poor performance

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

My display performance in the game is very choppy. Not smooth at all!

I have set all the display settings in the game all the way down, and it
hasn't helped.

I am currently using a eVGA nvidia 5200 Light 128mb video card, and an Asus
A7N8X Deluxe MB, and 1gig of pc2700 running dual channel. LG LCD DVI
monitor.

Any recommendations? This is driving me nuts!
45 answers Last reply
More about poor performance
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    news:0rudnQJ9VZgv_97fRVn-tw@suscom.com...
    > My display performance in the game is very choppy. Not smooth at all!
    >
    > I have set all the display settings in the game all the way down, and it
    > hasn't helped.
    >
    > I am currently using a eVGA nvidia 5200 Light 128mb video card, and an
    > Asus A7N8X Deluxe MB, and 1gig of pc2700 running dual channel. LG LCD DVI
    > monitor.
    >
    > Any recommendations? This is driving me nuts!

    Hmmm, Nvidia 5200 is past of things. I recommend start from 5900 XT. I don't
    know about 5700 but noticed it hella cheaper now.

    Other PC still use GeForce 4 MX quite playable with UT2004 yes there is
    choppy as well...

    I'm using 6600GT here it quite nice.... :)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Wesley" <Wesley@kissworld.com.de> wrote in message
    news:b%J0e.10784$C7.9362@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    >
    > "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    > news:0rudnQJ9VZgv_97fRVn-tw@suscom.com...
    >> My display performance in the game is very choppy. Not smooth at all!
    >>
    >> I have set all the display settings in the game all the way down, and it
    >> hasn't helped.
    >>
    >> I am currently using a eVGA nvidia 5200 Light 128mb video card, and an
    >> Asus A7N8X Deluxe MB, and 1gig of pc2700 running dual channel. LG LCD DVI
    >> monitor.
    >>
    >> Any recommendations? This is driving me nuts!
    >
    > Hmmm, Nvidia 5200 is past of things. I recommend start from 5900 XT. I
    > don't know about 5700 but noticed it hella cheaper now.
    >
    > Other PC still use GeForce 4 MX quite playable with UT2004 yes there is
    > choppy as well...
    >
    > I'm using 6600GT here it quite nice.... :)
    >

    I recently went to a 6600GT and I also am quite fond of it. It plays every
    game I have maxxed out with great framerates. I can run 2K4 on max and still
    keep FPS in the 80-'s. The only thing I wonder is why you would go through
    all the trouble and expense to get a 6800 (or even run duals)?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    news:0rudnQJ9VZgv_97fRVn-tw@suscom.com...
    >
    > I am currently using a eVGA nvidia 5200 Light 128mb video card


    that is just bad ;o0


    > A7N8X Deluxe MB, and 1gig of pc2700 running dual channel. LG LCD DVI
    > monitor.
    >


    what kind of cpu? with UT the cpu "can" be one of the most important
    things. Even though in this case I lean towards blaming the video card.


    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    > "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    > news:0rudnQJ9VZgv_97fRVn-tw@suscom.com...
    >>
    >> I am currently using a eVGA nvidia 5200 Light 128mb video card
    >
    >
    >
    > that is just bad ;o0
    >
    >


    ok, after looking at some reviews of the standard 5200 I can say the problem
    is your video card. The standard 5200 is useless for gaming, less than half
    the speed of a gf4 ti4200 in ut2004. I can't even imagine how much slower
    the "lite" version would be ;o0

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Found out the problem.

    I am running my resolution too high for the 5200 card, and thus have
    decreased frame rates. I am running at 1024 x 1268 (or something close to
    that)


    "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote in message
    news:%9P0e.8178$S46.7123@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    > news:0rudnQJ9VZgv_97fRVn-tw@suscom.com...
    >>
    >> I am currently using a eVGA nvidia 5200 Light 128mb video card
    >
    >
    >
    > that is just bad ;o0
    >
    >
    >> A7N8X Deluxe MB, and 1gig of pc2700 running dual channel. LG LCD DVI
    >> monitor.
    >>
    >
    >
    > what kind of cpu? with UT the cpu "can" be one of the most important
    > things. Even though in this case I lean towards blaming the video card.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Margolis
    > http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    > http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
    >
    >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:29:12 -0500, "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net>
    wrote:

    >What about the 5500's?

    The 5 series will be okay for UT, but aren't a good investment if you
    are going to play any DX9 games. Something like an ATI 9600 Pro would
    be a better bet.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    How about a PNY FX5700?


    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:5o0941d905ohhkv23qb0gnb25vvlaics8k@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:29:12 -0500, "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>What about the 5500's?
    >
    > The 5 series will be okay for UT, but aren't a good investment if you
    > are going to play any DX9 games. Something like an ATI 9600 Pro would
    > be a better bet.
    > --
    > Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    > please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    > Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:34:35 -0500, "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net>
    wrote:

    >How about a PNY FX5700?

    Same deal, all the FX5 cards are weak DX9 cards.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Forget the fram resolution idea.... I am still getting choppy performance!

    My 64mb card did better than this lame 128mb card!!!


