PDA

View Full Version : FX5900XT in older motherboard with "slow" CPU


Martin Maat
September 7th 04, 09:11 PM
Hi.

This was going to be a call for help but as I was writing the message I got
an idea and now I have no problem anymore. So it became a happy report,
perhaps useful to others in a similar situation.

After reading some reviews, I bought this wonderful FX5900XT board (from
Point of View). The mere looks of it are worth the 199 Euros I spent. But
since it fitted the AGP slot in my computer I figured I might want to play
some games on it too.

My PC isn't the latest thing on the market, it is an Asus K7V with an
original Slot-A Athlon 650 Mhz and the video card to be replaced is a
GeForce2 GTS which served me well for some four years now.

Before anyone wants to give me the song and dance about putting a top notch
card like the FX5900XT into a crappy old PC like mine being pointless, save
it. I just started to hit a number of games that wouldn't run anymore due to
the mere DirectX7 capability of my old system and felt the need for
something more current. Frame rates weren't even a (big) problem (most of
the time) and I felt like getting this neat device, hoping it would make it
easier for me to postpone the major system upgrade I have in mind to some
later moment at which Athlon64 prices may have come down a little and the
full-fledged chipsets and 939 socket boards are more affordable.

So, now for the problem...

I got distorted images in Windows straight away, as if the Windows were
painted and it started to rain terpentine on them. Moving the mouse made it
worse until I could not read text anymore. If I'd grab the caption bar on
some window and dragged it, the machine would lock up.

If I started a game, it didn't take very long until the machine would lock
up either. If I were real quick I could just get a glimpse of those cool
fancy DirectX9 water effects before the whole thing broke down.

My first thoughts were that the card would propably be bad. Then I spoke to
my neighbor whom I had helped out the other day with his brand new PC (which
has a inferior FX5200 that I could now look down on in full satisfaction). I
asked him if I could try the card in his machine, he agreed, and the card
turned out to be trouble free. Brilliant picture, no prolem whatsoever.


I did plug in the power connector (incidently I forgot to do so in my
neighbor's PC and the card still worked fine, although I didn't try to run
Far Cry in 1600x1200 or anything like that). I tried both the latest and the
53-something driver versions. My power supply is new, a 350 W AOpen which
looks like good quality overall. What could be wrong?

The lock-ups due to dragging and the corrupted image pointed in the
direction of AGP traffic. The card should be able to handle anything from 2x
to 8x AGP, the motherboard is limited to 4x AGP which showed up as the
current speed if I looked at display properties. I decided to go through the
BIOS to see if I could somehow lock down the AGP speed to 2x to see if that
would make any difference.

Apperently, I could choose between 4x and 2x. After setting the AGP bus to
2x things looked a lot better!

I started dragging windows, having TV on simultaniously, no problem. Time
for the goodies: games!

My favorite game of the last couple of years is Max Payne. I played "Max
Payne 2" start to end three times on my GeForce2 and it performed relatively
well considering it is a modern game, it has a real clever and efficient
engine. Call of Duty either uses a rather blunt engine or is just done
poorly, I couldn't play that properly even on 640x480 on my hardware while
it didn't look much better then Quake 2. Apart from that it is really boring
but I guess that is a personal thing. With "Max Payne 2" I had to go
moderate on featudes, medium quality and 1152x864 was about what it could
handle but even then I was really impressed by the graphics, it was the
prettiest game I had seen on my machine. And that was "only" GeForce2 with
T&L.

But now I had the big guns! I started the game and immeditely went to video
settings to max out everything: high quality. Furthermore, 1280x1024 seemed
appropriate, I was Mr. Power Graphics now. The results were most impressive.
I saw a whole array of visual effects I had never seen before. Blasts,
smoke, spaying blood, an effective after-glow in movements expressing Max's
half consciousness as het stumbles down the hospital hallways... This is
beautiful! And no hickups or shocky behavior whatsoever.

Then I tried Splinter Cell, a game that wouldn't run at all on the GeForce2.
Jeeezzz, they really made some progress in the gaming industry while I
wasn't looking! Also on maximum quality and 1280x1024, fluently!

