Quadro FX 1300 Gaming Performance

If later on you decide you need better performance you can always add a
second card in SLI for a 20% to 200% boost.

This is exactly the comparision I was wondering about going SLI over
single. But why such a broad range? Seems like it would be a lot
narrower range here. I was thinking about either going with something
like the single 8500GT (staying as close to that $100 as possible), or
an SLI setup 7600GT. Other than the awesome price I found on the
8600GT 512MB (its an open box item), I think I can put together the
SLI 7600GT setup a lot cheaper than the single 8500GT at retail
prices. That's why I was asking about the performance comparisons
that way.

Seth

The single 8600GT should perform about the same as SLI'd 7600s. Nascar 2003
has always ran pretty well for me with any card since the GF48xx series and
with all the bells and whistles maxed out with the 5xxx series cards. There
are quite a lot of the physics in the sim that tax the GPU/CPU a lot more
with some of the newer mods that are still being released but with the basic
default install you should see better performance than you are getting. Did
you remember to install the 1201 patch and fix after you installed NR2003?
You can find it with a simple Google search. There are many NR2003 sites out
there that have it for download. There is also the possibility of your
Quadro failing after your upgrade. Most failures I have had with components
happen to me that way.....:-). I still run NR2003 quite a bit on my current
system with a couple of 8800GTX cards in SLI but it is really overkill for
it. I see constant 200-300+fps but 50-60fps is plenty sufficient. I would
recomend the 8600 if it is in your budget or if you can stretch it a bit an
8800GT/GTS would give you plenty of power for some of the newer sims that
are out there. One other thing I would check first is to completely remove
your drivers and use one of the driver cleaners available at www.guru3d.com
to remove the remnants of the old drivers that try to hang around.
Reboot.......then reinstall the correct drivers for your card and see if it
helps.....


Ed

You may have a sync-timing problem with that X2. It is all over
the gaming sites that you need to install the AMD timing patch,
plus the Microsoft patch for nearly the same thing.

The next issue is not as obvious. Older games could be set
to high specs, but that did not mean they would run those
specs. They simply did not tell you that they could not. So
your high frame rate on the P4 might have been a low spec
setting frame rate. Now, your new system will run those
high specs, and you may be dragging the FX down.

I recently tested an FX 1500 against an nVidia 8600 GT
in my CAD lab ( a lot of 3D rendering goes on there ). The
8600 beat the FX by a factor of 3 in every single benchmark
I ran ... including a CATIA benchmark ( pure OpenGL ).
I'm dropping the Quadros and FireGLs until the game cards
quit kicking their butts. My newest "rendering" box uses
the X38 chipset and an 8600 GT. Aquamark3D benched
at 156,000. None of my FX cards have gone better than
83,000 ... and the engineers do email on them now. I'm
using the eVGA GF 8600 GT 512 cards ( low power so
I can run them in older boxes ). I'm paying about $130
for them now. What a hoot. You know what I paid for
my FX cards.

johns

On May 2, 3:26*pm, "Phil Weldon" wrote:
'Seth' wrote, in part:

I went to the link you provided for the FX5900 series nVidia demos.
Unless I missed something, all I found were video clips. *The clips
were smooth. *But I didn't think video clips were a good measure of
performance since there is no real 3D rendering going on. *I thought
even low end cards ran vid clips OK. *Am I missing something here?

The link to the nVidia page I providedhttp://www.nvidia.com/page/5900_demos.html
has three demos
Demos: Vulcan
Demos: Dusk
Demos: *Last Chance Gas.

All three render scenes in real time and the first two have camera,
lighting, points/wireframe/full and other controls. *They are NOT video
clips.

Not saying your wrong. *But based on everything I have ever read
regarding the comparisons between the workstation vs. gaming cards and
DirectX vs. OpenGL, your opinion is the first I've ever read stating
they should have equal performance. *Take this thread on Tom's
Hardware for example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/20...st-quadro-1500

As for OpenGL vs. direct 3D, well, you cited a post to a forum; I wouldn't
call the discussion there definitive, and your impression doesn't even fit
what information WAS there.

If later on you decide you need better performance you can always add a
second card in SLI for a 20% to 200% boost.

This is exactly the comparision I was wondering about going SLI over
single. *But why such a broad range? *Seems like it would be a lot
narrower range here.

There wide range of performance boost from SLI operation because not every
graphics task benefits by the same amount from SLI.

I was thinking about either going with something
like the single 8500GT (staying as close to that $100 as possible), or
an SLI setup 7600GT. *Other than the awesome price I found on the
8600GT 512MB (its an open box item), I think I can put together the
SLI 7600GT setup a lot cheaper than the single 8500GT at retail
prices. *That's why I was asking about the performance comparisons
that way.

