Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

TNT M64, Max Payne - Ok, Jedi II - Slow

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 2, 2002 9:22:26 AM

GA-6VXE7 agp 2x, PIII 800, 256Mb, Riva TNT M64 (Soon to be updated)

Before I leap for a Radeon 8500 / Geforce TI 4200 64/128 (and hopefully help make a choice between the 3) I just wondered why...

I get such bad fps with Jedi III even at really low resolution/detail (maintaining 32bit colour)?

Max Payne/Blade of Darkness look soooooo much better and run a lot faster.

I'm guessing its a colour depth/bandwidth problem....
September 2, 2002 11:43:11 AM

yeah 32bit colour/textures can really limit a card with such low memory bandwidth. Trying putting it down to 16bit and a lower resolution. It wont look as good but itll be much more playable. I just bought a cheap GF2 MX400 to pair with my p3 750 and I get really good framerates on max payne (about 80fps). at the moment I cant see the point in geting a much better card because im fully pleased with my present performance.

If all else fails, Go further :) 
September 2, 2002 12:09:07 PM

The TNT2 M64 has a terrible memory interface, and a castrated engine, hence it performs very slow. It is even slower than the original Riva TNT2, probably due to just the memory. You're getting bad FPS because, well, simply you have a bad card. Get rid of it. Even in 16 bit color, you probably won't get any tangible gains.

Soon enough, Intel will make the i845s...imagine dual channel Sdram...*shudder*
September 2, 2002 12:18:49 PM

I know it stinks, I'm on for changing it in the next month or so. Just out of interest, why bring out such a "bad" card in the first place?

My point was more about why some of my games, like Blade Of Darkness, run so much better than Jedi II (the one I'm playing at the moment).
September 2, 2002 1:45:12 PM

well. jedi II uses a suped up quake 3 engine so it is normal that runs slow on your computer...

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
September 2, 2002 2:51:46 PM

Price. Back then it was the "budget" version of thoose times "decent" card. I still have one.

<font color=red>I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I´m all out of bubblegum...</font color=red>
September 2, 2002 8:27:13 PM

No, in fact Jedi Knight II is very CPU intensive, so it is recommended to have at least a Ti200, but anything above will require higher CPU speeds, because you won't get any difference.

This guy will have to upgrade his card to a Ti200 at least, but if he gets higher, he will also need a higher CPU.

--
When buying an AthlonXP, please make sure the bus is at 133MHZ, or you will get a lower speed!
September 2, 2002 8:28:49 PM

JK II uses 32-bit textures, and currently has the highest texture size used, about 80MB in some cases. Your card has 32MB.
Also it is more CPU intensive than any Quake 3 engine game.

--
When buying an AthlonXP, please make sure the bus is at 133MHZ, or you will get a lower speed!
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2002 12:47:37 AM

The M64 was released to replace the Riva 128ZX, (the card before the TNT which nobody remembers). The GeForce MX200 was released to replace the TNT2, a faster card in many games. The MX200 and M64 use similar stratagies to reduce performance.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 3, 2002 6:16:52 AM

What kind of CPU speed are we talking? I have a 800Mhz PIII safely overclockable to about 1000Mhz (when the weather isn't too hot). I'm kind of going back to my original question:

If I get a Radeon 8500 / ti4200 am I going to see more performance than with a ti200 or does that depend on the game (I'm looking at playing Medal Of Honour/GTA3 soon)?

I've looked around for 3-axis graphs comparing fps/card/CPU for recent games and can't seem to find anything. I think that would be the kind of info I need to make a really informed choice.

As always thanks for the replies.
September 3, 2002 3:04:58 PM

No, the 8500/ti4200 won´t be slower, but it might not reach it´s full potential because of the rest of the system.

<font color=red>I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I´m all out of bubblegum...</font color=red>
September 3, 2002 5:39:38 PM

Jedi II is heavily CPU intensive, and even a video card upgrade, which will help, won't fix the system strangle hold it has on a system. Only in 1600x1200 do you see the video card becoming a bottleneck (The 9700 is still CPU limited on a P4 2.53, but that's it).

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 5, 2002 7:39:39 AM

I reckon I should just buy a PS2 and keep my PC for programming (sniff), I just can't justify spending 600 euros just so that I can play Jedi Outcast.

Just a thought, it'd be nice to see a fps guide given in a games spec i.e. fps for 3 example pcs: low, medium and high end running the game at a "standard" resolution. I know that this is close to impossible given the number of variables involved but anything has got to be better than publishing a "Minimum Spec" that is to all intents and purposes a complete lie.

I used the minimum (or recommended) spec. for Jedi II as a guide, it was more or less the same for Blade of Darkness / Max Payne (which both run fine) so my thinking was "If they run ok, then why not Jedi II?". We need standards!!!

Ok, rant over.
September 6, 2002 5:11:56 PM

A PC is still a way superior gaming-platform (personal oppinion), depends on what kind of games you play.
Still, i doubt you would be upgrading just because of JK2?
You do want to keep playing on your computer, right?

<font color=red>I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I´m all out of bubblegum...</font color=red>
!