    "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    news:0rudnQJ9VZgv_97fRVn-tw@suscom.com...
    > My display performance in the game is very choppy. Not smooth at all!
    >
    > I have set all the display settings in the game all the way down, and it
    > hasn't helped.
    >
    > I am currently using a eVGA nvidia 5200 Light 128mb video card, and an
    > Asus A7N8X Deluxe MB, and 1gig of pc2700 running dual channel. LG LCD DVI
    > monitor.
    >
    > Any recommendations? This is driving me nuts!
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    news:dYWdnWJivPYVmtrfRVn-2Q@suscom.com...
    > Thankyou for that very helpful information. I too build systems, and this
    > is the first time I have ever had this problem. Apparently in readng
    > reviews, the 5200 did worse in benchmarks than the 4 series cards.
    >
    > I did have an ATI for a short while but i was unimpressed by the card, and
    > it had heating issues causing it to go out altogether after minutes of
    > gaming.
    >
    > My system is currently using a AMD Athlon 2600+ and 1gig of PC2700. I can
    > very easily minimize the game and run other applications.
    >
    > I am currently considering the nvidia 6600GT. My buddy has the 6800GT and
    > loves it, but I don't have $350 for a video card. ATI is off my list
    > currently due to the worst experience I have ever had with a card (until
    > now)
    >
    > If I went ATI, which card would you recommend as the best value for a
    > gamer?
    >

    For the bucks you are going to spend the 6600GT is a wonderful choice. It
    burns up the comparably priced cards from ATI and it is just rock solid.
    I've used both products and although there are camps to both sides it really
    just comes down to performance:

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041119/geforce-6600gt-agp-05.html
    and
    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041119/geforce-6600gt-agp-10.html

    The only downside I've seen it the fact you have to split your power supply
    and this may cause cable routing issues inside your box. The card requires
    it's own feed so you probably will need a molex splitter if you get the card
    (they are just a couple of bucks).

    As an aside you should really look at your CPU too. Even the best vid card
    will only help so much if you have a middling processor.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT


    "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote in message
    news:KVE1e.18723$3F5.12358@fe04.lga...
    >
    > "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    > news:dYWdnWJivPYVmtrfRVn-2Q@suscom.com...
    >> Thankyou for that very helpful information. I too build systems, and this
    >> is the first time I have ever had this problem. Apparently in readng
    >> reviews, the 5200 did worse in benchmarks than the 4 series cards.
    >>
    >> I did have an ATI for a short while but i was unimpressed by the card,
    >> and it had heating issues causing it to go out altogether after minutes
    >> of gaming.
    >>
    >> My system is currently using a AMD Athlon 2600+ and 1gig of PC2700. I can
    >> very easily minimize the game and run other applications.
    >>
    >> I am currently considering the nvidia 6600GT. My buddy has the 6800GT and
    >> loves it, but I don't have $350 for a video card. ATI is off my list
    >> currently due to the worst experience I have ever had with a card (until
    >> now)
    >>
    >> If I went ATI, which card would you recommend as the best value for a
    >> gamer?
    >>
    >
    > For the bucks you are going to spend the 6600GT is a wonderful choice. It
    > burns up the comparably priced cards from ATI and it is just rock solid.
    > I've used both products and although there are camps to both sides it
    > really just comes down to performance:
    >
    > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041119/geforce-6600gt-agp-05.html
    > and
    > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041119/geforce-6600gt-agp-10.html
    >
    > The only downside I've seen it the fact you have to split your power
    > supply and this may cause cable routing issues inside your box. The card
    > requires it's own feed so you probably will need a molex splitter if you
    > get the card (they are just a couple of bucks).
    >
    > As an aside you should really look at your CPU too. Even the best vid card
    > will only help so much if you have a middling processor.
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    news:GJGdncQvxPkdstrfRVn-og@suscom.com...
    >I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    >6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT
    >

    The 6600GT suffered from a lack of on-board RAM. It was a 128 card playing
    against the 256 versions. Of course at very high resolutions and full on AA
    and AF the lower RAM levels will cause a lesser performance. You can fix
    that now though with the 256 version. Still though I can tell you that in
    real world experience my 6600GT smokes UT2004 at any res I want. I get 80+
    fps on full settings and level load times are very short. Getting good, fast
    system RAM helped a bunch too.

    I also run a GF4 4200ti on my segregated testing box and a Radeon 9200 on my
    kid's rig. There's just no comparison. I do think that the Radeon drivers
    have a better interface when using multimonitor or TV out. The unified
    drivers of NVidia are a little confusing to a newer user. I use coolbits as
    it's easier to control your card.

    To be fair upgrading my box to a 64-bit processor did as much or more than
    buying the card. UT is truly quite processor intensive.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    news:dYWdnWJivPYVmtrfRVn-2Q@suscom.com...
    > Thankyou for that very helpful information. I too build systems, and this
    > is the first time I have ever had this problem.


    that is because there is no truth to it ;op

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    news:GJGdncQvxPkdstrfRVn-og@suscom.com...
    >I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    >6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT
    >


    where did you see these reviews? none of the revies I have seen have shown
    the 5900 beating the 6600gt, let alone even coming anywhere near the 6800gt
    here is one:

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/vga_charts-04.html

    notice the 6600gt is almost twice as fast as the 5900 @ 1024x768 w/4x aa and
    8x af. And the 6800gt is 3 times as fast as the 5900. I can also tell you
    from experience that the 6800gt really is a LOT LOT BETTER than the 5900
    ultra in ut2004 since I replaced a 5900 ultra with a 6800gt.

