Frames per second and overclocking utilities

[jy88888888]

Hi,
I will be very grateful for any help.
Without overclocking my GF3 Ti200, I get 75fps in Unreal Tournament. Is this alright? I also have an XP1700 and I use the program FRAPS to measure the fps www.fraps.com. I overclocked my GF3 Ti200 to 200,450 and increased my FSB to 160 and I still get 75fps. Is there something wrong with my GF3 Ti200 or is FRAPS unreliable? The frames per second display is in the top left hand corner of the screen and it seems to have trouble displaying numbers greater than 75. It seems that 75 is the limit that FRAPS can display. I do get higher scores in 3DMark2001SE though. I overclocked using the registry hack but I also have Rivatuner and Powerstrip but I don't like using them because they run in the background and so use up system resources.

So if FRAPS is not the best fps measuring utility, how can I get games such as UT, SOF2, Deus Ex, MOH to display accurate fps readings?
Thanks

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jy88888888 on 05/29/02 03:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[phsstpok]

You probably have Vertical Sync enabled and your monitor is set to 75 hz refresh. This combination limits framerates to 75.

To do benchmarks you should turn off Vsync. You can do this in display properties.

Turning off Vsync may produce "tearing" in 3D graphics so you may want to re-enable Vsync when you are done testing.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[jy88888888]

Thanks
I tried turning off Vsync but the fps was still 75. I used 3DMark2001SE and got a higher score when I overclocked (normal-6650, overclocked-7900) so it's not a hardware problem. What should I do about the 75Hz refresh rate?
Thanks again

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[phsstpok]

I forgot to mention that in Display Properties there are two places to change Vsync settings. One is for Direct3D and one for OpenGL.

As for monitor refresh, if your monitor supports a higher refresh rate for the resolution you are using then use the higher refresh rate.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[jy88888888]

Thanks

It worked! My FSB is 160 and my GF3 is at 220,500. The frame rate in Unreal Tournament jumps a lot between 140ish and 60ish - why?
Also, do I have to do this everytime, (turning off Vsync), if I want to increase frame rates in games? It seems pointless if the result of turning off Vsync is the fact that you get lines on your screen.
I get higher scores in 3DMark2001SE (after overclocking) even if I don't turn off Vsync - why?

Thanks a lot again

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[phsstpok]

It depends on whether you are getting visual problems and if they are bothering you. If not then leave Vsync off.

If you are getting visual problems but still want to maintain high framerates in games the only solution is higher refresh rates for your monitor. If your monitor can't do this then a monitor that can is desirable. Modern monitors can do 120+ hz at 1024x768 and 100+ hz at 1280x1024.

Framerates vary by what's being displayed. More characters means more models which means more polygons which means lower framerates. Effects like explosions slow things down a lot especially if there are lots of explosions combined with particle effects.

I'm not sure about this but you might be seeing an improvement in 3DMark2001 because it is an artificial benchmark and the score is a calculated value vs a pure framerate score. Look at the individual scores. With Vsync enabled you should still see that "brick wall" effect, framerates going no higher than the monitor's refresh rate.



<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[chuck232]

The reason it jumps around is because if you see a lot of action on the screen, then it'll slow it down a bit, but when nothing's happening, the FPS will go up.

My firewall tastes like burning.

 

[10GHZ]

ye... fraps is pretty reliable, if you run it with 3dmark, you'll see both fps and 3dmark display pretty much the same fps.

 

[jy88888888]

Thanks again,
So are you saying that if I leave Vsync on, then no matter what game I play, the max frame rate is 75? I always thought that the max fps was only dependent on the graphics card! I've never heard of someone buying a new monitor so that he/she could have higher frame rates in games!

I looked at my 3DMark2001 benchmark details and I got frame rates as high as 133.2 with Vsync on. When I run the Car chase benchmark, it shows the framerate in the bottom right corner - it is well over 75 most of the time.
Thanks

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[phsstpok]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When Vertical Sync is enabled the video card waits for the Vertical Retrace to update the frame buffer. Only during this time is updating allowed. This means the framerates cannot exceed the refresh rate because updating is done only once per cycle.

As for 3DMark2001, the same should be true here. Are you sure you re-enabled Vsync for Direct3D (and not just OpenGL) after you did your earlier testing with Vsync disabled?

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[jy88888888]

Yeah, Vsync was enabled for both Direct3D and OpenGL. Found this which summarises everything you've said
<A HREF="http://www.planetdescent.com/d3help/framerate.shtml" target="_new">http://www.planetdescent.com/d3help/framerate.shtml</A>
Anyway, when I do buy a new monitor, I should buy one with a high refresh rate for my desired resolution-right? Currently my monitor is at 1024*768/75Hz. How about dot pitch-what is it and what should I look for?
Thanks

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[phsstpok]

Good article.

Yes, for higher FPS with Vsync enabled a high refresh rate is what you want, especially if you have a fast video card.

