Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RADEON8500 SLOW IN UT?????

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 25, 2001 4:05:42 PM

hey there,
i can't beleive that a 300$ piece of engineering is slow with unreal tournament!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i can't beleive that my geforce2MX400 is faster than the radeon8500 in D3D, at least under UT, man after like a couple of minutes playing, and the game becomes slower and slower...i am using the latest drivers for the radeon under winXP
here is my system at a glance:
athlonXP 1800+
asus a7m266
256DDR 2100
SB audigy MP3+
this is so annoying!

More about : radeon8500 slow

December 25, 2001 6:12:12 PM

Unrelated to the graphics card really, your slow down is Windows XP itself. UT more CPU intensive than graphics card intensive. It's a know fact that UT slows down a bit under WinXP with any graphics card. It maybe a bit worse with the overhead of the unoptimized drivers. Have you downloaded the latest drivers for the Radeon 8500?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 25, 2001 6:47:54 PM

well yeah, i have the latest drivers for the radeon8500,
but you see the geforce2MX400 is giving much better performance under XP, so i don't think that it's an XP issue!
Related resources
December 25, 2001 6:53:13 PM

hmm, what fps are you getting?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 25, 2001 7:50:16 PM

WTF? Dude, UT runs faster under XP w/ my comp. D33, just use your MX, hehehe...or return the $300 piece of engineered junk, and get a GF3 Ti500.

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?
December 25, 2001 7:58:54 PM

No offense, Flamethrower, I respect you, but that post was biased and frankly, useless. The Radeon 8500 is not junk, it's an amazing piece of technology at an extraordinary price. I have a feeling it's a mere driver conflict or incorrect setting. Perhaps he did not completely remove his old drivers.

Quote:

UT runs faster under XP w/ my comp

Go to any site and you will see that UT, Quake III and many other games are slower in WinXP than Win98SE (the current performance leader in gaming). I'm not giving an opinion there, it's a fact that you see over and over again in games. Ask Crashman, he'll tell you WinXP does slow down games somewhat. Flamethrower, do you realize it's posts like these that cause people to hate AMDMELTDOWN and Fugger? Again, I am sorry if I have offended you, but please refrain from calling something junk without any insight on it.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 25, 2001 8:52:05 PM

Amd_man, BOTH OF HIS CARDS WERE RUNNING UNDER XP.

There for the xp route is both irelevant AND misleading.

His problem is NOT xp, it is the radeon8500s [-peep-] xp drivers. (also the radeon performs well in xp on quake 3 and 3dmark2001, everything else takes a huge hit)

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 25, 2001 8:58:47 PM

hey folks, just take it easy here ok!
and i am desperate with those *&^%$%$ drivers for the radeon.
do you think it's settings?like smoothvision, or FSAA or maybe AGP issue?
December 25, 2001 9:42:06 PM

Dude, I switched form Win2k- that's why there was performance improvement. O, and for Win98se- sure games run teh FIRST time u play em after turning it on, assuming u haven't used any other apps, but after a while, Win9x's memory management bs falls into play, and suddenly, ur trying to get 30 FPS. In teh long run, XP is better- I don't suffer any performance loss, and I haven't shut down for a few days now. (I used to have 98SE, but even though I have 512MB DDR- soon hopefully to be 768:) , 98se was at 5% free resources in under 2 mins when I ran a game, and then used 3dsmax!!). Anyways, XP isn't rthe problem, and I agree w/ matisaro- it is the drivers. have u seen what performance hit r8500 takes under XP? For $300, I'd expect a better vid card, and drivers.

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?
December 25, 2001 11:26:21 PM

What FPS are you getting? It all comes down to that. What were your original FPS and what are your current FPS. Don't expect any miracles in UT frame rate on ANY graphics card, including the GeForce3 Ti500 because UT is bottlenecked by the CPU. If it's only 2-3 fps less then I wouldn't worry about it. It's merely the overhead of the unoptimized drivers. Wait a week or two and ATI should have it fixed.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 26, 2001 2:54:41 AM

UT does run slower on a Radeon 8500 than on a GF3. I've seen it in every benchmark including UT. But you should still be getting very playable framerates. I can tell you that from personal experience UT is a very fickle game when it comes to system resources. My friends and I just got into a UT frenzy, playing it all the time over a LAN. I have a Athlon T-bird 945 (105x9), Radeon 32DDR, 256 PC133 at 1024x768 and get constant great frame rates. My friend, however, with a brand new Dell P4 1.8ghz GF3 Ti200 512RDRAM gets a slowdown very similar to the one you describe at the same res. We are both running WinXP Pro. So as you can see, UT performance can vary wildly based off any changes in system configs. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't necessarily related to any Radeon vs. GeForce debate.

eh, i'll procrastinate later...
December 26, 2001 11:23:04 AM

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 26, 2001 3:53:43 PM

UT ass whipper here. Welcome to my house. System built for UT. Abit KR7A (KT266A), XP1800, Geforce, Win98se. Anything less, then you be died.

Sorry to here about your problem, hope UT isn't your game. Cause I had that mobo, replaced it with an Abit.

defrage is child's play-fdisk
December 28, 2001 8:43:35 PM

actually UT is the game man....that's why i am so desperate about that problem...this frequent #@$$#@##$@#$ slowdown is killing me! i can't beleive it...300$ and it can't even run UT properly..i am currently using my older geforce2MX400.
and on what servers do you play?
December 28, 2001 8:52:41 PM

Wait, I had that problem on my Radeon 8500 until I downloaded the latest version and disable V-sync! Make sure you do that!!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 28, 2001 10:21:20 PM

You know thats f@kcing bullshit.

If you don't know how to run your 98se system, don't blame it on 98se.

The "problem" in detail. What you are experiencing is Win98 Disk Cache. In 98 any file that you read off your hard drive is automatically loaded into memory and stored there. This is called disk caching. Windows sets this to however much memory you have. E.G. if you have 512 MB of Ram windows will use all 512 to store the disk cache and then it will want more and more to run programs etc..

The "solution" download a program like Cacheman which weighs in at well under a meg and sits in your system tray. It allows you to clear memory leaks AND MOST IMPORTANLY it allows you to set disk cache size etc... I have 512 mb of ram on one computer, i've set the disk cache to 256MB and no matter what i run, no matter how many copies of photoshop i have open, i have not once had to resort to using the swapfile. My system runs smooth, no crashes.... ever. This works just as well on lighter systems. I have a Tbird 800 with 256 and i set the disk cache to 128. I also have a k6-2 350 with 32mb, i set the disk cache to 2mb. Both run just fine. The k6-2 has been running continuously as a Tribes 2 server for a week at a time between restarts.

Any Questions?

And for the record - 98se kicks xp's a$$ in fps!!

:eek:  <font color=blue>I for one run Quake 3 on a P133(No MMX)</font color=blue>I have no affiliatioin w/ Intel
!