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:21:54 -0500, "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net>
    wrote:

    >Thankyou for that very helpful information. I too build systems, and this is
    >the first time I have ever had this problem. Apparently in readng reviews,
    >the 5200 did worse in benchmarks than the 4 series cards.
    >
    >I did have an ATI for a short while but i was unimpressed by the card, and
    >it had heating issues causing it to go out altogether after minutes of
    >gaming.
    >
    >My system is currently using a AMD Athlon 2600+ and 1gig of PC2700. I can
    >very easily minimize the game and run other applications.
    >
    >I am currently considering the nvidia 6600GT. My buddy has the 6800GT and
    >loves it, but I don't have $350 for a video card. ATI is off my list
    >currently due to the worst experience I have ever had with a card (until
    >now)
    >
    >If I went ATI, which card would you recommend as the best value for a gamer?

    Well, that all depends on whether you are AGP or ePCI based. Some
    good values available now on the Radeon 9800 pro series (AGP). The
    ePCI cards are all a bit pricey, especially the 800xt. They do make a
    600xt and (I think) a 700xt ePCI model, if your MB supports that.
    Your Athlon 2600+, which is probably really running at 1.9 ghz or
    something like that, might offer you a place for upgrade as well.

    Last of all, some cards are real quirky about the order in which you
    install things like the driver, and DX9.B .. Some say before the
    driver install, some after. I know it makes no sense, but I've seen
    it have an impact on more than one card.

    Cheers
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:12:24 -0500, "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net>
    wrote:

    >I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    >6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT

    That is fine as long as all you are ever going to play is UT2004.
    Throw a DX9 game into the equation and everything changes.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    These charts are for PCI-E, you need to look at the AGP charts. At least in
    my case you need to.


    "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote in message
    news:ZaO1e.19110$1K4.4373@fe04.lga...
    > "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    > news:GJGdncQvxPkdstrfRVn-og@suscom.com...
    >>I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    >>6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT
    >>
    >
    >
    > where did you see these reviews? none of the revies I have seen have
    > shown the 5900 beating the 6600gt, let alone even coming anywhere near the
    > 6800gt here is one:
    >
    > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/vga_charts-04.html
    >
    > notice the 6600gt is almost twice as fast as the 5900 @ 1024x768 w/4x aa
    > and 8x af. And the 6800gt is 3 times as fast as the 5900. I can also
    > tell you from experience that the 6800gt really is a LOT LOT BETTER than
    > the 5900 ultra in ut2004 since I replaced a 5900 ultra with a 6800gt.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Margolis
    > http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    > http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
    >
    >
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Check out this link

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html


    "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote in message
    news:ZaO1e.19110$1K4.4373@fe04.lga...
    > "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net> wrote in message
    > news:GJGdncQvxPkdstrfRVn-og@suscom.com...
    >>I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    >>6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT
    >>
    >
    >
    > where did you see these reviews? none of the revies I have seen have
    > shown the 5900 beating the 6600gt, let alone even coming anywhere near the
    > 6800gt here is one:
    >
    > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041222/vga_charts-04.html
    >
    > notice the 6600gt is almost twice as fast as the 5900 @ 1024x768 w/4x aa
    > and 8x af. And the 6800gt is 3 times as fast as the 5900. I can also
    > tell you from experience that the 6800gt really is a LOT LOT BETTER than
    > the 5900 ultra in ut2004 since I replaced a 5900 ultra with a 6800gt.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Margolis
    > http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    > http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
    >
    >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html

    [snip]

    > >>I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    > >>6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT


    A few comments:

    a) The 5x00-series cards suffer from a lack of registers which tends to
    put it at a serious disadvantage when playing pixel-shader-intense DX9
    games. Previously, I owned a GeForce 5600, and fairly recently
    purchased a GeForce 6600 GT -- in DX9 games and benchmarks (like
    Aquamark), the difference is like night and day.

    b) In your example, the 5900 series appears to be effectively tied, in
    the 1024x768 [no AA or AF] tests, with a whole slew of other cards (in
    the range of 115 to 118 fps). Due to the large number of similar
    scores, I suspect that this particular test is CPU-bound, not GPU-
    bound .... A much more stressful (and useful) test of the cards occurs
    when AA and AF are enabled, in which case we see that the 5900 falls
    behind quite dramatically.

    c) You probably don't want to purchase a gfx simply for the UT2004 game
    that you're playing today .... For $300 CAD, you could purchase an XFX
    GeForce 6600 GT (versus ~$250 CAD for a GeForce 5900). The small
    difference in price is well worth it, IMO, for future playability.

    d) I would suggest that a more realistic benchmark of future playability
    might be a more GPU-intensive game like Far Cry (or Half Life 2) ...