As for dot-pitch, in general, the smaller the better. 0.22mm is better than 0.25 (for the same size monitor). Dot-pitch is a measure of diagonal distance between two pixel triads in a shadow mask monitor. These monitors have the pixels formed by red, green, and blue dots in the shape of a triangle.

Aperture grill CRTs (most commonly Trinitron) have rectangular red, green, and blue segments instead of dots. These are arranged side by side and not in a triangle. Since the height of the pixel is controlled electronically and not by holes a shadow mask in these monitors, the standard dot-pitch measurement can't be used. Instead, a measurement between "segments" (I forget the real name) of identical colors is used. That's the measurement between one blue segment and the next blue segment, for example, is what is quoted for these monitors. Note, because the measurement is linear instead of diagonal you can't exactly compare the dot-pitch of Shadow Mask monitors with the measument used for Aperture Grills. However, a 0.25 mm Shadow Mask CRT would in theory have more precise pixels than a 0.25 mm Aperture grill. That's in theory. In practice it's hard to compare. The quality of the electronics is even more important than the design type.

I had a really great link to a very descriptive article on CRT design but I can't find it (i.e. can't remember it). <A HREF="http://www.howstuffworks.com/monitor.htm" target="_new">This one</A> will have to do. (The article uses the term "dot pitch" for both Shadow Mask and Aperture Grill monitors but I'm pretty sure another term is used for Aperture Grills. Maybe I'm wrong).

Anyway, choosing a monitor is very subjective. You can use specs to narrow down your choices but it is important to see the monitors you choose for yourself. If you don't like how a monitor displays or how it works it doesn't matter how good the specs are, you won't like it.



<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[jy88888888]

You've been very helpful, thanks!

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[jy88888888]

Just one more thing.....
I know I should post this on a relevant board but it is a mix of topics and you seem knowledgeable.
My system is as follows:
XP1700, GF3 Ti200, 5400RPM HD, 256DDR, 4yr old monitor.
I'm interested in an upgrade but can't decide on:

A new hard drive to increase loading times for games and applications in Windows,

A new monitor for higher frame rates or,

More RAM to increase performance in games.

Is 75fps in games good? If it is, then it cuts down my choices to two. I run Win98SE, so more RAM could be a problem. I've also got bad sectors on my current hard drive so a Western Digital SE HD would be nice.

Thanks


AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[chuck232]

I don't think that Win98SE really needs more than 256MB, but I'm sure 512 would help. Also with bad sectors, couldn't you just format your HD. A 7200RPM will help a bit, but you should get it only if you have the money. As for your monitor, a Sony Trinitron 19" is pretty nice, and they aren't too expensive. I have 2 of them and they've performed great so far. (One is 2 and 1/2 year old and the other one is ~1 year old.)

My firewall tastes like burning.

 

[phsstpok]

Most of my hardware is older than yours but here is what I have found.

I don't trust hard drives that have developed bad sectors. Yes, they can be masked but I feel you are just waiting for data loss to happen. I recommend getting a new drive, now. You'll be surprised by how much faster a 7200 RPM drive is. I was. Load times, subjectively, seem twice as fast.

I agree with Chuck232, a good monitor is always important. I've only owned 3 SVGA monitors in 15 years so I believe highly in top quality ones. The extra money is wisely spent. (You can probably guess that I'm due for an upgrade as well).

I also use Windows 98 SE. Most of the time no difference between 256 MB and 384 MB of RAM for games and I don't think 512 MB will matter much either. However, I have noticed one game exception. Serious Sam gets a pretty nice boost from more memory. Medal of Honor didn't seem to need the extra memory. I haven't played many other recent 3D games due to having only a Geforce2 card (and I'm cheap so I buy 1 and 2 year-old games).

Sorry, I have to run. If I left anything out I will get back to it later.




<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[jy88888888]

Thanks
My 6.4Gb HD is split into 2 partitions. I've got many downloaded mp3s and applications on the second partition which has no bad sectors. My first partition, which is used for Windows has bad sectors-I've tried formatting this partition but the bad sectors won't go away.

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[jy88888888]

Thanks

AMD VS INTEL - AMD anyday

 

[chuck232]

WEll a 6.4GB HDD is getting kinda small nowadays, a couple hundred or a couple downloaded movies could easily fill that up. A nice 7200RPM HDD from either WD or Maxtor shouldn't cost you that much anyways. I'm sure you can aford one. The new one will fix the bad clusters, but that's not saying that it won't come up again in a new hard drive.

My firewall tastes like burning.

 

[Smokey]

I would suggest getting a 40GB 7200 for approx 70-75$ (WD/Maxtor also). You will see nice improvements in game loading times, plus you won't have to deal with those bad sectors anymore (but transfer those mp3's first...). Why not get the mem and hd, then save up for a sweeeeeet monitor. 75fps isn't that bad at all (I picked up a Hitachi 21inch for 230 at a show) which is what I run myself. Best advice, like the man said: buy quality monitor. You get what you pay for, and won't regret it.

Life's a hole...dig it. - Joe Dirt