That's why I was reluctant to suggest a card. *You are trying to force the
performance you want into a price box it won't fit.

Phil Weldon

"Seth" wrote in message

...



Sorry again. *I used 3DMark 2005 as you had suggested earlier in the
thread. *As the benchmark was running, it was getting between 2-5 fps
on average, with a peak at one point to a scremming 9 fps, and a dive
all the way down to 1 fps several times.... *Hence the 896 score...

I went to the link you provided for the FX5900 series nVidia demos.
Unless I missed something, all I found were video clips. *The clips
were smooth. *But I didn't think video clips were a good measure of
performance since there is no real 3D rendering going on. *I thought
even low end cards ran vid clips OK. *Am I missing something here?

Not saying your wrong. *But based on everything I have ever read
regarding the comparisons between the workstation vs. gaming cards and
DirectX vs. OpenGL, your opinion is the first I've ever read stating
they should have equal performance. *Take this thread on Tom's
Hardware for example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/20...st-quadro-1500

If later on you decide you need better performance you can always add a
second card in SLI for a 20% to 200% boost.

This is exactly the comparision I was wondering about going SLI over
single. *But why such a broad range? *Seems like it would be a lot
narrower range here. *I was thinking about either going with something
like the single 8500GT (staying as close to that $100 as possible), or
an SLI setup 7600GT. *Other than the awesome price I found on the
8600GT 512MB (its an open box item), I think I can put together the
SLI 7600GT setup a lot cheaper than the single 8500GT at retail
prices. *That's why I was asking about the performance comparisons
that way.

Seth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry for the hiatus on this subject.... Been so busy I have hardly
turned on my computer in a couple weeks....

So, I bought a MSI GF8500GT 512MB and installed it. Loaded the latest
nVidia driver, 175.16. Ran the benchmark again and got 6576 3DMarks.
This is considerably better than the 896 3DMarks with my Quadro
FX1300. But its still way on the low side of the scale under "similar
systems" when I viewed the results.

I then ran my game. Overall, it performed a little better, but not
significantly so. I get between 50-60 fps now, which it quite
playable now. But I still get the fps spikes that I described
earlier. With this old of a game, I would have expected more even
with a mid-range card like this. My other (old) computer gets only
slightly less frames with a P4 1.8GHz and a GeForce 4 TI4600 card.

I'll keep messing with it though. Maybe I'll eventually get it...


Seth

On May 3, 1:14*pm, "Ed Medlin" ed@ edmedlin.com wrote:
If later on you decide you need better performance you can always add a
second card in SLI for a 20% to 200% boost.

This is exactly the comparision I was wondering about going SLI over
single. *But why such a broad range? *Seems like it would be a lot
narrower range here. *I was thinking about either going with something
like the single 8500GT (staying as close to that $100 as possible), or
an SLI setup 7600GT. *Other than the awesome price I found on the
8600GT 512MB (its an open box item), I think I can put together the
SLI 7600GT setup a lot cheaper than the single 8500GT at retail
prices. *That's why I was asking about the performance comparisons
that way.

Seth

The single 8600GT should perform about the same as SLI'd 7600s. Nascar 2003
has always ran pretty well for me with any card since the GF48xx series and
with all the bells and whistles maxed out with the 5xxx series cards. There
are quite a lot of the physics in the sim that tax the GPU/CPU a lot more
with some of the newer mods that are still being released but with the basic
default install you should see better performance than you are getting. Did
you remember to install the 1201 patch and fix after you installed NR2003?
You can find it with a simple Google search. There are many NR2003 sites out
there that have it for download. There is also the possibility of your
Quadro failing after your upgrade. Most failures I have had with components
happen to me that way.....:-). I still run NR2003 quite a bit on my current
system with a couple of 8800GTX cards in SLI but it is really overkill for
it. I see constant 200-300+fps but 50-60fps is plenty sufficient. I would
recomend the 8600 if it is in your budget or if you can stretch it a bit an
8800GT/GTS would give you plenty of power for some of the newer sims that
are out there. One other thing I would check first is to completely remove
your drivers and use one of the driver cleaners available atwww.guru3d.com
to remove the remnants of the old drivers that try to hang around.
Reboot.......then reinstall the correct drivers for your card and see if it
helps.....

Ed

I have patched the game. But, you bring up a very good point. For
the past year+ I have been using the Simmodified Mod. Now that I
think about it, I have heard it said that this mod does tax the GPU a
little more than default install of the game. How much more, I have
no idea.

