Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX5200 Runs Old Games Slower... Anybody else experience th..

Tags:
  • Nvidia
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 5:09:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I've been getting some curious results after playing around with Fraps and a
smattering of old and new games. Games that are several years old often
yield much lower frame rates than newer ones. For example, Need For Speed
III and Rainbow Six (the very first one) never seem to be able to get above
40 FPS (and sometimes drop into the 20s) at 1024X768 with high settings. On
the other hand, Quake III Arena maintains a steady 100 FPS (1024*768, max
quality on everything). RTCW (same settings as QIII except 800*600 res)
bottoms out at about 55 FPS but averages around 70 and gets up to the 90s.
Unreal Tournament 2003 is silky smooth at 800*600 with high quality. It
takes some fiddling, but even Halo can be made to run at acceptable frame
rates at lower resolutions and detail (and I know it demands a hell of a lot
more from the hardware than the original Rainbow Six, as do the other
'modern' games I tested).

So I'm curious, what exactly is the reason for this? Is it the architecture
of the FX5200, or does it have more to do with the drivers? Could optimizing
the drivers for newer games somehow cause older games to perform poorly? Or
is it an issue with Windows XP and software that wasn't really designed to
run on it?

I don't think the problem is with any other part of my comp; it's a decent
system (Athlon 64 3000+, 512 MB DDR 400, SB Audigy, Asus K8V SE DX) that
shouldn't have trouble with the majority of games out there right now.

Thanks to anybody who can enlighten me.

Al







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 23/06/2004

More about : fx5200 runs games slower experience

June 24, 2004 10:02:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>
> So I'm curious, what exactly is the reason for this? Is it the
architecture
> of the FX5200, or does it have more to do with the drivers? Could
optimizing
> the drivers for newer games somehow cause older games to perform poorly?
Or
> is it an issue with Windows XP and software that wasn't really designed to
> run on it?
>
> I don't think the problem is with any other part of my comp; it's a decent
> system (Athlon 64 3000+, 512 MB DDR 400, SB Audigy, Asus K8V SE DX) that
> shouldn't have trouble with the majority of games out there right now.

Slow core (240 Mhz), slow memory (200Mhz) and 64 bit memory architecture add
up to performance that is in the Geforce2 GTS league. See the post ("warning
about Geforce FX5200..")down aways on the 19th about the exact same thing.
There's no cure for this except remove it, Ebay it or stick it in a plain
productivity system, and upgrade to a better and faster card. FX5700 Ultra
should make you happier....a bit more coin but mega performance gain.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 11:29:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"PW" <alnonymous79@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:lotCc.30238$MU4.917331@news20.bellglobal.com
......
> So I'm curious, what exactly is the reason for this? Is it the
> architecture of the FX5200, or does it have more to do with the drivers?
> Could optimizing the drivers for newer games somehow cause older games to
> perform poorly? Or is it an issue with Windows XP and software that
> wasn't really designed to run on it?
........

I do wonder as well :-)

Look, I run here a rusty G4 MX440 and my after-hours games like:
1) Mooha
2) UT, 2003, 2004
3) SOF2
4) Far Cry

...all do run in 1024x768x32bit colour perfectly smooth at highest detail
level. I do know that Far Cry would look much better if my card would be a
newer one supporting pixel shaders. I migrated from 98SE to XP a few weeks
ago and find all the games run much smoother in XP. Even my card's benchmark
:-) is 10% better than in 98SE (no tweaking). Basically, I find XP is a big
step up in allround performance matters. On the other side, and it's a real
set back, XP is pretty bare boned (themes, sound schemes) for its hefty
price tag. I heard that the FX range is not flawless and performance
generally could be better. However, Nvidia wants to sell so keeping people
"unhappy" is the best way to keep demand up ;-)

