Rocky Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I replaced my aging GeForce 2 Mx 64Mb with a Radeon 9500 Pro 128Mb - and was a bit annnoyed to see Raven Shield running worse than on the old GeForce! I have posted all the benchmarks comparisons I took on this page. Although the Radeon scored much better in all the 3dmark tests, and FRAPS says I am getting better FPS on Ghost Recon - it doesn't feel like that. GR feels like I am running in soup. The FPS I recorded from Raven Shield on the Radeon are actually WORSE for Raven Shield than the GeForce, how the heck can that be? Raven Shield is noticeable worse to play with the Radeon, and extremely juddery in simple locations. Something must be wrong here?! Anyone Radeon tech heads here? Why does the Radeon give poorer performance in these 2 games, even though the 3DMark game tests seem to show the new card is vastly superior to the old GeForce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Odd indeed. First place I'd check is the Smartgart tab in the gfx options. Make sure it's set at 4x or 8x if your board supports it. Next, you might want to look at the options on the DirectX and OpenGL tabs. It maybe forcing a lot of filtering or AA when it doesn't have to. 7000 in 3dmark 2001 is definately low, something isn't right. It should be able to hit 11k at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 7000 in 3dmark 2001 is definately low, something isn't right. It should be able to hit 11k at least. Yeh?! Okay, now I have something to aim for I will do some tweaking, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 First place I'd check is the Smartgart tab in the gfx options. Make sure it's set at 4x or 8x if your board supports it. Can't find that tab, can you point me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 What mobo do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 What mobo do you have? P4 Titan Award bios Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Under advanced display options, your looking for this: If its not there, download the latest drivers/display panel for your card, following instructions for installing Ati cards that I posted on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 If its not there, download the latest drivers/display panel for your card, following instructions for installing Ati cards that I posted on this board. Ah yes, had to download the new panel, thanks. The Fast write was on, I switched it off and will see if I notice any difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Ranger Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 3DMark 03 3208 Total Score    3DMark2001 SE Score 7156 Interesting stats here. You landed 1860 points ahead of me with my GF4 4200 64mb card in '03 bench, but I got 8025 in 2001SE. That's weird. Oh well, maybe the 9800PRO will help the scores some tsk tsk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa FSB Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Well just last week i upgraded my Gf4Ti4200 to a Radeon9500Pro made by Hercules. So to get to the point make shure you have FSAA set to 2x or none ,Fast Write from bios enabled. In RvS demo with FSAA 4x enabled i get about 15-20FPS with FSAA 2x i get 50-60 FPS. I have a Athlon XP 2000+ 512Mb DDR333 Radeon 9500Pro 120MB Maxtor 40Gb ATA133 MSI KT4 with AGP 8x. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Like I said, the performance he was getting was odd. Heck, I'm pushing my system to its limits and got 10003 3dmarks out of an 8500 Perhaps some detonator driver remanents are causing some problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted April 2, 2003 Author Share Posted April 2, 2003 Like I said, the performance he was getting was odd. Heck, I'm pushing my system to its limits and got 10003 3dmarks out of an 8500 Perhaps some detonator driver remanents are causing some problems? My Processor is a P4 1.5Ghz, prolly why my marks are so far behind yours. The Det Drivers are well gone, according to NFR anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schenkanator Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Just curious, for the same money, should I get a 128mb TI4200 or a ATI 9500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa FSB Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 @Rocky: I found the main problem : Disable TRUEFORM i had enabled it and forgot about it and played RvS demo the average FPS was 12 so igot in to the settings for Direct3D and experimented with 3DMark2000 and this is how i fount what was dragging the sytem now in RvS demo i have an average of 40FPS. @Schenkanator: get a Radeon 9500Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted April 3, 2003 Author Share Posted April 3, 2003 @Schenkanator: get a Radeon 9500Pro Or save yourself a packet, and get the plain old Radeon 9500, then search the web for the software fix, or buy a resistor and do the hardware fix, and turn it into a 9700! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Ranger Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Overclocking works too.... I'm not sure about the chipsets though. I know the 9800 and the 9600 are on the new R350 (RV350 for the 9600, V=value), but the 9700 is on the R300. However, (correct me if I am wrong) the 9700 has 8 pixel pipelines and the 9500 has 4. So you won't be getting the true performance of a 9700PRO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted April 3, 2003 Author Share Posted April 3, 2003 the 9700 has 8 pixel pipelines and the 9500 has 4. So you won't be getting the true performance of a 9700PRO. All 8 are on the board - you just need to activate them, that's what I read today anyway.