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-08.html


    Kris
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    pci express and agp doesn't matter. the cards are the same except for the
    way they hook up to the motherboard. The comparisons are valid for
    either/or. Besides, look at the one you posted. There is no 6600 in the
    test, and in the tests where the game is not limited by the cpu the 6800gt
    beats the 5900 series by a substantial margin.


    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:55:54 -0500, "Rick Roth" <rickroth@suscom.net>
    wrote:

    >Check out this link
    >
    >http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
    >

    Notice how there are about 20 cards in that chart within 2 FPS of each
    other? That means that the game is processor bound, and it wouldn't
    make any difference which card you choose.

    Never base a graphics card decision on a UT benchmark. UT is and
    always has been processor bound. I could pull out my $400 6800 GT and
    put in my old GF4 and I would see no change in framerates. That
    doesn't mean the cards are equal in performance, it means that UT
    cares more about CPU speed than GPU speed.

    Use games like Doom or benchmarks like 3DMark05 to measure raw vid
    card performance. If all you ever play is UT, then invest in the
    fastest processor you can afford, because the vid card really doesn't
    matter.

    And take the advice given here by others. The 6600 is, right now, the
    best bang for the buck on the planet. You would be foolish to buy a
    5900 or any other 'prior' technology.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    ok...

    The only other thing I don't get is that my older system with a 1700+ and a
    64MB card (SDRAM) runs UT better than my system posted above.


    "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote in message
    news:BLX1e.18688$FW.18243@fe03.lga...
    > pci express and agp doesn't matter. the cards are the same except for the
    > way they hook up to the motherboard. The comparisons are valid for
    > either/or. Besides, look at the one you posted. There is no 6600 in the
    > test, and in the tests where the game is not limited by the cpu the 6800gt
    > beats the 5900 series by a substantial margin.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Margolis
    > http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    > http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
    >
    >
    >
    >
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    So are you telling me my 2600+ is not fast enough for this game? It was
    alomst a year ago when the demo came out. In fact it was In December when I
    got the retail version, and has been until recently. (not arguing... asking)

    Do any of the updates have anything to do with this?


    "Kris Vorwerk" <nothanks@noonehere.org> wrote in message
    news:1112025864.4884.18.camel@paladin.erusen.net...
    >> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> >>I checked the benchmarking for UT2004 and the FX5900 out performed the
    >> >>6800GT. Not by much but it did. It also did much better than the 6600GT
    >
    >
    > A few comments:
    >
    > a) The 5x00-series cards suffer from a lack of registers which tends to
    > put it at a serious disadvantage when playing pixel-shader-intense DX9
    > games. Previously, I owned a GeForce 5600, and fairly recently
    > purchased a GeForce 6600 GT -- in DX9 games and benchmarks (like
    > Aquamark), the difference is like night and day.
    >
    > b) In your example, the 5900 series appears to be effectively tied, in
    > the 1024x768 [no AA or AF] tests, with a whole slew of other cards (in
    > the range of 115 to 118 fps). Due to the large number of similar
    > scores, I suspect that this particular test is CPU-bound, not GPU-
    > bound .... A much more stressful (and useful) test of the cards occurs
    > when AA and AF are enabled, in which case we see that the 5900 falls
    > behind quite dramatically.
    >
    > c) You probably don't want to purchase a gfx simply for the UT2004 game
    > that you're playing today .... For $300 CAD, you could purchase an XFX
    > GeForce 6600 GT (versus ~$250 CAD for a GeForce 5900). The small
    > difference in price is well worth it, IMO, for future playability.
    >
    > d) I would suggest that a more realistic benchmark of future playability
    > might be a more GPU-intensive game like Far Cry (or Half Life 2) ...
    >
    > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-08.html
    >
    >
    > Kris
    >
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Hi,


    > So are you telling me my 2600+ is not fast enough for this game? It was

    No, I didn't say anything to that effect. At a cursory glance, it seems
    to me that your computer is fast enough to play UT2004 -- heck, I can
    play it on my P4 1.7M laptop, and it still works well.

    (I was just offering advice regarding your inclination toward purchasing
    a 5900-series card. There are better alternatives for your money, if
    you're intent on getting a new card.)


    > alomst a year ago when the demo came out. In fact it was In December when I
    > got the retail version, and has been until recently. (not arguing... asking)
    >
    > Do any of the updates have anything to do with this?