Mind I am still running an old Athlon 650 MHz. All that crap about the need
for a balanced system, that you shouldn't combine the top card with a slow
CPU, it's nonsense! Apperently, modern games lean so heavily on the graphics
hardware that you actually do get away with a relatively slow processor.

I was already anticipating shelling out 700 Euro's on new hardware just to
match the graphics card. No way Jose! I am just fine for the next couple of
years with my Athlon 650 MHz and mij FX5900XT, thank you! The results of
just a graphics card upgrade are more than satisfying, I can recommend it to
anyone who is considering spending money on a new PC just to play the latest
DirectX9 games.

Regards,

Martin.

sp
September 7th 04, 10:20 PM
i got a 5900xt in my P4 2.8GHz rig. FarCry runs at about 60fps on medium
detail. run 3dmark2001SE on your machine and post the results (default
setting). It would be interesting how many marks your rig gets.

sp

"Martin Maat" > wrote in message
...
> Hi.
>
> This was going to be a call for help but as I was writing the message I
> got
> an idea and now I have no problem anymore. So it became a happy report,
> perhaps useful to others in a similar situation.
>
> After reading some reviews, I bought this wonderful FX5900XT board (from
> Point of View). The mere looks of it are worth the 199 Euros I spent. But
> since it fitted the AGP slot in my computer I figured I might want to play
> some games on it too.
>
> My PC isn't the latest thing on the market, it is an Asus K7V with an
> original Slot-A Athlon 650 Mhz and the video card to be replaced is a
> GeForce2 GTS which served me well for some four years now.
>
> Before anyone wants to give me the song and dance about putting a top
> notch
> card like the FX5900XT into a crappy old PC like mine being pointless,
> save
> it. I just started to hit a number of games that wouldn't run anymore due
> to
> the mere DirectX7 capability of my old system and felt the need for
> something more current. Frame rates weren't even a (big) problem (most of
> the time) and I felt like getting this neat device, hoping it would make
> it
> easier for me to postpone the major system upgrade I have in mind to some
> later moment at which Athlon64 prices may have come down a little and the
> full-fledged chipsets and 939 socket boards are more affordable.
>
> So, now for the problem...
>
> I got distorted images in Windows straight away, as if the Windows were
> painted and it started to rain terpentine on them. Moving the mouse made
> it
> worse until I could not read text anymore. If I'd grab the caption bar on
> some window and dragged it, the machine would lock up.
>
> If I started a game, it didn't take very long until the machine would lock
> up either. If I were real quick I could just get a glimpse of those cool
> fancy DirectX9 water effects before the whole thing broke down.
>
> My first thoughts were that the card would propably be bad. Then I spoke
> to
> my neighbor whom I had helped out the other day with his brand new PC
> (which
> has a inferior FX5200 that I could now look down on in full satisfaction).
> I
> asked him if I could try the card in his machine, he agreed, and the card
> turned out to be trouble free. Brilliant picture, no prolem whatsoever.
>
>
