PDA

View Full Version : general tip for geforce 4 ti owners playing doom re:drivers


Thomas
August 7th 04, 12:02 AM
I've been using the 45.23 drivers on my card for the longest time, as they
got the best 3d mark 2001 score. My doom 3 timedemo results were
disappointing, however - I was getting a 24 fps on 800 x 600 medium
settings. I used the config file changes recommended here
http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Doom3/FPSVisuals.htm

This got me up to 30 fps at 800 x 600 medium. However, the biggest change
came when I upgraded drivers to the 61.77 forceware drivers.. My timedemo
results are now about 42 on 1024 x 768 medium. I couldn't believe the
results. Just a tip for those who may be clinging to the old drivers like I
was.

Of course, YMMV...



My system..

athlon xp 2800

geforce 4 ti 4600

1024 meg ram (333)



Tom

PRIVATE1964
August 7th 04, 04:31 AM
>Just a tip for those who may be clinging to the old drivers like I
>was.

That's good to know thanks.

Did you double check?

Chuck
August 7th 04, 05:18 AM
> This got me up to 30 fps at 800 x 600 medium. However, the biggest change
> came when I upgraded drivers to the 61.77 forceware drivers.. My timedemo
> results are now about 42 on 1024 x 768 medium. I couldn't believe the
> results. Just a tip for those who may be clinging to the old drivers like
I
> was.

Thanks for the tip. I went from 17.7 fps to 26.3 fps on 1024 x 768
switching to the 61.77's.

XP 2700+
1Gb PC2700
GF4 4800Ti SE

Thomas
August 7th 04, 05:30 AM
"PRIVATE1964" > wrote in message
...
> >Just a tip for those who may be clinging to the old drivers like I
> >was.
>
> That's good to know thanks.
>
> Did you double check?

Double check what?

Tom

PRIVATE1964
August 7th 04, 05:18 PM
>
>Double check what?
>
> Tom

The results, just to make sure it wasn't a fluke of some kind.
I've seen times where I thought drivers made a difference, and then found out
antialiasing was on or off, or overclock settings didn't kick in at start
up...etc.

Tom
August 7th 04, 06:10 PM
On 07 Aug 2004 16:18:55 GMT, (PRIVATE1964) wrote:

>>
>>Double check what?
>>
>> Tom
>
>The results, just to make sure it wasn't a fluke of some kind.
>I've seen times where I thought drivers made a difference, and then found out
>antialiasing was on or off, or overclock settings didn't kick in at start
>up...etc.

Nope - not a fluke. I was consistently getting that every subsequent
run of the timedemo ( first run is always a little slower ).

However, I stopped using the config file as I wanted the more true
"medium" settings, if you can follow me. Only thing I disable now is
shadows. At 1024 x 768 medium I'm now down to about 36. Still quite
playable, IMO.

Tom

PRIVATE1964
August 7th 04, 06:44 PM
> However, I stopped using the config file as I wanted the more true
>"medium" settings, if you can follow me.

I do. So you can notice lower detail using the autoexec tweaks?

>Only thing I disable now is
>shadows. At 1024 x 768 medium I'm now down to about 36. Still quite
>playable, IMO

Don't the shadows add a lot to the game?

Tom
August 8th 04, 05:57 AM
On 07 Aug 2004 17:44:14 GMT, (PRIVATE1964) wrote:

>> However, I stopped using the config file as I wanted the more true
>>"medium" settings, if you can follow me.
>
>I do. So you can notice lower detail using the autoexec tweaks?
>
>>Only thing I disable now is
>>shadows. At 1024 x 768 medium I'm now down to about 36. Still quite
>>playable, IMO
>
>Don't the shadows add a lot to the game?

They definately add something, but at this point it seems to me that
it's not worth the performance trademark. Of course, others may
disagree...

Tom

Tom
August 8th 04, 05:59 AM
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:18:01 -0400, "Chuck" >
wrote:

>> This got me up to 30 fps at 800 x 600 medium. However, the biggest change
>> came when I upgraded drivers to the 61.77 forceware drivers.. My timedemo
>> results are now about 42 on 1024 x 768 medium. I couldn't believe the
>> results. Just a tip for those who may be clinging to the old drivers like
>I
>> was.
>
>Thanks for the tip. I went from 17.7 fps to 26.3 fps on 1024 x 768
>switching to the 61.77's.
>
>XP 2700+
>1Gb PC2700
>GF4 4800Ti SE


No problem. That's quite the difference - hopefully it improves the
game experience.

Tom

JK
August 8th 04, 06:05 AM
The Athlon XP chips are great for business software, but not so good
for Doom 3. For Doom 3, the Athlon 64 chips are superb!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

Thomas wrote:

> I've been using the 45.23 drivers on my card for the longest time, as they
> got the best 3d mark 2001 score. My doom 3 timedemo results were
> disappointing, however - I was getting a 24 fps on 800 x 600 medium
> settings. I used the config file changes recommended here
> http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Doom3/FPSVisuals.htm
>
> This got me up to 30 fps at 800 x 600 medium. However, the biggest change
> came when I upgraded drivers to the 61.77 forceware drivers.. My timedemo
> results are now about 42 on 1024 x 768 medium. I couldn't believe the
> results. Just a tip for those who may be clinging to the old drivers like I
> was.
>
> Of course, YMMV...
>
> My system..
>
> athlon xp 2800
>
> geforce 4 ti 4600
>
> 1024 meg ram (333)
>
> Tom

Bruin
August 8th 04, 12:10 PM
"JK" > wrote in message
...
> The Athlon XP chips are great for business software, but not so good
> for Doom 3. For Doom 3, the Athlon 64 chips are superb!
>

XP chips are great for more than just business software! Holy crap a new
game comes out & people are shooting down XP chips LOL. The 3200+ at 68
FPS is at par with the P4 3 gig, only few FPS behind a 3.2. The biggest
joke is that people are still playing $220 or more for a 3 ghz P4. For
WHAT!?

The best value today is a Athlon 2500+ for around $70 & crank that baby up.
I use mine in high end 3D CAD work & it performs extremely well. Business
software HAH! The XP chips are very dated but are still holding their own.

Ed Light
August 8th 04, 05:12 PM
They boosted Trainz framerate alot.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Light
August 8th 04, 05:14 PM
"Bruin" > wrote
> The best value today is a Athlon 2500+ for around $70
Or unlocked mobile chips.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Light
August 8th 04, 05:15 PM
"Ed Light" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> They boosted Trainz framerate alot.
Oops, those were the 5672's. Maybe the new ones are even faster.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

JK
August 8th 04, 05:41 PM
Bruin wrote:

> "JK" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Athlon XP chips are great for business software, but not so good
> > for Doom 3. For Doom 3, the Athlon 64 chips are superb!
> >
>
> XP chips are great for more than just business software! Holy crap a new
> game comes out & people are shooting down XP chips LOL. The 3200+ at 68
> FPS is at par with the P4 3 gig, only few FPS behind a 3.2.

The XP3200+ is not much less in price than the Athlon 64 2800+. It is
true that a motherboard for the Athlon 64 will be more expensive though.
The lower to mid Athlon XP chips are very cheap and great for business
software. It is ironic that most business users use an Intel cpu. The Athlon 64
chips are much better than the Athlon XP chips for gaming in general, and
especially for Doom 3.

> The biggest
> joke is that people are still playing $220 or more for a 3 ghz P4. For
> WHAT!?

That is crazy. About the only thing that a P4 3 ghz beats a comparably
priced Athlon 64 3200+ is in some video editing software.

>
>
> The best value today is a Athlon 2500+ for around $70 & crank that baby up.

I disagree. First of all, I am against the use of overclocking. Too many
pitfalls, and too much time wasted in tweaking the system. For those
who run business software, if they are on a budget(such as a business
that needs many PCs to enter orders, etc), the Athlon XP2200+
at only around $50 looks like a great value. The XP3200+ would be
nice for a business user who needs more performance and is still
on a budget. The Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+ is a much better value
for those who want to play games or do multimedia or other cpu
intensive tasks.

>
> I use mine in high end 3D CAD work & it performs extremely well. Business
> software HAH! The XP chips are very dated but are still holding their own.

The lower and mid end XPs are very cheap, while the highest end ones
are getting close in price to the lowest Athlon 64.

Ed Light
August 8th 04, 08:22 PM
"JK" > wrote

> the Athlon XP2200+
> at only around $50 looks like a great value.
If you have the means to set the multiplier manually, the mobile 35w 2200+
runs much cooler. And it's a Barton (which wouldn't mean much at that speed,
I guess).

Then if you ever felt like it, you could easily run it as a 3000+, probably
at 5.5 volts to be safe (desktops run at 1.6/1.65), by choosing a higher but
stock (333, 400) fsb and appropriate multiplier for 2150 mhz. (I'm about to,
hee hee. But I have to put little wires in the socket because my motherboard
has no multiplier settings. Right now it is running as a 2200+ but at 333,
with little wires.)


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Bruin
August 8th 04, 10:41 PM
"Ed Light" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bruin" > wrote
> > The best value today is a Athlon 2500+ for around $70
> Or unlocked mobile chips.
>
>
> --
> Ed Light
>
> Smiley :-/
> MS Smiley :-\
>
> Send spam to the FTC at
>
> Thanks, robots.
>
>

Your RIGHT! 2500+ mobile, cheaper yet!! Overclock it to the moon.

