ok... this is not directly related to utxmp... but i am having some strange issues. i just upgraded from a 128meg radeon 9200 to a 256meg geforce 6600 and see basiclally no real imrpovement on fps for either utxmp or ut2k4... on ons-torlan with everything set to normal and all options off except dyanamic lighting, i am still getting under 20 fps when looking out over the level, if there is any improvement it is only by a 4 or five frames from maby 11-12 up to 16-17. i really thought that this vid card could handle this game alot better. i installed the vid card correctly, though i forgot to plug in the additional power source origionaly it is pluged in now, and all the drivers are installed. just want to know if this is all i should expect for an imrpovement or if my comp is just screwed. please help cause anyhting less than 30 fps just really sux
Vid card Problem...
- Thread starter theomniproject
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
- Status
Something's almost definitely wrong with that, assuming your CPU and RAM are up to the task. I'm running a 128 mb 6600 gt, an Athlon XP 3200+, and 512mb ram and I don't get those type of fps number until I jack the settings up to turning details all the way up at 1600x1200 with some aa/af on. There's probably some driver problems in your case. I got my 6600GT when my trusty old 9700 pro died. With the massive problems I had getting the drivers working going from a 9xxx ati card to a 6600, I got a feeling you problems are not coincidental. I'd suggest this:
-First download and install Driver Cleaner
-Download only the latest drivers for your vid card and mainboard (don't install)
-Next uninstall all the display drivers from the control panel ( under system>hardware> device manager.)
-Reboot and hit hit cancel when windows find your new hardware on restar.
-Now run drun driver cleaner and get rid of all the Nvidia and ATI drivers (If you have an Nforce board, this MAY wipe out your mainboard drivers.)
-Reboot and hit cancel again when windows finds new hardware
-Now install mainboard drivers if neccessary and reboot and hit cancel on find hardware yet again
-Install vid card drivers and reboot
-SHOULD work better now.
-First download and install Driver Cleaner
-Download only the latest drivers for your vid card and mainboard (don't install)
-Next uninstall all the display drivers from the control panel ( under system>hardware> device manager.)
-Reboot and hit hit cancel when windows find your new hardware on restar.
-Now run drun driver cleaner and get rid of all the Nvidia and ATI drivers (If you have an Nforce board, this MAY wipe out your mainboard drivers.)
-Reboot and hit cancel again when windows finds new hardware
-Now install mainboard drivers if neccessary and reboot and hit cancel on find hardware yet again
-Install vid card drivers and reboot
-SHOULD work better now.
and see if it worksturns out it wasnt an issue with the drivers at all but an issue with the game itself. i had to uninstall ut2k4 and utxmp and reinstall them. if i hit the default button in the display properties window, it sets texture and charachter detail to high and the world detail on low. plus it turns off all optional effects except dyanamic lighting, it also turns brightness , gamma, and contrast all the way down. after hitting the default button unreal/utxmp will no longer start in full screen but in a window, and when in a window and you go to change the display property it gives you a message saying incompatible resolution cause it defaults to zero. no matter what i change i cannot get the game to start full screen again until i uninstall and reinstall. maby something screws up the user.inni setting or something but i am not sure... all i know is that the only way to fix it is to uninstall and reinstall. though the problem acts the same for both unreal and utxmp i do not believe that they are directly connected because reinstalling ut2k4 fixed the prob for ut2k4 but not utxmp unless you reinstall it too. and hitting the default button in utxmp will cause the problem in utxmp not ut2k4 and vise versa. as long as i do not hit the default button everything is fine. i spent a long time last night testing out all the vid setting vs fps... and omfg utxmp is a beauty at max setting and 1280x1024 (my monitor cant handle More than that or i would have tried it lol). excited to see the mew emitters and effects with the patch... GO FMI and long live xmp....
and oh yeah thanks for the help prg... i tried the driver thing first and maby that helped but didnt fix the issue until i reinstalled...
So you got some good FPS now? windows seems to get a bit balky from going from ATI to Nvidia sometimes..
with everyhting on high and a rez of 1280x1024 i get 60+ fps on sunset beach. i tried messing with the aa/af but found that although it looks real good it is not worth the loss in fps... i like the smooth as butter feel. was trying to find benchmark tests for the 6600gt 128meg card and the 6600 256meg card... just curious if the GT is more of an advantage than the extra 128megs of ram... can find anyone who actually tested them.
oh by the way the rest of my system specs are... a P4 2.8 CPU, 512 RAM, geforce 6600 256meg GPU, Soundblaster audigy 2, and 2 80gig drives...
oh by the way the rest of my system specs are... a P4 2.8 CPU, 512 RAM, geforce 6600 256meg GPU, Soundblaster audigy 2, and 2 80gig drives...
omni: Have you seen this review of the 6600GT on Tom's Hardware?