> I did plug in the power connector (incidently I forgot to do so in my
> neighbor's PC and the card still worked fine, although I didn't try to run
> Far Cry in 1600x1200 or anything like that). I tried both the latest and
> the
> 53-something driver versions. My power supply is new, a 350 W AOpen which
> looks like good quality overall. What could be wrong?
>
> The lock-ups due to dragging and the corrupted image pointed in the
> direction of AGP traffic. The card should be able to handle anything from
> 2x
> to 8x AGP, the motherboard is limited to 4x AGP which showed up as the
> current speed if I looked at display properties. I decided to go through
> the
> BIOS to see if I could somehow lock down the AGP speed to 2x to see if
> that
> would make any difference.
>
> Apperently, I could choose between 4x and 2x. After setting the AGP bus to
> 2x things looked a lot better!
>
> I started dragging windows, having TV on simultaniously, no problem. Time
> for the goodies: games!
>
> My favorite game of the last couple of years is Max Payne. I played "Max
> Payne 2" start to end three times on my GeForce2 and it performed
> relatively
> well considering it is a modern game, it has a real clever and efficient
> engine. Call of Duty either uses a rather blunt engine or is just done
> poorly, I couldn't play that properly even on 640x480 on my hardware while
> it didn't look much better then Quake 2. Apart from that it is really
> boring
> but I guess that is a personal thing. With "Max Payne 2" I had to go
> moderate on featudes, medium quality and 1152x864 was about what it could
> handle but even then I was really impressed by the graphics, it was the
> prettiest game I had seen on my machine. And that was "only" GeForce2 with
> T&L.
>
> But now I had the big guns! I started the game and immeditely went to
> video
> settings to max out everything: high quality. Furthermore, 1280x1024
> seemed
> appropriate, I was Mr. Power Graphics now. The results were most
> impressive.
> I saw a whole array of visual effects I had never seen before. Blasts,
> smoke, spaying blood, an effective after-glow in movements expressing
> Max's
> half consciousness as het stumbles down the hospital hallways... This is
> beautiful! And no hickups or shocky behavior whatsoever.
>
> Then I tried Splinter Cell, a game that wouldn't run at all on the
> GeForce2.
> Jeeezzz, they really made some progress in the gaming industry while I
> wasn't looking! Also on maximum quality and 1280x1024, fluently!
>
> Mind I am still running an old Athlon 650 MHz. All that crap about the
> need
> for a balanced system, that you shouldn't combine the top card with a slow
> CPU, it's nonsense! Apperently, modern games lean so heavily on the
> graphics
> hardware that you actually do get away with a relatively slow processor.
>
> I was already anticipating shelling out 700 Euro's on new hardware just to
> match the graphics card. No way Jose! I am just fine for the next couple
> of
> years with my Athlon 650 MHz and mij FX5900XT, thank you! The results of
> just a graphics card upgrade are more than satisfying, I can recommend it
> to
> anyone who is considering spending money on a new PC just to play the
> latest
> DirectX9 games.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin.
>
>

