety of Overclocking GF2 MX-400? Forum
- Probs installing GF2 MX-400 agp Forum
- ECSK7S5A + GF2 MX400 Forum
- GF2 MX400 and tv out Forum
- Is V5 better than GF2 mx400 ? is radeon 7000 good? Forum
- Radeon vs. GF2 MX400 Forum
- GF2 MX400 Review Forum
- I want to no if that my 118PCI-32DDR GeForce2 MX400 32MB 64-bit DDR PCI Forum
- GeForce2 MX400 PCI doesn't work w/ Asus P2B-DS Forum
- PNY GeForce 2 MX400... PCI :-( Forum
- 64Mb MX400 PCI not working Forum
- PCI 9200 or AGP GF2 Forum
- pci GF4 vs. agp GF2 Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Overclocking categories
!