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted April 4, 2003 Share Posted April 4, 2003 The reasoning behind converting a 9500 to 9700 specs is because the early 9500 boards were 'detuned' 9700 boards to help stimulate demand. Now, if I'm not mistaken, they have corrected this and it's the same as the Pro version, just less powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa FSB Posted April 4, 2003 Share Posted April 4, 2003 Where did you find the tweaking things i heard that you can turn a 9500Pro to a 9700 How ???? So did turning TRUESFORM off worked??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted April 4, 2003 Author Share Posted April 4, 2003 Where did you find the tweaking things i heard that you can turn a 9500Pro to a 9700 How ???? So did turning TRUESFORM off worked??? No, not a Pro, only the basic 9500 has the exact same board as the 9700. TRUEFORM was already off Alfa, but for somereason the "Use Custom Settings" button had de-selected, so I have reselected it and things seem a bit smoother now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebite1967 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 from what i read recently on a forum , you have a 30% chance of modding a 9500 to a 9700 without picture anomolies the guess seems to be some of the 9500 chips are actualy 9700 chips with pipeline issues, just wish i could find the link about 20 pages on this topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specter Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 As soon as I get some money, Im going back to nvidia. The drivers for my ati have been nothing but trouble, and they are on the 3rd version of the drivers in 6 weeks. Currently, they say, the catalyst 3.2 should resolve issues. Im about to find out. ATI has always made good hardware, but they have never been able to write a driver worth a damn. Plus I cant get a driver for linux for it. This ati card was the worst money I ever spent. I also run a P4 1.8, 512 PC 2700 DDR RAM. Also, Rocky. Dont enable AGP 8x. It has been proven to actually run a little slower with most current software, than AGP4x, according to Maximum PC magazine. They ran a whole series of tests on it, and AGP8x was slower than 4x. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Phantom, chances are they also used a P4 board. What difference this makes is each board manufacturer utilizes technology differently. Try it, then decide if it's slower/faster. Ati makes linux drivers last time I checked, might be according to what card you're using. This is my 3rd Ati card, never had problems out of drivers, new or old. Could be hardware conflicts on your machine combined with driver issues. Anyway, you won't be seeing my buying a nvidia card anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specter Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Ok Rook. I need some help then. Here is my system. I know, I know. It's off the shelf, but I'm strapped for cash for about another 90 days, so here goes. HP Pavillion 750n Pentium4 1.6 Ghz 512 MB PC2700 DDR ATI Radeon 9000 Pro128 DDR 260 GB worth of Hard Drives, running on their own Power Supply System Power supply runs only Mobo and Video Card Agp is 4x On the Smartgart tab of ATI Control panel, agp4x selected, fast writes on Direct3d tab - set for custom settings, smoothvision set for performance and 2x sampling, anistropic filtering set for app preference, because if you dont, R6 Ravenshield will return a GPF and reboot your machine,Texture pref set for performance,mipmap also set for performance, wait for vert sync and trueform are off. I have updated my Bios, am using Catalyst 3.2 drivers(although had the same results with 3.0 and 3.1, no change), DirectX9.0a, and a fresh, clean FFR of XP Pro. Game settings for GR and Raven Shield, all are Medium, with no shadows, and low grenade smoke detail, at 800X600, 16 bit color, and Frame Rates average between 16-24 FPS. If I set everything to high, med or low, there is no performance change. Runs the same at all detail levels. 3DMark 2001SE gives me 7200, and when I play Freelancer or Unreal Tournament, I average 60-70 FPS Needless to say, I got no help from Ubi, not even a reply Snakebite1967 has been tryin to help me find info. Just ask him how frustrated I am. My old GF4 MX400 64mb ddr ran faster than this card. But my other games run fine. Freelancer is a very rich game graphics wise as is Earth and Beyond, and they run great so far as I can tell. Can you help, or can anyone? I'm about ready to mail it back to ATI with melted Lindberger cheese on it. Please help. This thing has gone past ###### me off, and is now starting to make me whimper. Im an ex-Marine for God's sake ! ! Marines dont whimper ! ! But this darn card is busting my Cajones ! ! Anyway, what makes me think it's the ATI Card or the ATI drivers is, I never had a lick of trouble with the Nvidia. I got 40-50 FPS on average with it. Please help before I actually start cryin, then go nuts or totally whacko. Thanks ! ! I have been building and configuring PC's and networks for 13 years, and this is the first time I've been so stumped, that I dont know where to go next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Slaughter Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I wouldn't send back your vid card if i were you. I have no doubt whatsoever the problem is not with your card but with Ravenshield. It's one of the buggiest games ever released IMO. People have a wide variety of results with this game with diff. cards, but even some with Radeon 9700 pro's and high end comps have poor fps. I have a GF4 4200 ti and if AA is enabled and one of my guys is shot the game locks up and I get the Blue Screen Of Death, have to reboot my comp! Plays fine without AA enabled but my fps range from 20-50, usually in the red! Ubi doesn't seem to give a rats rectum and instead blames it on peoples hardware or video drivers. The only hope is that they'll release a patch to resolve these issues but im not holding my breath. I hate you Ubi, I hate you so very, very much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.