Raj
September 8th 04, 03:27 AM
Cool, on my 2nd machine I will slap in my ol Geforce 3 ti500 (slot 1 p3 450)
see what kind of 3d it can score lol
"Martin Maat" > wrote in message
...
> Hi.
>
> This was going to be a call for help but as I was writing the message I
> got
> an idea and now I have no problem anymore. So it became a happy report,
> perhaps useful to others in a similar situation.
>
> After reading some reviews, I bought this wonderful FX5900XT board (from
> Point of View). The mere looks of it are worth the 199 Euros I spent. But
> since it fitted the AGP slot in my computer I figured I might want to play
> some games on it too.
>
> My PC isn't the latest thing on the market, it is an Asus K7V with an
> original Slot-A Athlon 650 Mhz and the video card to be replaced is a
> GeForce2 GTS which served me well for some four years now.
>
> Before anyone wants to give me the song and dance about putting a top
> notch
> card like the FX5900XT into a crappy old PC like mine being pointless,
> save
> it. I just started to hit a number of games that wouldn't run anymore due
> to
> the mere DirectX7 capability of my old system and felt the need for
> something more current. Frame rates weren't even a (big) problem (most of
> the time) and I felt like getting this neat device, hoping it would make
> it
> easier for me to postpone the major system upgrade I have in mind to some
> later moment at which Athlon64 prices may have come down a little and the
> full-fledged chipsets and 939 socket boards are more affordable.
>
> So, now for the problem...
>
> I got distorted images in Windows straight away, as if the Windows were
> painted and it started to rain terpentine on them. Moving the mouse made
> it
> worse until I could not read text anymore. If I'd grab the caption bar on
> some window and dragged it, the machine would lock up.
>
> If I started a game, it didn't take very long until the machine would lock
> up either. If I were real quick I could just get a glimpse of those cool
> fancy DirectX9 water effects before the whole thing broke down.
>
> My first thoughts were that the card would propably be bad. Then I spoke
> to
> my neighbor whom I had helped out the other day with his brand new PC
> (which
> has a inferior FX5200 that I could now look down on in full satisfaction).
> I
> asked him if I could try the card in his machine, he agreed, and the card
> turned out to be trouble free. Brilliant picture, no prolem whatsoever.
>
>
> I did plug in the power connector (incidently I forgot to do so in my
> neighbor's PC and the card still worked fine, although I didn't try to run
> Far Cry in 1600x1200 or anything like that). I tried both the latest and
> the
> 53-something driver versions. My power supply is new, a 350 W AOpen which
> looks like good quality overall. What could be wrong?
>
> The lock-ups due to dragging and the corrupted image pointed in the
> direction of AGP traffic. The card should be able to handle anything from
> 2x
> to 8x AGP, the motherboard is limited to 4x AGP which showed up as the
> current speed if I looked at display properties. I decided to go through
> the
> BIOS to see if I could somehow lock down the AGP speed to 2x to see if
> that
> would make any difference.
>
> Apperently, I could choose between 4x and 2x. After setting the AGP bus to
> 2x things looked a lot better!
>
> I started dragging windows, having TV on simultaniously, no problem. Time
> for the goodies: games!
>
> My favorite game of the last couple of years is Max Payne. I played "Max
> Payne 2" start to end three times on my GeForce2 and it performed
> relatively
> well considering it is a modern game, it has a real clever and efficient
> engine. Call of Duty either uses a rather blunt engine or is just done
> poorly, I couldn't play that properly even on 640x480 on my hardware while
> it didn't look much better then Quake 2. Apart from that it is really
> boring
> but I guess that is a personal thing. With "Max Payne 2" I had to go
> moderate on featudes, medium quality and 1152x864 was about what it could
> handle but even then I was really impressed by the graphics, it was the
> prettiest game I had seen on my machine. And that was "only" GeForce2 with
> T&L.
>
> But now I had the big guns! I started the game and immeditely went to
> video
> settings to max out everything: high quality. Furthermore, 1280x1024
> seemed
> appropriate, I was Mr. Power Graphics now. The results were most
> impressive.
> I saw a whole array of visual effects I had never seen before. Blasts,
> smoke, spaying blood, an effective after-glow in movements expressing
> Max's
> half consciousness as het stumbles down the hospital hallways... This is
> beautiful! And no hickups or shocky behavior whatsoever.
>
> Then I tried Splinter Cell, a game that wouldn't run at all on the
> GeForce2.
> Jeeezzz, they really made some progress in the gaming industry while I
> wasn't looking! Also on maximum quality and 1280x1024, fluently!
>
> Mind I am still running an old Athlon 650 MHz. All that crap about the
> need
> for a balanced system, that you shouldn't combine the top card with a slow
> CPU, it's nonsense! Apperently, modern games lean so heavily on the
> graphics
> hardware that you actually do get away with a relatively slow processor.
>
> I was already anticipating shelling out 700 Euro's on new hardware just to
> match the graphics card. No way Jose! I am just fine for the next couple
> of
> years with my Athlon 650 MHz and mij FX5900XT, thank you! The results of
> just a graphics card upgrade are more than satisfying, I can recommend it
> to
> anyone who is considering spending money on a new PC just to play the
> latest
> DirectX9 games.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin.
>
>

