Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA Legacy Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-22-03, 05:46 PM   #25
yoladude
Mr. Hobo
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 307
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sea Dragon
I'm kind of doubtful it's the RAM, either - 256 should be fine.

I'd probably try reinstalling Unreal 2, and bringing your system and memory back to regular clock speeds to see what happens.
not with windows xp, it isn't fine. right now, my system cache is at about 140 megs, more than half of 256. and i have 270 megs available. i have 512 megs total.
when i was running 256, windows would barely leave me anything. the result was that my hard drive would have to work harder and swap off the hard drive to load textures evey now and then, and plus, loading times were a bitch. 512 megs solved all of this.

my advice is to upgrade to 512 megs...shouldnt cost u (depending on the quality u like) more than fifty bucks. i got a 256 pc2100 stick for less than thirty bucks. made all the difference.
__________________
AthlonXP 2200+ / 1024mb PC2100 / Geforce DDR (soon to be 6800le (soon to be 6800+))
yoladude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-03, 06:13 PM   #26
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have 820 megs free out of my gig.

So that's 200 odd megs right there. 256 does not cut it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-03, 06:58 PM   #27
AthlonXP1800
Registered User
 
AthlonXP1800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,352
Default Re: Should my 5800 Ultra be this SLOW?

Quote:
Originally posted by chupacabras
I recently got my hands on a Leadtek A300 5800 Ultra, and I cant keep a constant 30 frames in Unreal 2. (checked with fraps) Often frames drop to single digits as well. All settings in Unreal 2 are on high, except character detail, and Intellisample is on performance, while D3D mipmapping quality is on blend. Needless to say, i'm a little disappointed, any ideas what it could be? I'm using the 43.45 Detonator FX's, but have also tried the 44.65 betas. Other than raising my 3dmark score, I didnt notice any differences with them.. and if i had to say, I think were even slower..

I'm running the game with 4XAA and 8XAF with texture sharpening on. AGP aperature size is 64mb, and i'm running VIA's Hyperion 4.45. Unreal2 isnt the only thing a little slow, is dawn ultra supposed to be choppy on this card? Also, I tried the ATI animusic demo, which is choppy as well.

I get about 4000 3dmark2003 with the 43.45 and 5000 with the beta 43.65s. I also get ~13,000 in 2001.

I know 256 isnt that much ram, but I doubt that's the problem. My friend running his 9500pro gets 90 fps. BTW system was freshly formatted after I got the card, so it was wiped just a few days ago. Also, my case is very well ventilated, with multiple case fans, and temps shouldnt be an issue, since i've been running the case open.

My system:
Athlon XP@2150mhz
256MB DDR@180mhz
Leadtek A300
MSI KT3 Ultra2
420W Thermaltake PS
Windows XP pro.
Any ideas? Thanks.
Well Unreal 2 run very well on my Geforce 4 Ti 4600 with Athlon XP 1800+ and 512Mb DDR memory so I can see something wrong so you may need to do 3 things:

1. Try update latest VIA's Hyperion 4.46.
2. Update Windows XP Pro to Service Pack 1, the memory difference I found between original XP and Service Pack 1 is original XP used 50% of memory resources, Service Pack 1 had lots of fixes, also it fixed lots of memory leaks, it now used 20% of memory resources, this free up 30% of memory, it will run XP SP1 much faster.
3. Upgrade memory to 512Mb or 1Gb DDR RAM.

Last edited by AthlonXP1800; 06-22-03 at 07:01 PM.
AthlonXP1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-03, 07:23 PM   #28
chupacabras
Registered User
 
chupacabras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9
Default

I've heard there are issues with the 4.46s? Thanks I'll try SP1, and btw, i've got 140mb free out of the 256, I guess windows must use more idle when you have more memory available?
chupacabras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-03, 07:33 PM   #29
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

To hold you until you get some more RAM, you should disable/exit any programs you may be running in tandem with your game. That includes anti-virus software, IM programs, etc.

Having only 140 mb available for a game is not really a good idea, especially for XP. BTW, what programs do you have running. I use about 120 mb and that's running Mozilla, Trillian, my video card tweaker, Daemon Tools and the NVIDIA nForce audio control panel.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-03, 07:38 PM   #30
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This was 200 with all my wireless shiz as well, along with mIRC, Trillian, and Firebird.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-03, 07:51 PM   #31
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

i have finished both splinter cell and unreal2, overall, unreal2 is quite a bit choppier than SC, there are simply many scenes in unreal2 that would just slow things down sharply, i dont think its driver issue, i play ut2k3 just fine, which is using the same unreal2 engine (right?), so as many others have said, its very CPU limited, ram hungry.
and perhaps the game designer did not even balance the CPU workload very well in the first place.
Behemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-03, 09:31 PM   #32
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default

unreal2 uses an older version of the unreal engine... compared to ut2003... thats why it runs so slow in comparision.
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 06-22-03, 09:38 PM   #33
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
unreal2 uses an older version of the unreal engine... compared to ut2003... thats why it runs so slow in comparision.
Not exactly true. It uses a different fork that has most of the same stuff, but I think it lacks the physics engine and adds some stuff from Legend.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-03, 02:26 PM   #34
AthlonXP1800
Registered User
 
AthlonXP1800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,352
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by chupacabras
I've heard there are issues with the 4.46s? Thanks I'll try SP1, and btw, i've got 140mb free out of the 256, I guess windows must use more idle when you have more memory available?
You may want to try the latest leaked 4.48 driver from Gigabyte, it installed and ran fine on mine.

http://tw.giga-byte.com/Download/Dow...t_via_4in1.exe
AthlonXP1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-03, 02:54 PM   #35
chupacabras
Registered User
 
chupacabras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9
Default

Thanks, I'll give them a try,
chupacabras is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gnome3 with composite is very slow on Geforce FX 5200 with 173.14.31 driver Artox NVIDIA Linux 0 05-26-12 10:33 AM
Very slow X startup Jeremy NVIDIA Linux 96 05-23-03 10:11 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.