    Diagnosing performance problems over Usenet is inherently difficult
    because people don't know you (and don't know how competent you might
    be).

    e.g., for anyone to even begin making an accurate guess as to why a game
    on your computer runs slowly, you would need to provide way more
    information, like ...

    a) What operating system are you using?

    b) Are you running the latest video and sound card drivers?

    c) Have you tried turning down the sound quality in the game?

    d) When measuring performance, are all of the settings set to their
    minimal values (in the game)? Have you overridden application defaults
    (in the video card settings), perhaps by manually forcing AA or AF?

    d) Have you tried starting the resolution off fairly low, and measuring
    the performance at that point? In a previous post, you mentioned a very
    nonstandard resolution ("1024 x 1268"). Set the resolution to 640x480,
    and work its way up until things get choppy. (It's very likely that
    your 5200-series card is severely underpowered for the resolution that
    you want it to drive.)

    e) Assuming that you're running a Windows operating system ... Have you
    run a virus checker lately? If you're running Linux, is the card using
    the AGPgart or the Nvidia module's built-in AGP driver? (I find the
    built-in driver *much* faster.)

    f) For a Windows box, have you run an anti-spyware tool recently?

    g) How many background tasks do you have running (e.g., how many little
    icons appear in your system tray)? When you do a 'top' (or open task
    manager), and sort by memory, how much memory do you have available?
    What kind of load averages do you see prior to (and during) game play?

    h) When you say that the game is choppy, is that during online or
    "Instant action" play? How big is the map that you're testing? (Is it
    a large, custom map?) Does the choppiness change based on the map? If
    it's in "Instant action", how many bots are playing? If it's in online
    play, what kind of Internet connection do you have?


    cheers
    Kris ("Dr._V")
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Well, I called tech support for the game and spoke with someone. They
    thought it was due to all the extras I had downloaded into the game.
    Different mutators, and maps and all kinds of stuff.

    I deleted it and reinstalled and it has fixed the problem.

    I am even running at max resolution without any problems.


    "Kris Vorwerk" <nothanks@noonehere.org> wrote in message
    news:1112046514.4884.72.camel@paladin.erusen.net...
    > Hi,
    >
    >
    >> So are you telling me my 2600+ is not fast enough for this game? It was
    >
    > No, I didn't say anything to that effect. At a cursory glance, it seems
    > to me that your computer is fast enough to play UT2004 -- heck, I can
    > play it on my P4 1.7M laptop, and it still works well.
    >
    > (I was just offering advice regarding your inclination toward purchasing
    > a 5900-series card. There are better alternatives for your money, if
    > you're intent on getting a new card.)
    >
    >
    >> alomst a year ago when the demo came out. In fact it was In December when
    >> I
    >> got the retail version, and has been until recently. (not arguing...
    >> asking)
    >>
    >> Do any of the updates have anything to do with this?
    >
    > Diagnosing performance problems over Usenet is inherently difficult
    > because people don't know you (and don't know how competent you might
    > be).
    >
    > e.g., for anyone to even begin making an accurate guess as to why a game
    > on your computer runs slowly, you would need to provide way more
    > information, like ...
    >
    > a) What operating system are you using?
    >
    > b) Are you running the latest video and sound card drivers?
    >
    > c) Have you tried turning down the sound quality in the game?
    >
    > d) When measuring performance, are all of the settings set to their
    > minimal values (in the game)? Have you overridden application defaults
    > (in the video card settings), perhaps by manually forcing AA or AF?
    >
    > d) Have you tried starting the resolution off fairly low, and measuring
    > the performance at that point? In a previous post, you mentioned a very
    > nonstandard resolution ("1024 x 1268"). Set the resolution to 640x480,
    > and work its way up until things get choppy. (It's very likely that
    > your 5200-series card is severely underpowered for the resolution that
    > you want it to drive.)
    >
    > e) Assuming that you're running a Windows operating system ... Have you
    > run a virus checker lately? If you're running Linux, is the card using
    > the AGPgart or the Nvidia module's built-in AGP driver? (I find the
    > built-in driver *much* faster.)
    >
    > f) For a Windows box, have you run an anti-spyware tool recently?
    >
    > g) How many background tasks do you have running (e.g., how many little
    > icons appear in your system tray)? When you do a 'top' (or open task
    > manager), and sort by memory, how much memory do you have available?
    > What kind of load averages do you see prior to (and during) game play?
    >
    > h) When you say that the game is choppy, is that during online or
    > "Instant action" play? How big is the map that you're testing? (Is it
    > a large, custom map?) Does the choppiness change based on the map? If
    > it's in "Instant action", how many bots are playing? If it's in online
    > play, what kind of Internet connection do you have?
    >
    >
    > cheers
    > Kris ("Dr._V")
    >
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    > > If you're running Linux, is the card using
    > > the AGPgart or the Nvidia module's built-in AGP driver? (I find the
    > > built-in driver *much* faster.)
    >
    > How would I check this?


    Do a 'cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status' ... Ideally, you would see
    something like:

    Status: Enabled
    Driver: NVIDIA
    AGP Rate: 8x
    Fast Writes: Enabled
    SBA: Enabled

    You can force the nvidia module to use its own (built-in) AGP driver by
    modifying the appropriate device section in your xorg.conf ...


    e.g., here's mine ...

    Section "Device"
    Identifier "Videocard0"
    Driver "nvidia"
    VendorName "Videocard vendor"
    BoardName "VESA driver (generic)"
    Option "NvAGP" "1"
    Option "NoLogo" "1"
    Option "RenderAccel" "1"
    Option "CursorShadow" "1"
    #Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "1"
    EndSection


    (As I mentioned, I find that using Linux's agpgart *severely* impacts my
    OpenGL performance.)


    Kris ("Dr._V")
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:48:34 -0500, Kris Vorwerk wrote:

    > If you're running Linux, is the card using
    > the AGPgart or the Nvidia module's built-in AGP driver? (I find the
    > built-in driver *much* faster.)