Martin Maat
September 8th 04, 09:56 AM
sp wrote:
> i got a 5900xt in my P4 2.8GHz rig. FarCry runs at about 60fps on
> medium detail. run 3dmark2001SE on your machine and post the results
> (default setting). It would be interesting how many marks your rig
> gets.

:-) I guess there will be significant differences but whether you have 30
fps of 200 fps, that would hardly effect the experience.

I don't have 3DMark2001SE but I am curious enough to look it up and check it
out, I will be back with the results.

Martin.

sp
September 8th 04, 10:51 AM
my comp manages 14,000 marks in that test. my machine has been seriously
tweaked for gaming. None of my components have been overclocked, i dont
have the money to replace parts if they burn out so i leave them as they
are. here is the spec of my comp.

P4 2.8GHz
512MB DDR333 RAM
80GB Maxtor Diamond max 6
30GB Maxtor Diamond max 6
leadtek A350XT TDH (FX5900XT) 128MB 256bit memory interface

before i had this rig i had a lower spec rig which was

P2 400MHz
256MB PC133 RAM
2*30GB HDD
Geforce 2 Pro

this used to get me about 1,600 marks which isn't bad cause it could run c&c
generals at a slightly lower speed. It also managed max payne 1 with
everything on high (NoAA) and give a reasonable frame rate.

post your 3dmark results cause it would be interesting to see what your
machine gets


sp

Martin Maat
September 8th 04, 11:31 AM
sp wrote:

> i got a 5900xt in my P4 2.8GHz rig. FarCry runs at about 60fps on
> medium detail. run 3dmark2001SE on your machine and post the results
> (default setting). It would be interesting how many marks your rig
> gets.

Okay, here's the 3DMark2001SE rating for my K7V Athlon 650 MHz with
FX5900XT:

I hit "benchmark" right after installation, default settings like you said.
It says 4179.

Martin.

Martin Maat
September 8th 04, 12:14 PM
Martin Maat wrote:

>> i got a 5900xt in my P4 2.8GHz rig. FarCry runs at about 60fps on
>> medium detail. run 3dmark2001SE on your machine and post the results
>> (default setting). It would be interesting how many marks your rig
>> gets.
>
> Okay, here's the 3DMark2001SE rating for my K7V Athlon 650 MHz with
> FX5900XT:
>
> I hit "benchmark" right after installation, default settings like you
> said. It says 4179.

I remembered I had a profile active locking quality to maximum settings. If
I let the application control the settings I get 4886.

I guess quality is relatively cheap on slower CPU's because the GPU would be
waiting for the CPU to feed it most of the time, leaving enough time for it
to make the picture a little prettier. I think I'll just lock it to maximum
quality from now on.

Martin.

sp
September 8th 04, 06:45 PM
my old geforce 2 pro in my p4 got about 5000 marks. that is a pretty good
score for a cpu at that speed. if u upgraded it it would shoot through the
roof. iu had a laugh and run it on my system here are the detailed results
of each test with my gf FX5900XT

3d mark marks 14649.0
game 1 low 221.1
game 1 high 73.2
game 2 low 257.0
game 2 high 138.4
game 3 low 205.7
game 3 high 91.1
game 4 87.8
fill rate single 1414.5
fill rate multi 2836.7
high polygon 1 light 88.8
high polygon 8 light 24.0
bump mapping 159.7
DOT3 bump mapping 216.1
vertex shader 158.6
pixel shader 191.5
advanced pixel shader 108.5
point sprites 32.1

They are mainly in fps. click show details when you get the results page
and scroll down a bit to get the details.

Again that is a good result for your machine

sp

Martin Maat
September 8th 04, 09:10 PM
sp wrote:

> click show details when you get the results
> page and scroll down a bit to get the details.

This time I watched the tests as they were performed. I was particularly
impressed with the outdoor scene that has all the foliage and light. The
frame rate is displayed all the way in this one, it never dropped below 40
fps, peaked to 90. Good enough for me for another couple of years. Who needs
new CPU's while we have new GPU's coming out? :-)

Here's the full report for my K7V Athlon 650 MHz AGP 2x FX5900XT system:

DISPLAY
Platform NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900XT
CPU Optimization D3D Pure Hardware T&L
Width 1024
Height 768
Depth 32 bit
Z-Buffering 24 bit
Texture Format Compressed
Buffering Double
Refresh Rate 60 Hz
FSAA Mode None

OPTIONS
Show Title Screens Yes
Continuous Benchmark No
Benchmark Run Count 1
Demo Sounds Enabled Yes
Continuous Demo No
Game Sound Effects Enabled Yes
Game Music Enabled Yes
Game Detail Level Low

RESULTS
3DMark Score 4901
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 50.8 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 13.1 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 95.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 48.4 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 56.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 24.5 fps
Game 4 - Nature 57.2 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 1413.8 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 2837.3 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 61.4 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 18.6 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 135.6 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 145.0 fps
Vertex Shader 57.5 fps
Pixel Shader 93.8 fps
Advanced Pixel Shader 103.0 fps
Point Sprites 32.1 MSprites/s