my 2 cents

Steve





> I don't think the problem is with any other part of my comp; it's a decent
> system (Athlon 64 3000+, 512 MB DDR 400, SB Audigy, Asus K8V SE DX) that
> shouldn't have trouble with the majority of games out there right now.
>
> Thanks to anybody who can enlighten me.
>
> Al
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 1:31:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com> wrote in message
news:08uCc.2773$933.624@clgrps12...
> >
> > So I'm curious, what exactly is the reason for this? Is it the
> architecture
> > of the FX5200, or does it have more to do with the drivers? Could
> optimizing
> > the drivers for newer games somehow cause older games to perform poorly?
> Or
> > is it an issue with Windows XP and software that wasn't really designed
to
> > run on it?
> >
> > I don't think the problem is with any other part of my comp; it's a
decent
> > system (Athlon 64 3000+, 512 MB DDR 400, SB Audigy, Asus K8V SE DX) that
> > shouldn't have trouble with the majority of games out there right now.
>
> Slow core (240 Mhz), slow memory (200Mhz) and 64 bit memory architecture
add
> up to performance that is in the Geforce2 GTS league. See the post
("warning
> about Geforce FX5200..")down aways on the 19th about the exact same thing.
> There's no cure for this except remove it, Ebay it or stick it in a plain
> productivity system, and upgrade to a better and faster card. FX5700 Ultra
> should make you happier....a bit more coin but mega performance gain.

This post makes me laugh... it totally ignores what he is asking...

He is asking why some older games run *slower*.

Old games should run *faster* :) 

Well anyway those two games mentioned still play decently and they aren't
top games...

So I wouldn't worry about it too much =D
June 24, 2004 10:00:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In answer to Skybuck's brilliant observations about how my post does not
address the original post, and to address Steven_K's Geforce4 MX 440
post.....most older video cards....like a Geforce4 MX 440, Geforce2 GTS,
Radeon 8500, etc are all 128 bit memory cards. Bandwidth of a 64bit FX5200
is 3.2 Gb/sec max. This is far less than 1/2 the bandwith of a Geforce4MX
440. This is in the territory of the original TNT2 Pro, Rage Fury 128 and
Geforce256. So once again, the reason your older games runs poorly on an
FX5200 is that it is far slower than most older videocards. It has truly
appaling performance.....check out the specs and bandwidth performance for
yourself at http://users.erols.com/chare/video.htm
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 10:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:00:50 GMT, "Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com>
wrote:

>In answer to Skybuck's brilliant observations about how my post does not
>address the original post, and to address Steven_K's Geforce4 MX 440
>post.....most older video cards....like a Geforce4 MX 440, Geforce2 GTS,
>Radeon 8500, etc are all 128 bit memory cards. Bandwidth of a 64bit FX5200
>is 3.2 Gb/sec max. This is far less than 1/2 the bandwith of a Geforce4MX
>440. This is in the territory of the original TNT2 Pro, Rage Fury 128 and
>Geforce256. So once again, the reason your older games runs poorly on an
>FX5200 is that it is far slower than most older videocards. It has truly
>appaling performance.....check out the specs and bandwidth performance for
>yourself at http://users.erols.com/chare/video.htm
>


But why would a much more demanding game like Quake 3, RTCW,
or UT 2003 (as the OP explained) run faster. Using a TnT2 Pro, or
GeForce 256 would not produce the same high FPS that his FX5200 gets.
The OP prablably has the 128bit FX5200 (yes there are 128bit
non-ultra FX5200s). But as manufactures use the low performance
yeilding chips as entry level, I think Nvidia used the most erratic
performing yeilds for the FX5200 line. Notice how some owners are
happy with how the card performs, while others can't even get games to
play for more than a few minutes, if at all.
Outside of trying `a fresh install of the OS, and all to clean
up old leftover registry enties, and such... Another card would h`ave
been a better choice.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 2:48:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com> wrote in message
news:mFECc.17898$mm3.8467@clgrps13
> In answer to Skybuck's brilliant observations about how my post does not
> address the original post, and to address Steven_K's Geforce4 MX 440
> post.....most older video cards....like a Geforce4 MX 440, Geforce2 GTS,
> Radeon 8500, etc are all 128 bit memory cards. Bandwidth of a 64bit FX5200
> is 3.2 Gb/sec max. This is far less than 1/2 the bandwith of a Geforce4MX
> 440. This is in the territory of the original TNT2 Pro, Rage Fury 128 and
> Geforce256. So once again, the reason your older games runs poorly on an
> FX5200 is that it is far slower than most older videocards. It has truly
> appaling performance.....check out the specs and bandwidth performance for
> yourself at http://users.erols.com/chare/video.htm


Thx, Augustus, dint know my MX440 is a 128bit card. Now it becomes clear to
me why modern FX cards generally do have performance problems, especially
the half-cuts (64bit), compared to the older and much cheaper cards. These
modern GPUs do alot more, like pixel shader etc, than older cards but they
get cut their mem-bus in half? Unbelievable craziness! You still can buy the
MX440 for only a few bux and have a full fledged 128 bit card?! Coool

Steve
!