    How would I check this?

    --
    {AGUT}DeadMan
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    because even though the card was older it was still slightly better ;op

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:07:23 -0500, Kris Vorwerk wrote:

    > (As I mentioned, I find that using Linux's agpgart *severely* impacts my
    > OpenGL performance.)

    Thanks Kris, seems to help a bit.

    --
    {AGUT}DeadMan
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Folk wrote:

    >>http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html

    > Notice how there are about 20 cards in that chart within 2 FPS of each
    > other? That means that the game is processor bound, and it wouldn't
    > make any difference which card you choose.

    That is true for those 20 cards, but of course upgrading from a 9600 to
    a 9800 would still make a diff, also in UT2004. Am I right?

    Ursa..
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:00:45 +0200, MajorUrsa <majorursa@iname.com>
    wrote:

    >Folk wrote:
    >
    >>>http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
    >
    >> Notice how there are about 20 cards in that chart within 2 FPS of each
    >> other? That means that the game is processor bound, and it wouldn't
    >> make any difference which card you choose.
    >
    >That is true for those 20 cards, but of course upgrading from a 9600 to
    >a 9800 would still make a diff, also in UT2004. Am I right?
    >
    >Ursa..

    Well, let's see....

    The 9600 is pulling 103.5 FPS. The 9800 is pulling 116. That's only
    a 12% increase, so it's unlikely you'll be able to tell the
    difference. A faster processor would be a *much* better upgrade if
    all you play is UT.

    I got a 46% increase by moving from a P4 3.0 to an AMD 3500. Now
    *that's* an increase you can feel.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Folk wrote:
    > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:00:45 +0200, MajorUrsa <majorursa@iname.com>
    > wrote:
    >>That is true for those 20 cards, but of course upgrading from a 9600 to
    >>a 9800 would still make a diff, also in UT2004. Am I right?

    > Well, let's see....
    >
    > The 9600 is pulling 103.5 FPS. The 9800 is pulling 116. That's only
    > a 12% increase, so it's unlikely you'll be able to tell the
    > difference. A faster processor would be a *much* better upgrade if
    > all you play is UT.

    That is the XT version of the 9600. If you compare the plain vanilla
    ones you get 65.0 and 116.2. And true, that is (about) the same for all
    flavours of the latter.

    > I got a 46% increase by moving from a P4 3.0 to an AMD 3500. Now
    > *that's* an increase you can feel.

    That is an amazing improvement. Surely this is also due to the different
    motherboard architecture under the AMD?

    Ursa..
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:33:15 +0200, MajorUrsa <majorursa@iname.com>
    wrote:

    >Folk wrote:
    >> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:00:45 +0200, MajorUrsa <majorursa@iname.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>>That is true for those 20 cards, but of course upgrading from a 9600 to
    >>>a 9800 would still make a diff, also in UT2004. Am I right?
    >
    >> Well, let's see....
    >>
    >> The 9600 is pulling 103.5 FPS. The 9800 is pulling 116. That's only
    >> a 12% increase, so it's unlikely you'll be able to tell the
    >> difference. A faster processor would be a *much* better upgrade if
    >> all you play is UT.
    >
    >That is the XT version of the 9600. If you compare the plain vanilla
    >ones you get 65.0 and 116.2. And true, that is (about) the same for all
    >flavours of the latter.
    >
    >> I got a 46% increase by moving from a P4 3.0 to an AMD 3500. Now
    >> *that's* an increase you can feel.
    >
    >That is an amazing improvement. Surely this is also due to the different
    >motherboard architecture under the AMD?

    Undoubtedly. I went from an Epox 4G4A+, which is a single-channel DDR
    3200 mobo to a MSI K8N Neo2 with dual-channel DDR 3200. I don't know
    that the single vs dual channel was such a huge difference, but having
    the memory controller on the processor (a trademark of the A64
    processors) *was* a big benefit. That, and the fact that AMD simply
    smokes Intel when it comes to gaming.

    Just to give you some ideas on the performance difference, here's some
    'before and after' benchmark data. Keep in mind that both systems had
    a 6800 GT as the pixel pusher:

    Before After
    3DMark2001 - 17,247 23,021
    UTBench - 42.97 63.17
    UMark Official - 464.41 676.79
    Sisoft CPU - 7758 ALU 10227 ALU
    4057 FPU 4519 FPU

    UTBench is a homemade demo that I use for benchmarking. UMark
    Official is the "official UT2004" benchmark included in the UMark
    package. You can download UMark from here:
    http://www.unrealmark.net/
    and you can download my homemade benchmark (UTBench.zip)from here:
    http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/l/e/leroy200/
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
    news:n5ol41la20vc5vsvuat3mqnqqefropq4mc@4ax.com...
    >
    > Just to give you some ideas on the performance difference, here's some
    > 'before and after' benchmark data. Keep in mind that both systems had
    > a 6800 GT as the pixel pusher:
    >
    > Before After
    > 3DMark2001 - 17,247 23,021
    > UTBench - 42.97 63.17
    > UMark Official - 464.41 676.79
    > Sisoft CPU - 7758 ALU 10227 ALU
    > 4057 FPU 4519 FPU
    >


    ok, a couple of questions? what resolution and aa/af settings did you use
    when you ran those?

