New Doom3 timedemo results and 5900 xt

[Eric]

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

Okay, I was using MSI's 61.22 drivers. I downloaded and installed on top
the 61.77 Nvidia drivers.

My fps in timedemo demo1 on doom3 went up almost 50%. From 25.9 to 38.6 --
at 1024 x 768 (high quality). Driver default settings. Game default
settings.

Much better now.

My system: P4 2.6 Ghz; 1 GB DDR RAM (800 FSB); MSI GeForce FX 5900 XT
(overclocked to 425/763, from stock of 390/700).

 

[Guest]

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

Eric wrote:
> Okay, I was using MSI's 61.22 drivers. I downloaded and installed on
> top the 61.77 Nvidia drivers.
>
> My fps in timedemo demo1 on doom3 went up almost 50%. From 25.9 to
> 38.6 -- at 1024 x 768 (high quality). Driver default settings. Game
> default settings.
>
> Much better now.
>
> My system: P4 2.6 Ghz; 1 GB DDR RAM (800 FSB); MSI GeForce FX 5900
> XT (overclocked to 425/763, from stock of 390/700).

Huh? Hm. I've owned my FX5900-128 for over a year now, and I just
installed the 61.77 driver set. Merged Coolbits. Checked the Clocks
section, and it's defaulted to 2D-300/850 or 3D-400/850. I'll set it to
3D now, then go run Doom3 and check the timedemo. But your clock speeds
look more like 'LE than XT??? Or is the nomenclature just confusing me?
I'd thought XT was more Ultra like?
McG.

 

[Eric]

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

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8uNRc.12402$rb2.8963@fe2.texas.rr.com...

> >
> > My system: P4 2.6 Ghz; 1 GB DDR RAM (800 FSB); MSI GeForce FX 5900
> > XT (overclocked to 425/763, from stock of 390/700).
>
> Huh? Hm. I've owned my FX5900-128 for over a year now, and I just
> installed the 61.77 driver set. Merged Coolbits. Checked the Clocks
> section, and it's defaulted to 2D-300/850 or 3D-400/850. I'll set it to
> 3D now, then go run Doom3 and check the timedemo. But your clock speeds
> look more like 'LE than XT??? Or is the nomenclature just confusing me?
> I'd thought XT was more Ultra like?
> McG.

XT is clocked slowest in the 5900 family (390/700 -- some are 400/700).
Ultra is 450/850. Vanilla 5900 is 400/850. So you must have the plain
(non-ultra) 5900.

There is officially no such thing as an "LE", but some manufacturers stuck
that tag on their cards. XT is definitely NOT ultra like. It is more like
Ultra - "lite".

This page will explain the 5900 family to you:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5900_xt/page2.asp

But note this quote:

"Despite the slower memory frequency (700MHz effective versus 850MHz), the
5900 XT is able to keep up with the GeForce FX 5900 128MB in many benchmarks
thanks to the lower memory timings its 2.8ns BGA memory boasts."

 

[Guest]

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

Eric wrote:
> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8uNRc.12402$rb2.8963@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
>>>
>>> My system: P4 2.6 Ghz; 1 GB DDR RAM (800 FSB); MSI GeForce FX 5900
>>> XT (overclocked to 425/763, from stock of 390/700).
>>
>> Huh? Hm. I've owned my FX5900-128 for over a year now, and I just
>> installed the 61.77 driver set. Merged Coolbits. Checked the Clocks
>> section, and it's defaulted to 2D-300/850 or 3D-400/850. I'll set
>> it to 3D now, then go run Doom3 and check the timedemo. But your
>> clock speeds look more like 'LE than XT??? Or is the nomenclature
>> just confusing me? I'd thought XT was more Ultra like?
>> McG.
>
> XT is clocked slowest in the 5900 family (390/700 -- some are
> 400/700). Ultra is 450/850. Vanilla 5900 is 400/850. So you must
> have the plain (non-ultra) 5900.
>
> There is officially no such thing as an "LE", but some manufacturers
> stuck that tag on their cards. XT is definitely NOT ultra like. It
> is more like Ultra - "lite".
>
> This page will explain the 5900 family to you:
>
> http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5900_xt/page2.asp
>
> But note this quote:
>
> "Despite the slower memory frequency (700MHz effective versus
> 850MHz), the 5900 XT is able to keep up with the GeForce FX 5900
> 128MB in many benchmarks thanks to the lower memory timings its 2.8ns
> BGA memory boasts."

Ok, got all that. Hadn't kept up with all the new stuff since I bought
my vanilla FX5900-128 with Hynix chips I take it that my ram has
higher latency settings then? ATI is just as bad, actually they're
worse. I know of 4 variations of the "Radeon 9800 Pro" that are all
supposed to be the exact same card. I had the Feb 21, 2004 variation
with R350 core .
McG.

 

[carrie]

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

2.39Gz Athlon XP Barton
1GB RAM
PNY 5900XT 433/900 stock 400/850
1152x864 (regular screen size)
High Quality
2148 Frames in 67.1 seconds = 32.0FPS

looks great, a little jerky in loading some parts but in regular play
not noticeble at all because I'm not running around that fast and FPS
much higher.

Nvidia 61.77 Drivers



On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:03:25 -0400, "Eric" <Eric@nospam.com> wrote:

>Okay, I was using MSI's 61.22 drivers. I downloaded and installed on top
>the 61.77 Nvidia drivers.
>
>My fps in timedemo demo1 on doom3 went up almost 50%. From 25.9 to 38.6 --
>at 1024 x 768 (high quality). Driver default settings. Game default
>settings.
>
>Much better now.
>
>My system: P4 2.6 Ghz; 1 GB DDR RAM (800 FSB); MSI GeForce FX 5900 XT
>(overclocked to 425/763, from stock of 390/700).
>
>
>
>

 

[Eric]

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

"Carrie" <me@usa.com> wrote in message
news:2phlh0hd9gl370231tuj73ejti2tg9aaac@4ax.com...
> 2.39Gz Athlon XP Barton
> 1GB RAM
> PNY 5900XT 433/900 stock 400/850
> 1152x864 (regular screen size)
> High Quality
> 2148 Frames in 67.1 seconds = 32.0FPS

Your vid card is NOT a 5900XT. You have the regular (better) 5900. Your
stock speed, as you indicate, is 400/850. That is the 5900 (not the
5900XT). 5900 ULTRA runs at 450/850.

The 5900XT runs at 390 (or 400)/700.

Just F Y I.