Quadro FX 1300 Gaming Performance

On May 1, 12:06*am, "Augustus" wrote:
All in all it is a drastic improvement. But even if I can never get
the performance that I had in my old system, I'd really like to get it
just a little better. *I'd like to get it so that I can at least turn
all my game detail on, my game screen resolution higher, and still
have sufficient frames to play. *I'm still open to more
suggestions....

Glad it's working better for you. You are correct that the game should run
much faster than that. Odd. It's not multicore aware, but it should at least
be as fast as your old P4 2.8 box. Do you have any other tasks running or
anything going on eating CPU cycles? You should patch it to the latest and
last update, but I can't see that this would make a huge difference.http://www.gamershell.com/download_3665.shtml

I kill everything not needed from the task bar before playing (AV,
Defender, Google Updater, Search indexer, etc.). Then I go into the
task manager and kill a bunch of other stuff that I feel safe to kill
also. There is probably several more tasks that I could kill in there
too. But I'm just not brave enough to do so if I'm not 100% sure what
it is. Probably wouldn't be very significant anyway, after all the
other stuff is turned off.

I patch the game as soon as I install. So that's not an issue.

What blows my mind is that I KNOW the card is capable of super fast
frames with this game. nVidia will not offer any help because its not
a gaming card. I can understand that, I guess. I just have to hit on
the correct combination of settings I guess. I have read through
forums on the game regarding graphics issues, and implemented all of
the tweaks that I could. Most of these are in the game .ini files and
such though.

I don't do a whole lot of 3d modeling anymore at home since I changed
jobs. Therefore, I had actually considered buying an actual gaming
card to replace this one. Just don't have a lot of funds to do so.
What are your opinions on that anyway? Do you think it would be worth
it to buy a newer, mid-grade GeForce card? Or should my Quadro 1300
still perform better?

P.S. Just raced a race and the fps seemed to average in the mid to
upper 30's. I had made an adjustment in the nVidia control panel just
prior to playing. Guess I will have to undo that change and try
something else.

Seth

I don't do a whole lot of 3d modeling anymore at home since I changed
obs. Therefore, I had actually considered buying an actual gaming
card to replace this one. Just don't have a lot of funds to do so.
What are your opinions on that anyway? Do you think it would be worth
it to buy a newer, mid-grade GeForce card? Or should my Quadro 1300
still perform better?

Given your statement about your needs and wants, I'd ditch it. There's so
much better out there at every price point that will stun you in comparison.
I picked up an Asus 9600GT 512Mb card for a new build I did for my
son....Newegg has this ECS 9600GT 512Mb for $140 with a $25 rebate that
brings it down to $115. Can't beat that. Well, you can at www.ncixus.com but
their price relies on a $60 rebate that may never appear.
http://snipurl.com/26len for the ECS unit.
I've compared his Asus 9600GT with my 8800GT OC unit in the same box and
although the 8800GT is faster, it's not hugely faster. It plays Crysis at
1440x900 with everthing maxed on his AMD 5000+ (3.0Ghz) budget built.
Generates a 3DMark of around 9000. Mine hits just under 11,000 in the same
box. It does 10,400 in my Opteron 185 at 2.9Ghz. 8800GT 512Mb's are hard to
beat for value/perf as well. Hit the right deal and they can be in the $170
range.

'Seth' wrote, in part:
What blows my mind is that I KNOW the card is capable of super fast
frames with this game. nVidia will not offer any help because its not
a gaming card. I can understand that, I guess. I just have to hit on
the correct combination of settings I guess. I have read through
forums on the game regarding graphics issues, and implemented all of
the tweaks that I could. Most of these are in the game .ini files and
such though.
______

#1. You really should run the benchmarks. Until you do that you really
have no objective base for comparison, no way to differentiate between the
game, the card or the OS as the problem. "The way it used to play" (and,
according to your earlier post, at a different resolution and with higher
quality settings - "But this was also with a little more graphics detail
turned on in the game, and a slightly higher resolution") is not objective
enough to be vey useful in troubleshooting. Random 'tweaking' (which seems
to be your approach) is not the way to troubleshoot. Until you provide more
troubleshooting information there's not much anyone here can say but "good
luck" - except for 'DaveW' maybe B^)

#2. Any nVidia 8x00 card will outperform your FX 1300 handily (but maybe
not for NASCAR 2003 - BECAUSE IT IS NOT YET CLEAR WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.)

#3. Learn to use a newsreader for Usenet (you already have Outlook Express
which will do); going through googlegroups is more awkward for you and for
those who reply to your posts (and may subject you to snide remarks.)

Phil Weldon

"Seth" wrote in message
...

..
..
..
What blows my mind is that I KNOW the card is capable of super fast
frames with this game. nVidia will not offer any help because its not
a gaming card. I can understand that, I guess. I just have to hit on
the correct combination of settings I guess. I have read through
forums on the game regarding graphics issues, and implemented all of
the tweaks that I could. Most of these are in the game .ini files and
such though.
..
..
..