    How did you get the Umark Official score? What did you run in that program?

    And how did you timedemo your Utbench demo? With umark? Or some other way?
    I can't remember for the life of me how to do it in 2004.

    what version of sisoft?

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
    news:n5ol41la20vc5vsvuat3mqnqqefropq4mc@4ax.com...
    > . That, and the fact that AMD simply
    > smokes Intel when it comes to gaming.
    >
    > Just to give you some ideas on the performance difference, here's some
    > 'before and after' benchmark data. Keep in mind that both systems had
    > a 6800 GT as the pixel pusher:
    >
    > Before After
    > 3DMark2001 - 17,247 23,021
    > UTBench - 42.97 63.17
    > UMark Official - 464.41 676.79
    > Sisoft CPU - 7758 ALU 10227 ALU
    > 4057 FPU 4519 FPU
    >


    so far on my 18 month old 'slowpoke p4 system' I have scored the following.
    ;op

    sisoft sandra 2004: alu=10885 fpu=4518/8008

    3dmark2001 25410
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8052648

    Not sure about the ut benchmarks yet.

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:56:52 -0600, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
    wrote:

    >"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
    >news:n5ol41la20vc5vsvuat3mqnqqefropq4mc@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> Just to give you some ideas on the performance difference, here's some
    >> 'before and after' benchmark data. Keep in mind that both systems had
    >> a 6800 GT as the pixel pusher:
    >>
    >> Before After
    >> 3DMark2001 - 17,247 23,021
    >> UTBench - 42.97 63.17
    >> UMark Official - 464.41 676.79
    >> Sisoft CPU - 7758 ALU 10227 ALU
    >> 4057 FPU 4519 FPU
    >>
    >
    >
    >ok, a couple of questions? what resolution and aa/af settings did you use
    >when you ran those?

    The 3DMark score used the default 1024 x 768 with no AA/AF.
    I used the same resolution on the UT benches as well, although it
    really doesn't matter with UT. I get the same scores with or without
    AA/AF at any resolution except 1600 x 1200, which takes a slight hit.

    >How did you get the Umark Official score? What did you run in that program?

    There is a little arrow on the right-hand side of the window. Click
    that, and you'll see you have the ability to do batch benchmark runs.
    I.E., you can load as many maps as you like. Click the "Preset Tests"
    button and then select the "Official UMark 2004 Test" and then click
    "Use" or "Add". To match my run, select 10 x 7 and High Image
    quality.

    >And how did you timedemo your Utbench demo? With umark? Or some other way?
    >I can't remember for the life of me how to do it in 2004.

    Bring down the console and type "demoplay utbench?timedemo". This
    assumes the demo is in the Demos folder. The ?timedemo switch plays
    back the demo as fast as it can play. Once it finishes, bring down
    the console again and there is your average FPS.

    Keep in mind that the demo will play back at whatever your normal
    settings are, so it will be kind of difficult to do a direct
    comparison with my run. FWIW, here are the settings I use:

    10 x 7, 32 bit
    HW 3D + EAX (this is a big factor since the demo plays with sound)
    Texture Detail - Normal
    Character Detail - Normal
    World Detail - Low
    Physics Detail - Normal
    Dynamic Mesh LOD - Normal
    Decals - None (unchecked)
    Character Shadows - None
    Projectors - Unchecked
    Foliage - Unchecked

    Those are my normal, every-day settings. The two killer settings are
    World Detail to Low and unchecking Projectors. Those two settings
    alone account for a 15% performance hit. Ouch.

    And that is one mean demo. It will bring virtually any system to it's
    knees.

    >what version of sisoft?

    2005.2.10.50
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:21:51 -0600, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
    wrote:

    >"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
    >news:n5ol41la20vc5vsvuat3mqnqqefropq4mc@4ax.com...
    >> . That, and the fact that AMD simply
    >> smokes Intel when it comes to gaming.
    >>
    >> Just to give you some ideas on the performance difference, here's some
    >> 'before and after' benchmark data. Keep in mind that both systems had
    >> a 6800 GT as the pixel pusher:
    >>
    >> Before After
    >> 3DMark2001 - 17,247 23,021
    >> UTBench - 42.97 63.17
    >> UMark Official - 464.41 676.79
    >> Sisoft CPU - 7758 ALU 10227 ALU
    >> 4057 FPU 4519 FPU
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >so far on my 18 month old 'slowpoke p4 system' I have scored the following.
    >;op
    >
    >sisoft sandra 2004: alu=10885 fpu=4518/8008

    Damn. Which P4 do you have? According to the comparison chart in my
    version of Sandra, a P4 E 570 @ 3.8 pulls alu=10312 and fpu=2555/4698.
    Must be a version difference or you're overclocking like mad. :-)

    >3dmark2001 25410
    >http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8052648

    OK, now that I've looked at this, I see you are overclocking a bit.
    According to my math you're running a P4 3.2... correct?