SYSTEM INFO

System Info Version 2.2
Installation ID 0x00000000
OEM ID

CPU INFO
CENTRAL PROCESSING UNITS
Manufacturer AMD
Family Athlon(tm)
Internal Clock 651 MHz
Internal Clock Maximum 651 MHz
External Clock 100 MHz
Socket Designation SLOT A
Type Central
Upgrade <unknown>
Capabilities MMX, CMov, RDTSC, 3DNow!, Extended 3DNow!
Version Model 2, Stepping 1
CPUID 0x00000621

CACHES
Level 1
Capacity 128 KB
Type <unknown>
Type Details <unknown>
Error Correction Type <unknown>
Associativity <unknown>

Level 2
Capacity 512 KB
Type <unknown>
Type Details <unknown>
Error Correction Type <unknown>
Associativity <unknown>

DIRECTX INFO
DirectX Version 9.0

DIRECTDRAW INFO
DirectDraw Version 5.03.2600.2180

DISPLAY DEVICES
Description Primary Display Driver
Manufacturer NVIDIA
Name NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900XT
Total Local Video Memory 128 MB
Total Local Texture Memory 128 MB
Total AGP Memory 64 MB
Display Driver nv4_disp.dll
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6177
Driver WHQL Certified No
Max Texture Width 4096
Max Texture Height 4096
Max User Clipping Planes 6
Max Active Hardware Lights 8
Max Texture Blending Stages 8
Textures In Single Pass 8
Vertex Shader Version 1.1
Pixel Shader Version 1.4
Max Vertex Blend Matrices 0
Max Texture Coordinates 8
Vendor ID 0x10de
Device ID 0x0332
Sub-System ID 0x00000000
Revision 0xa1

Phil
September 8th 04, 10:23 PM
"sp" > wrote in message
...
> my comp manages 14,000 marks in that test. my machine has been seriously
> tweaked for gaming. None of my components have been overclocked, i dont
> have the money to replace parts if they burn out so i leave them as they
> are. here is the spec of my comp.
>
> P4 2.8GHz
> 512MB DDR333 RAM
> 80GB Maxtor Diamond max 6
> 30GB Maxtor Diamond max 6
> leadtek A350XT TDH (FX5900XT) 128MB 256bit memory interface

Seriously?

I get around 13'500 with my Ath XP 3000+, 512MB DDR333 and Gainward Ti4800SE
(128MB).

Sure mine would be blown away at DX9, but still....

sp
September 9th 04, 12:20 AM
very impressive results i must say from both your machines (Phil & Martin).
I also did the same test but put 4xAA, everything else was untouched and the
score only dropped by 200 marks. i dont know why, could be a software
limitation in 3dmark01. to test directx9 performance u need 3dmark03. I
would not recommend that you run it martin, it is heavy on both the CPU and
GPU. but that is some pretty good results on your comp martin. are you
using SD RAM or DDR? The Ti4800SE is a really high spec card in the geforce
4 (i think) and can keep up with most modern gaming requirements. mine is
the low spec card in the high spec section (if that makes any sense) which
is why yours gets a good mark. I could overclock it or just buy a new 6800
Ultra and see how sick that beast is but i dont have £400 to spend.