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040907/index.html
It has comparisons of the 6600 verses the 6600GT, and other video cards.
Generally, as I understand it, the amount of memory on a video card effects the resolution you are running at and the size of the textures and maps you are playing, etc. If your card memory is large enough to handle your resolution settings, and hold the entire map and textures in its memory at the detail you want, then you are good to go. If your card has to swap out to main memory or hard disk, then you are going to experience unhappiness.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040907/index.html
It has comparisons of the 6600 verses the 6600GT, and other video cards.
Generally, as I understand it, the amount of memory on a video card effects the resolution you are running at and the size of the textures and maps you are playing, etc. If your card memory is large enough to handle your resolution settings, and hold the entire map and textures in its memory at the detail you want, then you are good to go. If your card has to swap out to main memory or hard disk, then you are going to experience unhappiness.
Last edited:
thanks pistos... my prob was not finding comparisons for the 6600gt vs the 6600 it was finding somehtign that bench marks the 6600 256meg card. just cuious if the extra ram would give it any advantage over the 6600gt. so far from the benchmark test i have seen the gt is far better than the regular 6600 card... think i might trade it in for the gt...
Regarding the memory question, in my case, for all current games that I play, a 256MB card gives me no significant advantage over a 128 MB card. For example, I run at 1280x1024 resolution with my settings at the highest quality levels allowed for UT2004. 128MB of memory is adequate for these settings with every map I have ever played. (My card is an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, 128MB.)
Personally, I would choose the horsepower over the memory if you are playing at resolutions in the same ballpark as mine, you are not trying to run multiple displays, and you are not running with AA on at high resolutions. The extra memory is not being used.
As displays are getting larger, as people are beginning to run multiple displays, and as the GPUs are able to drive AA at decent framerates at high resolutions, then the extra memory begins to be more useful.
You probably know all this. There are different approaches used for AA with cards, but generally and in simple terms, a frame is "painted" at 4 times (assuming 4XAA) the final size you want, then it is scaled down and given to you. That scaling down process makes the anti-aliasing possible. The memory requirements for doing this exponentially increase by a factor of 2, so you can see that a huge amount of memory can be needed as the resolution and amount of AA you are trying to apply increases.
I did see benchmarks months ago that compared the 128MB version and the 256MB version of my card, and there was virtually no difference in performance until the resolution, texture quality, map size, and AA were set to insane levels. But, by then, the GPU really didn't have the power to drive the system at framerates that you would probably want to play a game at.
Like I said before, the thing you want to avoid is having to page information in and out of the card memory during game play. If the settings you are going to be playing at do not exceed 128MB, then you are good to go with that amount of memory, and anything above that is just waiting for your next upgrade.
Hopefully that helps answer the question a little for you.
Personally, I would choose the horsepower over the memory if you are playing at resolutions in the same ballpark as mine, you are not trying to run multiple displays, and you are not running with AA on at high resolutions. The extra memory is not being used.
As displays are getting larger, as people are beginning to run multiple displays, and as the GPUs are able to drive AA at decent framerates at high resolutions, then the extra memory begins to be more useful.
You probably know all this. There are different approaches used for AA with cards, but generally and in simple terms, a frame is "painted" at 4 times (assuming 4XAA) the final size you want, then it is scaled down and given to you. That scaling down process makes the anti-aliasing possible. The memory requirements for doing this exponentially increase by a factor of 2, so you can see that a huge amount of memory can be needed as the resolution and amount of AA you are trying to apply increases.
I did see benchmarks months ago that compared the 128MB version and the 256MB version of my card, and there was virtually no difference in performance until the resolution, texture quality, map size, and AA were set to insane levels. But, by then, the GPU really didn't have the power to drive the system at framerates that you would probably want to play a game at.
Like I said before, the thing you want to avoid is having to page information in and out of the card memory during game play. If the settings you are going to be playing at do not exceed 128MB, then you are good to go with that amount of memory, and anything above that is just waiting for your next upgrade.
Hopefully that helps answer the question a little for you.
Can you trade in without losing money? If you can, definitely go for it. The higher clock speeds outweigh any benefits you might get from the extra (slower) RAM. You could maybe OC the 6600's 300MHz core to the gt's 500MHz, but you'll never get the 500MHz memory clock to the gt's 900-1000MHz.
God, I wish I could afford to replace my ti4200 right now!
God, I wish I could afford to replace my ti4200 right now!
- Status