    Here's my stock score:
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8478826

    And here's my O/C score:
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8483631

    My 6800 GT is not overclocked in either of those tests.

    You have an Ultra? Sweet....
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
    news:mmco41584h1fejn54289g842vf9p0q1ca6@4ax.com...
    >
    > Damn. Which P4 do you have? According to the comparison chart in my
    > version of Sandra, a P4 E 570 @ 3.8 pulls alu=10312 and fpu=2555/4698.


    I have a 3.2EE on an asus p4c800 E with 1gb of ocz pc4000 gold


    > Must be a version difference or you're overclocking like mad. :-)


    I'm not overclocking this one much, only 400mhz, I will get the new version
    and see what happens.


    ?
    >
    > Here's my stock score:
    > http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8478826
    >
    > And here's my O/C score:
    > http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8483631
    >
    > My 6800 GT is not overclocked in either of those tests.
    >
    > You have an Ultra? Sweet....
    >


    I had a GT, here is the score for the GT at stock speeds, 23415
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8002348

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    umark official = 649.05
    utbench with your settings=62.14
    sandra 2005; alu=10828 fpu=4547/8053

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Folk schrieb:

    >
    > Bring down the console and type "demoplay utbench?timedemo".  This
    > assumes the demo is in the Demos folder.  The ?timedemo switch plays
    > back the demo as fast as it can play.  Once it finishes, bring down
    > the console again and there is your average FPS.
    >
    >
    how do I bring down the console in linux?
    I have the de_DE@Euro keyboard layout.


    --

    Bora Ugurlu
    mailto:boraugurlu@yahoo.de
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    Bora Ugurlu wrote:

    > how do I bring down the console in linux?
    > I have the de_DE@Euro keyboard layout.

    On my english keybord it's the key above tab "`" or "¬" , acording to
    looking at pictures in google that would be your "^" key. :)
    acording to your user.ini it would be whatever key you set =ConsoleToggle

    hth
    --
    sid
    RLU 300284 Mdk LE2005 10.2 2.6.11.1
    My barber's getting very hard of hearing,
    I asked him to make me look like a *count*.....
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:00:19 -0600, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
    wrote:

    >"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
    >news:mmco41584h1fejn54289g842vf9p0q1ca6@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> Damn. Which P4 do you have? According to the comparison chart in my
    >> version of Sandra, a P4 E 570 @ 3.8 pulls alu=10312 and fpu=2555/4698.
    >
    >
    >I have a 3.2EE on an asus p4c800 E with 1gb of ocz pc4000 gold

    Very nice. I've heard nothing but good things about that Asus mobo.

    I was really torn when I upgraded my P4 3.0. I was running it on an
    older 845G chipset mobo, and 3.0 was the max it would take. Actually,
    the max was 2.8, but I was overclocking it to 3.0. An upgrade meant
    moving to a PCI Express based system, and that presented a problem.
    I paid almost $400 for my 6800 GT six months ago, and I didn't like
    the idea of chucking it for a PCI-e card... especially since there was
    no performance gain. So I looked at the AMD side of things, and found
    that unlike Intel, I could still use their fastest and newest
    processors on an older AGP based NForce 3 chipset board. That,
    coupled with the fact that AMD basically owns the gaming side of
    things these days, and I decided to switch. I had run AMD systems in
    the past up to the TBird 1.4, but got really pissed off at the
    "issues" surrounding VIA chipsets and switched over to Intel. I was
    very happy with the stability of the Intel systems. I guess a lot has
    changed since then, because today's crop of AMD chipsets appear to be
    just as stable as the Intel chipsets.

    I'm still a generation behind, but I figure I'll upgrade my mobo to
    the NForce 4 (or whatever exists then) when I do my next vid card
    upgrade, although I don't expect that to be anytime soon. From the
    benches I've seen, there's currently no performance benefits from
    PCE-e on either side of the fence, so I don't feel like I'm missing
    out on anything. And this thing eats ONS for lunch... I'm basically
    locked at the online framerate cap of 85 FPS.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    sid schrieb:

    > acording to your user.ini it would be whatever key you set =ConsoleToggle
    >
    got it, thx
    --

    Bora Ugurlu
    mailto:boraugurlu@yahoo.de
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    If you recently upgraded you made the right choice. The a64 is a kick ass
    processor, and one of the best for gaming right now. I built this system
    before there was such a thing as the a64 cpu and when intel on the i875
    chipset was the king of gaming or I would probably have an amd64 right now
    myself, but only on an nvidia motherboard. via can go in the trash for all
    I care, I have never had a good experience with them, even though I still
    have a via chipset running my xp1800+ ;op

    This old beast of a p4 has served me well for quite a while now and
    hopefully will continue until the dual core a64's are out. It would be hard
    giving up the hyperthreading that intel has.

    --

    Margolis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
    http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

    On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:51:23 -0600, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
    wrote:

    >It would be hard giving up the hyperthreading that intel has.

    Word. For anyone that multitasks, the silky smoothness of
    hyperthreading has a lot to offer. Dual core should address that
    nicely.
Ask a new question

Read More

Performance Games Video Games Displays