Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Graphics performance problem

  1. #1
    Fox
    Fox is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts

    Graphics performance problem

    Hi there people,

    Installed my FX5900 Ultra yesterday but I'm only getting 13480 3dmarks. I completely removed the Radeon drivers before I installed the card, and removed all the residual files left behind etc etc. I'm using the Det 45.23's and I've tried reinstalling them to no avail. All other settings - ie AGP rate, etc etc, are the same from when I had my Radeon - which got my 15300 3dmarks.

    I'm running an XP2700+, KX7-333, 768Mb Corsair XMS2700 and Windows 2000 Pro.

    Anything I can try before I reformat? I've tried the obvious things like disabling VSync, ensuring FSAA is off, etc etc.

    BMW 530i Sport | Ford Mondeo Ghia X RSAP

  2. #2
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    35,157
    Thanks
    3,105
    Thanked
    3,138 times in 1,916 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1050
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy
    I think for a 2700 thats about right...the big scores come with P4 3gig and over I believe...

    I sure someone will be able to help you Tweak it...BUT...whatas it like in GAMES?
    Real life.....is it lovely or what?

    Benchies are only half the story

    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  3. #3
    Fox
    Fox is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    I was getting 14500 with my Radeon 9700 Pro hence the concern.

    Swapping drivers has boosted it to 14300 which is considerably more healthy but still not quite what I was expecting.

    Interestingly, I tried overclocking - I asked it to auto detect, it picked 498mhz core and 945mhz memory - benched, and I got 13900 3dmarks. Removed the overclocking, and Back to 14300..

    I've used driverclean etc. May try a reformat tommorrow.

    BMW 530i Sport | Ford Mondeo Ghia X RSAP

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    House without a red door in Birmingham
    Posts
    1,595
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    A fresh install is pretty wise from time to time and with how optimised (and risidual) gfx drivers are a gfx upgrade is a good time anyway.

    The Rad9700PRO is VERY close in perf to the Rad9800PRO which in turn is very close to GF-FX5900ultra. 3Dmark2001SE was never really designed with mammoth cards like this in mind and doesn't get near to maximising half of there potential. Perhaps running 1600x1200x32 with AA+AF would stress your card a little more and therefore show the diffs between gfx cards more easily, even so I wouldn't expect the diffs between Rad9700pro and GF-FX5900ultra to be that much anyway. The most notable gain would have come from an even faster CPU but since your setup can (and could have before) play all games out there and due out in the next 12 months at maximum details in high res with AA+AF it really doesn't matter. You also have to consider that ATI's DX9 implimentation can fall back to DX8.1 whereas GF-FX are almost certain to fall back to DX8.0. The diffs are generally minimal but 8.1 is quite significantly more efficient if used fully, you may find a bm like 3Dmark03 more testing esp in high end systems.

  5. #5
    "Are you local?" Ravens Nest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Royston Vasey
    Posts
    1,653
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    77 times in 45 posts
    • Ravens Nest's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z270 Gaming K3
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 6600K
      • Memory:
      • 16gb DDR4 3200mhz
      • Storage:
      • 1tb Crucial 500 SSD, 256GB Micron M550 SSD, 2TB Hitachi HDD.
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte NVIDIA GTX 970 G1 Gaming Edition
      • PSU:
      • 550W Corsair
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Home 64bit
    Swapping drivers has boosted it to 14300 which is considerably more healthy but still not quite what I was expecting. The score increased probably because Nvidia have ways of detecting 3Dmarks when it is running and lower image quality and other settings to increase the overall score..

    I think the 45.23 drivers have the optimizations for 3dmarks taken out hence the lower score.

    Did you use drivercleaner in safe-mode, if you didnt then it may have not cleaned all the old drivers out.

    Also use regcleaner to remove any registry entrys for ATI?.

    Perhaps you need to remove and re-install the GART driver for your motherboard.
    "Mmm... I want you for my wife!"
    "Autom...Sprow...Canna...Tik banna...Sandwol...But no sera smee?"
    "Of course you can. We would love for you to join us."

  6. #6
    See you space cowboy!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    372
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Can I have your FX 5900u please lol?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    I've got a setup with 512 Pc2700, an xp2600, a 9700gold (half way to Pro) all plugged into an nf7-s...at last count it was yielding a good 14600 3dmarks.

    What about the 3dmark03 score?? how does that compare?