sp

"Martin Maat" > wrote in message
...
> sp wrote:
>
>> click show details when you get the results
>> page and scroll down a bit to get the details.
>
> This time I watched the tests as they were performed. I was particularly
> impressed with the outdoor scene that has all the foliage and light. The
> frame rate is displayed all the way in this one, it never dropped below 40
> fps, peaked to 90. Good enough for me for another couple of years. Who
> needs
> new CPU's while we have new GPU's coming out? :-)
>
> Here's the full report for my K7V Athlon 650 MHz AGP 2x FX5900XT system:
>
> DISPLAY
> Platform NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900XT
> CPU Optimization D3D Pure Hardware T&L
> Width 1024
> Height 768
> Depth 32 bit
> Z-Buffering 24 bit
> Texture Format Compressed
> Buffering Double
> Refresh Rate 60 Hz
> FSAA Mode None
>
> OPTIONS
> Show Title Screens Yes
> Continuous Benchmark No
> Benchmark Run Count 1
> Demo Sounds Enabled Yes
> Continuous Demo No
> Game Sound Effects Enabled Yes
> Game Music Enabled Yes
> Game Detail Level Low
>
> RESULTS
> 3DMark Score 4901
> Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 50.8 fps
> Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 13.1 fps
> Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 95.9 fps
> Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 48.4 fps
> Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 56.7 fps
> Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 24.5 fps
> Game 4 - Nature 57.2 fps
> Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 1413.8 MTexels/s
> Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 2837.3 MTexels/s
> High Polygon Count (1 Light) 61.4 MTriangles/s
> High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 18.6 MTriangles/s
> Environment Bump Mapping 135.6 fps
> DOT3 Bump Mapping 145.0 fps
> Vertex Shader 57.5 fps
> Pixel Shader 93.8 fps
> Advanced Pixel Shader 103.0 fps
> Point Sprites 32.1 MSprites/s
>
> SYSTEM INFO
>
> System Info Version 2.2
> Installation ID 0x00000000
> OEM ID
>
> CPU INFO
> CENTRAL PROCESSING UNITS
> Manufacturer AMD
> Family Athlon(tm)
> Internal Clock 651 MHz
> Internal Clock Maximum 651 MHz
> External Clock 100 MHz
> Socket Designation SLOT A
> Type Central
> Upgrade <unknown>
> Capabilities MMX, CMov, RDTSC, 3DNow!, Extended 3DNow!
> Version Model 2, Stepping 1
> CPUID 0x00000621
>
> CACHES
> Level 1
> Capacity 128 KB
> Type <unknown>
> Type Details <unknown>
> Error Correction Type <unknown>
> Associativity <unknown>
>
> Level 2
> Capacity 512 KB
> Type <unknown>
> Type Details <unknown>
> Error Correction Type <unknown>
> Associativity <unknown>
>
> DIRECTX INFO
> DirectX Version 9.0
>
> DIRECTDRAW INFO
> DirectDraw Version 5.03.2600.2180
>
> DISPLAY DEVICES
> Description Primary Display Driver
> Manufacturer NVIDIA
> Name NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900XT
> Total Local Video Memory 128 MB
> Total Local Texture Memory 128 MB
> Total AGP Memory 64 MB
> Display Driver nv4_disp.dll
> Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6177
> Driver WHQL Certified No
> Max Texture Width 4096
> Max Texture Height 4096
> Max User Clipping Planes 6
> Max Active Hardware Lights 8
> Max Texture Blending Stages 8
> Textures In Single Pass 8
> Vertex Shader Version 1.1
> Pixel Shader Version 1.4
> Max Vertex Blend Matrices 0
> Max Texture Coordinates 8
> Vendor ID 0x10de
> Device ID 0x0332
> Sub-System ID 0x00000000
> Revision 0xa1
>
>

Martin Maat
September 9th 04, 02:11 AM
Martin Maat wrote:

>> Okay, here's the 3DMark2001SE rating for my K7V Athlon 650 MHz with
>> FX5900XT:
>>
>> I hit "benchmark" right after installation, default settings like you
>> said. It says 4179.
>
> I remembered I had a profile active locking quality to maximum
> settings. If I let the application control the settings I get 4886.

I got it up to 5300 now and found something interesting.

After tweaking the BIOS a little (660 MHz for and 133 MHz instead of 100 MHz
for memory) I got it up to 51xx (I don't rmember exact figure). That was
quite a lot, I guess it was mainly the step up from 100 MHz to 133 MHz
frontside bus responsible for this.

Then I enabled CoolBits and started pushing it. The default settings were
300/700 (core/memory [MHz]). With a minimum safety margin of 10 MHz for each
I got it up to 400/900 (424 and 912 respectively was found just too much by
the test function). I expected to go well up into the 5K range now, I did a
new 3DMark 2001 SE run in anticipation of some spectacular results... and I
only got 5309. That wasn't much better than what I got with the default
settings which were more than 20% slower, MHz-wise. I ran it another time
and got even less: 5200, very little more than what the default clock
settings gave me.

Hmm... Overclocking seemed rather pointless, according to the over-all
rating. Why would this matter so little?