On May 1, 2:14*am, "Phil Weldon" wrote:
'Seth' wrote, in part: What blows my mind is that I KNOW the card is capable of super fast
frames with this game. *nVidia will not offer any help because its not
a gaming card. *I can understand that, I guess. *I just have to hit on
the correct combination of settings I guess. *I have read through
forums on the game regarding graphics issues, and implemented all of
the tweaks that I could. *Most of these are in the game .ini files and
such though.

______

#1. *You really should run the benchmarks. *Until you do that you really
have no objective base for comparison, no way to differentiate between the
game, the card or the OS as the problem. *"The way it used to play" (and,
according to your earlier post, at a different resolution and with higher
quality settings *- *"But this was also with a little more graphics detail
turned on in the game, and a slightly higher resolution") is not objective
enough to be vey useful in troubleshooting. *Random 'tweaking' (which seems
to be your approach) is not the way to troubleshoot. *Until you provide more
troubleshooting information there's not much anyone here can say but "good
luck" - except for 'DaveW' maybe B^)

#2. *Any nVidia 8x00 card will outperform your FX 1300 handily (but maybe
not for NASCAR 2003 - BECAUSE IT IS NOT YET CLEAR WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.)

#3. *Learn to use a newsreader for Usenet (you already have Outlook Express
which will do); going through googlegroups is more awkward for you and for
those who reply to your posts (and may subject you to snide remarks.)

Phil Weldon

"Seth" wrote in message

...

.
.
. What blows my mind is that I KNOW the card is capable of super fast
frames with this game. *nVidia will not offer any help because its not
a gaming card. *I can understand that, I guess. *I just have to hit on
the correct combination of settings I guess. *I have read through
forums on the game regarding graphics issues, and implemented all of
the tweaks that I could. *Most of these are in the game .ini files and
such though.

.
.
.

#1. Ok, I ran the benchmark. The first time I ran it, I got about
1:50 into it and it crashed. I then turned off all of the tasks that
I normally do when playing Nascar2003, re-ran it, and got a whopping
896. But I believe I may know why. I might be completely wrong (not
a wiz on this subject, but not totally ignorant either), but I assume
that this benchmark tests Direct 3D capability. My Quadro FX1300 is
admittidly weak on Direct 3D. I think pretty much all CAD cards are.
Their strong point is OpenGL. The game that I play will run in either
Direct 3D or OpenGL. I obviously have it set to run in OpenGL. Plus,
all the forums on this game seem to agree that it runs better in
OpenGL. Does any of this even make any sense?

#2. I am seriously considering a video card upgrade to a Gaming
card. I would prefer to not have to do that though. But if I do, I
tend to be partial to nVidia cards though. So that is probably what I
would go with. If I do this, I was contemplating what would be
better: Buy a single mid-range 8X00 card like you suggested, or buy 2
slightly lower end SLI cards like a 7600GT (remember money is an issue
here). I am not sure how the SLI benefits performance. I know its
faster campared to a single identical card. I'm just not that
familiar with how much faster. Any opinions on this? By the way, I
just found an MSI NX8600GT 512MB fanless for under $50....

#3. Sorry about the Google Groups thing. I've seen other people
complaining about this too. I personally find it easier to use. But
I guess I need to bite the bullet and start using an actual newsreader
soon....

On May 1, 2:06*am, "Augustus" wrote:
I don't do a whole lot of 3d modeling anymore at home since I changed
obs. *Therefore, I had actually considered buying an actual gaming
card to replace this one. *Just don't have a lot of funds to do so.
What are your opinions on that anyway? *Do you think it would be worth
it to buy a newer, mid-grade GeForce card? *Or should my Quadro 1300
still perform better?

Given your statement about your needs and wants, I'd ditch it. There's so
much better out there at every price point that will stun you in comparison.

"Seth" wrote in message

...
..
..
(snipped because I don't want to go to the trouble again of fixing the
googlegroups message quoting)
_____

I hesitate to suggest a card for you to purchase because you've set such a
severe limit on price. Sort of a rule of thumb: don't expect a video card
to work well with a game that costs more then the card.

You say you ran 'a benchmark' and posted the result; WHICH benchmark?
Without that context '896' is meaningless.

Did run the nVidia demos designed for the FX5900 series? Results?

You think wrong about the OpenGL vs. DirectX 3D; the Quadro FX1300 and them
FX 5950 should perform equally well with the same drivers.

A MSI 8600 GT 512MB card for less than $50? I don't even want to know where
you found that price (being as it is about 50% less than the going rate at
reputable .com vendors.

A 8600 GT 256 MB or 512 MB card would be a good baseline choice; it should
give performance of several times what you get now IF THE PROBLEM IS NOT
WITH THE GAME. If later on you decide you need better performance you can
always add a second card in SLI for a 20% to 200% boost.

Phil Weldon

"Seth" wrote in message
...
On May 1, 2:14 am, "Phil Weldon" wrote:
'Seth' wrote, in part: What blows my mind is that I KNOW the card is
capable of super fast
frames with this game. nVidia will not offer any help because its not
a gaming card. I can understand that, I guess. I just have to hit on
the correct combination of settings I guess. I have read through
forums on the game regarding graphics issues, and implemented all of
the tweaks that I could. Most of these are in the game .ini files and
such though.

______

#1. You really should run the benchmarks. Until you do that you really
have no objective base for comparison, no way to differentiate between the
game, the card or the OS as the problem. "The way it used to play" (and,
according to your earlier post, at a different resolution and with higher
quality settings - "But this was also with a little more graphics detail
turned on in the game, and a slightly higher resolution") is not objective
enough to be vey useful in troubleshooting. Random 'tweaking' (which seems
to be your approach) is not the way to troubleshoot. Until you provide
more
troubleshooting information there's not much anyone here can say but "good
luck" - except for 'DaveW' maybe B^)

#2. Any nVidia 8x00 card will outperform your FX 1300 handily (but maybe
not for NASCAR 2003 - BECAUSE IT IS NOT YET CLEAR WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.)

#3. Learn to use a newsreader for Usenet (you already have Outlook Express
which will do); going through googlegroups is more awkward for you and for
those who reply to your posts (and may subject you to snide remarks.)

Phil Weldon

"Seth" wrote in message

...

.
.
. What blows my mind is that I KNOW the card is capable of super fast
frames with this game. nVidia will not offer any help because its not
a gaming card. I can understand that, I guess. I just have to hit on
the correct combination of settings I guess. I have read through
forums on the game regarding graphics issues, and implemented all of
the tweaks that I could. Most of these are in the game .ini files and
such though.

.
.
.

#1. Ok, I ran the benchmark. The first time I ran it, I got about
1:50 into it and it crashed. I then turned off all of the tasks that
I normally do when playing Nascar2003, re-ran it, and got a whopping
896. But I believe I may know why. I might be completely wrong (not
a wiz on this subject, but not totally ignorant either), but I assume
that this benchmark tests Direct 3D capability. My Quadro FX1300 is
admittidly weak on Direct 3D. I think pretty much all CAD cards are.
Their strong point is OpenGL. The game that I play will run in either
Direct 3D or OpenGL. I obviously have it set to run in OpenGL. Plus,
all the forums on this game seem to agree that it runs better in
OpenGL. Does any of this even make any sense?

#2. I am seriously considering a video card upgrade to a Gaming
card. I would prefer to not have to do that though. But if I do, I
tend to be partial to nVidia cards though. So that is probably what I
would go with. If I do this, I was contemplating what would be
better: Buy a single mid-range 8X00 card like you suggested, or buy 2
slightly lower end SLI cards like a 7600GT (remember money is an issue
here). I am not sure how the SLI benefits performance. I know its
faster campared to a single identical card. I'm just not that
familiar with how much faster. Any opinions on this? By the way, I
just found an MSI NX8600GT 512MB fanless for under $50....

#3. Sorry about the Google Groups thing. I've seen other people
complaining about this too. I personally find it easier to use. But
I guess I need to bite the bullet and start using an actual newsreader
soon....

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

Buy a single mid-range 8X00 card like you suggested, or buy 2
slightly lower end SLI cards like a 7600GT (remember money is an issue
here). I am not sure how the SLI benefits performance. I know its
faster campared to a single identical card. I'm just not that
familiar with how much faster. Any opinions on this? By the way, I
just found an MSI NX8600GT 512MB fanless for under $50....

Your 3DMark score is right in line with expectations. I think the game is
the issue. Hard to dig up old similar systems and benches but I found
this....

This AMD A64 4000+ 2.4Ghz K8N Neo2 test box got a default run of 1197 in
3DMark05 at 1280x1024. It did 928 at 1600x1200. I would expect a 5950 Ultra
256Mb card (475 core /950 memory clocks) to be a considerably faster card
than a reference 128Mb Quadro 1300 with 350 / 550 clockings utilizing the
same NV38 core. Please note the 1280x1024 game framrates this 5950 Ultra is
getting in games like Doom 3 and HL2 timedemo (both low 30's with no AA/AF).
Aquamark 3 gets 38 fps at 1280x1024. Consider that none of these games are
multicore aware, and that a single core A64 4000+ has a 2.4Ghz clock speed
and a 1Mb L2 lache.

If you buy a video card that's worth less than $100, you get what you pay
for. For $50-60, you get a productivity card with pretensions.

Sorry, forgot to include link:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...211_3439301__8

'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 provided
http://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