Bruin
August 8th 04, 10:47 PM
> >
> >
> > The best value today is a Athlon 2500+ for around $70 & crank that baby
up.
>
> I disagree. First of all, I am against the use of overclocking. Too many
> pitfalls, and too much time wasted in tweaking the system. For those
> who run business software, if they are on a budget(such as a business
> that needs many PCs to enter orders, etc), the Athlon XP2200+
> at only around $50 looks like a great value. The XP3200+ would be
> nice for a business user who needs more performance and is still
> on a budget. The Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+ is a much better value
> for those who want to play games or do multimedia or other cpu
> intensive tasks.
>

We are talking gaming here are we not? Your against Oclockin, that is your
choice... errr or are you against for everyone?

The debate here is to buy a new video card or change out MB, CPU, & RAM.
Video card would change everything. New MB, Athlon 64 3000+ bumps frame
rate by 25% maybe, woopti!

JK
August 8th 04, 11:28 PM
Bruin wrote:

> > >
> > >
> > > The best value today is a Athlon 2500+ for around $70 & crank that baby
> up.
> >
> > I disagree. First of all, I am against the use of overclocking. Too many
> > pitfalls, and too much time wasted in tweaking the system. For those
> > who run business software, if they are on a budget(such as a business
> > that needs many PCs to enter orders, etc), the Athlon XP2200+
> > at only around $50 looks like a great value. The XP3200+ would be
> > nice for a business user who needs more performance and is still
> > on a budget. The Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+ is a much better value
> > for those who want to play games or do multimedia or other cpu
> > intensive tasks.
> >
>
> We are talking gaming here are we not? Your against Oclockin, that is your
> choice... errr or are you against for everyone?
>
> The debate here is to buy a new video card or change out MB, CPU, & RAM.
> Video card would change everything.

Unless you have a very low end video card now, any upgrade to a very high
end video card won't help much if your cpu, motherboard, and ram are major
bottlenecks. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Choose components
that are matched for the best value as far as performance. Instead of adding
a $600 video card to a P4 2.4 ghz or slower processor , it makes much more
sense to get a $250-300 video card and an Athlon 64.

> New MB, Athlon 64 3000+ bumps frame
> rate by 25% maybe, woopti!

Tom
August 9th 04, 03:31 AM
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:28:26 -0400, JK > wrote:

>
>
>Bruin wrote:
>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The best value today is a Athlon 2500+ for around $70 & crank that baby
>> up.
>> >
>> > I disagree. First of all, I am against the use of overclocking. Too many
>> > pitfalls, and too much time wasted in tweaking the system. For those
>> > who run business software, if they are on a budget(such as a business
>> > that needs many PCs to enter orders, etc), the Athlon XP2200+
>> > at only around $50 looks like a great value. The XP3200+ would be
>> > nice for a business user who needs more performance and is still
>> > on a budget. The Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+ is a much better value
>> > for those who want to play games or do multimedia or other cpu
>> > intensive tasks.
>> >
>>
>> We are talking gaming here are we not? Your against Oclockin, that is your
>> choice... errr or are you against for everyone?
>>
>> The debate here is to buy a new video card or change out MB, CPU, & RAM.
>> Video card would change everything.
>
>Unless you have a very low end video card now, any upgrade to a very high
>end video card won't help much if your cpu, motherboard, and ram are major
>bottlenecks. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Choose components
>that are matched for the best value as far as performance. Instead of adding
>a $600 video card to a P4 2.4 ghz or slower processor , it makes much more
>sense to get a $250-300 video card and an Athlon 64.
>
>> New MB, Athlon 64 3000+ bumps frame
>> rate by 25% maybe, woopti!

Do you own stock in AMD or something? I mean, every chance you get
you're plugging that blessed athlon 64. I've seen it's results and
they are good but honestly, who cares? Even in my post here which had
nothing to do with processors at all you're plugging it. I'm sure
everyone here would upgrade if they had money but that's not always
the case and every conversation on here shouldn't have to be about the
64 bit processor.

It's a kind of trollish habit that is annoying.

Tom

Ed Light
August 9th 04, 04:56 AM
"Tom" > wrote
> every conversation on here shouldn't have to be about the
> 64 bit processor.

I guess he didn't know you can't afford one right now. Might have prevented
you from buying a fast xp and finding it too slow.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Bruin
August 9th 04, 10:41 AM
> Unless you have a very low end video card now, any upgrade to a very high
> end video card won't help much if your cpu, motherboard, and ram are major
> bottlenecks. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Choose
components
> that are matched for the best value as far as performance. Instead of
adding
> a $600 video card to a P4 2.4 ghz or slower processor , it makes much
more
> sense to get a $250-300 video card and an Athlon 64.


Bull****. Currently I am playing Doom comfortably. 35-40 FPS. If I got a
6800GT I could raise the res & quality levels & still get 50FPS & play it
very comfortably.

I do NOT need a CPU upgrade to play Doom 3. If I want all the eye candy,
all I need is a 6800GT at $425.

Athlon XP 2500+ running as a 3200+
2 sticks 512 RAM 2-2-2 dual channel
ti4200 running as a 4400