  8. #8
    "Are you local?" Ravens Nest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Royston Vasey
    Posts
    1,653
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    77 times in 45 posts
    • Ravens Nest's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z270 Gaming K3
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 6600K
      • Memory:
      • 16gb DDR4 3200mhz
      • Storage:
      • 1tb Crucial 500 SSD, 256GB Micron M550 SSD, 2TB Hitachi HDD.
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte NVIDIA GTX 970 G1 Gaming Edition
      • PSU:
      • 550W Corsair
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Home 64bit
    Originally posted by Byatt
    I've got a setup with 512 Pc2700, an xp2600, a 9700gold (half way to Pro) all plugged into an nf7-s...at last count it was yielding a good 14600 3dmarks.

    What about the 3dmark03 score?? how does that compare?
    I have 1024 PC2700 an XP2200+ at 166 FSB a 9700np in a epox 8rda+ motherboard, i get 13070 in 3dmarks 2001

    I would have thought that Fox's 5900 ultra and other components would kill my score but it doesnt really, strange..
    "Mmm... I want you for my wife!"
    "Autom...Sprow...Canna...Tik banna...Sandwol...But no sera smee?"
    "Of course you can. We would love for you to join us."

  9. #9
    Fox
    Fox is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    Just reformatted. Everything is now nice and cleanly installed, but I still scored just 14500 in 3dmark2001, more or less exactly what i had with the 9700 Pro.

    Overclocking the card to 498/948Mhz REDUCED the score by 500 points.

    3dmark2003 scored 5500 - an increase of 900 over the Radeon.

    BMW 530i Sport | Ford Mondeo Ghia X RSAP

  10. #10
    Happy Now?
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cardiff Home | Manchester Uni
    Posts
    1,326
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Ti4200, 2.5gig P4, 512meg PC2700 - 12500 3dmarks here?!
    I dont like sig pics so i turn off sigs Which doesnt help when i dont know what ive written here! DOH!

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    House without a red door in Birmingham
    Posts
    1,595
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Well various scores I got in 3Dmark2001SE using a £45 XP1700+ TbredB were...

    9500PRO @ 350/310:
    2.20ghz 400FSB (XP3000+?) 14258
    2.08ghz 333FSB (XP2600+) . 12677
    1.67ghz 266FSB (XP2000+) . 11209 (9500 'only' @ 303/303)

    4200 stock @ 250/444:
    1.67ghz 266FSB (XP2000+) 9878
    950mhz 200FSB (Duron950) 5321 (KT133 & PC133)

    Still I still think it's more useful to be using 3Dmark03 on the higher end cards but be warned that CPU and FSB speeds play little part...

    1.67ghz 266FSB (XP2000+) 4010 (9500PRO 350/310)

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    99
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I had exactly the same problem the other way about.

    I went from an Asus GeForce 3 to a Radeon 9800 pro and when I installed it and removed all the drivers, etc. It didn't perform very well.

    I decided to format after I had no other option and now it works fine.

    Although 1 big annoying thing.

    Asus claim the A7V8X has AGP 8x support, but they don't say *how* poor the performance is with it in 8x agp mode. My pc would conatntly crash until I turned it down to 4x agp mode, it made me kinda mad.

    I suggest you format. You will end up with a cleaner system anyway.

    And good choice of gpu btw, I hate this 9800 pro, wish I'd went with the 5900 ultra instead.
    Acer Travelmate 8104WMLi
    P-M 2.0 Ghz
    2Gb DDR533 Corsair RAM
    100Gb 7200rpm Seagtae HD
    128Mb ATi x700 Mobility

  13. #13
    Happy Now?
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cardiff Home | Manchester Uni
    Posts
    1,326
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    If u dont want that 9800 pro id happily relieve you of it and bring it into a loving home
    I dont like sig pics so i turn off sigs Which doesnt help when i dont know what ive written here! DOH!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    House without a red door in Birmingham
    Posts
    1,595
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    St3v3 I needed a fresh install when I went from a GF2MX400 to a GF4TI4200 and I decided to save some time when I went to a Rad9500pro and simply did a fresh install from the off. However the problem you experienced was a common one which related to an AGP8x ATI card in an AGP8x VIA KT400 mobo. Because both companies produced their AGP8x parts before there were other AGP8x components to use together there was an unforseen incompatibility. The later ATI cards along with later VIA drivers seemed to have fixed this, although IIRC you still needed ot play around with a few settings / install sequences to get things to work smoothly. Still since there's practicly ZERO perf hit in using AGP4x instead of AGP8x it wasn't that big a deal ... but damn annoying YES!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •