If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quadro FX 1300 Gaming Performance
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quadro FX 1300 Gaming Performance
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quadro FX 1300 Gaming Performance
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quadro FX 1300 Gaming Performance
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quadro FX 1300 Gaming Performance
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1300 | [email protected] | Nvidia Videocards | 3 | August 9th 06 03:37 PM |
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M for gaming? | [email protected] | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | June 19th 06 01:14 PM |
Slow Performance Quadro Fx 1000 Dual Monitor | Sub | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | November 4th 04 04:41 PM |
DirectX 8.1 on nVidia Quadro FX 1300 problem! | Yellong Cao | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | October 13th 04 06:29 PM |
Quadro 1300 Vs GeForce 6800 ultras | John | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | September 20th 04 03:15 AM |