When I looked at the individual test result, I noticed only "High polygon
count (1 light)" and "Point sprites" to be significantly higher in
overclocked mode, the first having a rather strong impact on most real-world
scenes as the nature test shows. So the over-all number seems to play down
practicle performance quite a bit, it doesn't seem a well balanced indicator
as far as games are concerned. The nature demo shows a 15% average
performance increase due to overclocking, which is not at all reflected by
the over-all score.

Especially frame rates are strongly influenced by the GPU clock settings
(isn't that really all we care about?). I underclocked to 200/200 to see the
effects and minimum frame rates dropped dramatically, to 12 fps in the
nature demo (48 fps being the minimum in overclocked mode). 75%! This pretty
well matched the differnces in clock settings: 50% core clock decrease and
77% memory clock decrease. The over-all rating however only dropped to 4072,
some 20%

Martin.

Martin Maat
September 9th 04, 02:25 AM
sp wrote:

> but that is some pretty good results on your comp
> martin. are you using SD RAM or DDR?

SDRAM, 168 pins, which makes it even more unattractive for me to upgrade
since I would not only need another CPU and motherboard but also new memory.
That is why I am so happy with the result the FX5900XT is giving me, I feel
no need to upgrade anymore.

> Ti4800SE is a really high spec card in the geforce 4 (i think)
> [...] I could overclock it or just buy a new 6800 Ultra and
> see how sick that beast is but i dont have £400 to spend.

I don't think I would ever spend over 250 Euros on a video card, regardless
what I could afford.

Martin.

N“far
September 9th 04, 09:14 AM
Your CPU is keeping you score down, so - I wouldn“t expect much improvement
by OC your GPU and graphics ram.

Still - 3Dmark2001 is old.

Run a 3Dmark2003 test, a Doom3 timedemo or a FARCRY bench instead and see
what you get...

G.

Martin Maat
September 9th 04, 09:23 AM
Martin Maat wrote:

Okay, final score (for the moment :-) ).

I had been tweaking core clock frequency in 2D mode and noticed I can go a
lot further for 3D, they are separate settings. De software even does the
tweaking for me for 3D, silly me! Now it runs on 479/880 and I get a
3DMark2001SE score of 5409.

Martin.

sp
September 9th 04, 11:49 AM
My motherboard has a feature on it called game accelerator, this actually
provides a little more voltage (not classed as overclocking) to the RAM. My
motherboard is an Abit IS7-E. I have had Abit boards since my p2 300MHz and
they are very good boards for the price. The game accelerator is set on F1
mode which increased my score by at least 500 marks from standard. If you
are looking for a good board at a good price Abit boards can hold their own.
They can keep up with some of the higher spec boards like ASUS but i didn't
have the funds for an ASUS board plus im very happy with my Abit. If you
wanna read up on my board go to www.abit.com.tw and download the manual for
the board.

Martin, i would say that the reason your board cant go any further with the
graphics is because it is AGP 2x. Which has a limited bandwidth when
running new games. I'm not saying your machine is incapable, far from it,
you will need to upgrade your board to get AGP 8x. but still some pretty
good marks from your comp.

G, i know 3dmark2001 is old, i use it cause the tests are finished WAY
before 3dmark03 has finished and 3dmark03 is a right little hogger on CPU,
graphics and RAM. I do use it and i get about 5500 marks using that on
default settings. It just takes so long to do the tests.


sp

Martin Maat
September 9th 04, 02:55 PM
sp wrote:

> Martin, i would say that the reason your board cant go any further
> with the graphics is because it is AGP 2x. Which has a limited
> bandwidth when running new games.

I don't think so, the high bandwidth of AGP was originally intended to
enabled textures to be kept in main memory so the board wouldn't need its
own. None of the board makers ever regarded that a serious alternative for
lots of on-board memory, games typically store any texture they use in
on-board memory before they take off. I don't think the difference in AGP 2x
and AGP 8x would be noticible for any mainstream game, apart perhaps from
the difference in level load time. Someone may want to try it though to
proove me right or wrong. I cannot try it myself, my stuff only works
properly with AGP 2x.

Martin.