But that still doesn't explain why I used to get 200+ fps on my old
system, using the exact same mod and video card, but can't get there
with my new system.

I'm beginning to think there might be something wrong with my system
such as a compatibility issue or something. The only thing that I put
on my new motherboard that wasn't on the compatibility list was my
memory. But I bought it because the price was right and there were
plenty of reviews with this same setup that were good.

I'll keep digging...

Seth

On May 12, 2:54*am, johns wrote:
You may have a sync-timing problem with that X2. It is all over
the gaming sites that you need to install the AMD timing patch,
plus the Microsoft patch for nearly the same thing.

The next issue is not as obvious. Older games could be set
to high specs, but that did not mean they would run those
specs. They simply did not tell you that they could not. So
your high frame rate on the P4 might have been a low spec
setting frame rate. Now, your new system will run those
high specs, and you may be dragging the FX down.

I recently tested an FX 1500 against an nVidia 8600 GT
in my CAD lab ( a lot of 3D rendering goes on there ). The
8600 beat the FX by a factor of 3 in every single benchmark
I ran ... including a CATIA benchmark ( pure OpenGL ).
I'm dropping the Quadros and FireGLs until the game cards
quit kicking their butts. *My newest "rendering" box uses
the X38 chipset and an 8600 GT. Aquamark3D benched
at 156,000. None of my FX cards have gone better than
83,000 ... and the engineers do email on them now. I'm
using the eVGA GF 8600 GT 512 cards ( low power so
I can run them in older boxes ). I'm paying about $130
for them now. What a hoot. You know what I paid for
my FX cards.

johns

Hmmm.... Never heard of this timing problem with the X2's. From what
I've briefly read, it appears to be quit an old fix. But I can't seem
to find anything about it on AMD's site... wonder if its even still a
valid fix for more recent processors/OS service packs?!?!

As for the Microsoft patch, I assume you are talking about the Hotfix
KB896256. Is this correct? I guess I could try it....

The next issue also sounds interesting. But I don't really understand
what you mean, or how to check or even workaround this, if in fact
there is something to this. Could you elaborate please?

Seth

On May 12, 2:54*am, johns wrote:
You may have a sync-timing problem with that X2. It is all over
the gaming sites that you need to install the AMD timing patch,
plus the Microsoft patch for nearly the same thing.

The next issue is not as obvious. Older games could be set
to high specs, but that did not mean they would run those
specs. They simply did not tell you that they could not. So
your high frame rate on the P4 might have been a low spec
setting frame rate. Now, your new system will run those
high specs, and you may be dragging the FX down.

I recently tested an FX 1500 against an nVidia 8600 GT
in my CAD lab ( a lot of 3D rendering goes on there ). The
8600 beat the FX by a factor of 3 in every single benchmark
I ran ... including a CATIA benchmark ( pure OpenGL ).
I'm dropping the Quadros and FireGLs until the game cards
quit kicking their butts. *My newest "rendering" box uses
the X38 chipset and an 8600 GT. Aquamark3D benched
at 156,000. None of my FX cards have gone better than
83,000 ... and the engineers do email on them now. I'm
using the eVGA GF 8600 GT 512 cards ( low power so
I can run them in older boxes ). I'm paying about $130
for them now. What a hoot. You know what I paid for
my FX cards.

johns

DUDE!!!! I know its been weeks. But I'm just now getting to try this
out... WOW is all I've got to say... I did some more research and
found this long, looong thread (well over a year):
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=81429
It not only mentioned doing the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer (which
addresses the problem that you mention), it also addresses doing a MS
Hotfix, and an AMD processor driver.

I decided to try all these, and not only gained frames, the fps
doesn't spike around anymore like its been doing. It runs very
stable, only fluctuating with what you would expect with the amount of
graphics on the screen. Still can't quite get the 100-200fps that I
did on my old system. But its so good now, I'm not complaining
anymore....

I tried running 3DMark05 once after all this to see how much it
improved it. But it crashed after the first sequence. It's late, so
maybe I will try again tomorrow and let you all know the results....

I thank you for mentioning this to me. I had never heard of this
problem. Although this is the first AMD processor I've ever had,
too... Overall, I think I still like Intel over AMD just due to the
solid, robust performance I've always gotten out of them. Ya rarely
ever have to tweak anything, update drivers/utilities, just to get
them to run right. Just plug 'em in and they go..... I know they
aren't as easy to overclock as AMD. But I don't get into that
anyway.... I believe in the KISS method. So my next system I'll
probably go back to Intel... (probably years from now though)

Thanks again,
Seth