🚀 go-pugleaf

My *guess* is that you're now CPU bottlenecked.


"LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> installation.
>
> I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
> the ATI website.
>
> I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4 1.5GHZ.

Your best bet would be to either get a faster cpu or add more memory to your computer.

"LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> installation.
>
> I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
> the ATI website.
>
> I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

how do i check fps for ut2k3???


"Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4
1.5GHZ.
>
> Your best bet would be to either get a faster cpu or add more memory to
your computer.
>
> "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> > I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> > Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> > following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> > turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> > normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> > installation.
> >
> > I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
> > the ATI website.
> >
> > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
>
>

more like 1.8-2Ghz

--
-DmD-
[w00t2]Proxivire
Idiot savant
DiamonD BushAngel the Ork: Snikmazh the Wretched
Vampires are your Friends ^
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?bite=Proxivire ^


"Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4
1.5GHZ.
>
> Your best bet would be to either get a faster cpu or add more memory to
your computer.

"Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in
news:v2s6...@corp.supernews.com, on 21 Jan 2003: 

> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a
> Pentium 4 1.5GHZ. 
> 

You understand wrong if you think that

-- 
AIM: FlyersR1 9
AIM: FrznFoodClerk
email: de_o...@co_cast.net
_ = m

"Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4 1.5GHZ.

I would love to see proof of that. Got a URL of a site with benchmarks
to back this claim of yours? ;)

"LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> normal?

> I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

Something is definately amiss. You should see framerates well above 70 fps
with all settings high and all gadgets on (well except fsaa perhaps) at that resolution.
Your second piece of info, UT performing hardly any better,
is another indication that your setup is being held back by a configuration problem.
The 1800+ is not a low-end processor, yes many see it as entry-level, but it does perform
quite well. In combination with your 9700, it should be screaming.

"Jammers" <nos...@please.com> wrote in 
news:h8pX9.85213$sV3.3...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca:

> how do i check fps for ut2k3???
> 
> 
-->snip<--
Open the console using the ~ key then enter "stat fps" without the quotes.


-- 
---
Chip
http://www.chip.ods.org

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges."
     - Tacitus

Read the following article you twit, and have you honestly ever read a review of the Athlong XP1800+ and have anything to backup
your claim.

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/cpus/amd/athlon/1.53xp/001.htm

"Hans Gruber" <hanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b0l9ls$p3eoh$1@ID-147232.news.dfncis.de...
> "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> > I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> > Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> > following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> > turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> > normal?
>
> > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
>
> Something is definately amiss. You should see framerates well above 70 fps
> with all settings high and all gadgets on (well except fsaa perhaps) at that resolution.
> Your second piece of info, UT performing hardly any better,
> is another indication that your setup is being held back by a configuration problem.
> The 1800+ is not a low-end processor, yes many see it as entry-level, but it does perform
> quite well. In combination with your 9700, it should be screaming.
>
>

I would check and make sure you don't have some cheesy program running at
startup sucking up all your cpu cycles. I have seen some programs put the
cpu in 100% utilization......Not good. Also disable any antivirus program
you have when you play games.
"LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> installation.
>
> I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
> the ATI website.
>
> I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

I've read a good many of them, and even in this one the XP1800+ running at
an actual 1.53ghz make a good showing against a 2-gig P4. Let me quote from
the conclusion of the article you linked, in case you didn't make it to the
end:

While the benchmarks show that the new AthlonXP 1800+ isn't always the clear
winner, it does manage to compete, and often beat the Intel P4.

(And that's despite a 500 mhz advantage to the P4.)


"Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
news:v2sd6i54rkjvf3@corp.supernews.com...
> Read the following article you twit, and have you honestly ever read a
review of the Athlong XP1800+ and have anything to backup
> your claim.
>
> http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/cpus/amd/athlon/1.53xp/001.htm
>

"Johnny5" <know...@knowhere.com> wrote in message
news:LyqX9.31408$vd6.6193979@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> I would check and make sure you don't have some cheesy program running at
> startup sucking up all your cpu cycles. I have seen some programs put the
> cpu in 100% utilization......Not good. Also disable any antivirus program
> you have when you play games.
> "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> > I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> > Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> > following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> > turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> > normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> > installation.
> >
> > I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
> > the ATI website.
> >
> > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
>
>
If you are running the benchmarks in the UT2003/Benchmark folder then that
is about right. I have 9700 pro on XP2400+ and I get just over 41fps at the
same settings. If it is not the benchmark exe then I know nothing.

Jules

| The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4
1.5GHZ.

Well then you're wrong :)
It -should- be the same power as a P4 1.8GHz (guess how it got its name)

| > The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4
1.5GHZ.
|
| I would love to see proof of that. Got a URL of a site with benchmarks
| to back this claim of yours? ;)

He just got it in backwards :)

| I've read a good many of them, and even in this one the XP1800+ running at
| an actual 1.53ghz make a good showing against a 2-gig P4. Let me quote from
| the conclusion of the article you linked, in case you didn't make it to the
| end:
|
| While the benchmarks show that the new AthlonXP 1800+ isn't always the clear
| winner, it does manage to compete, and often beat the Intel P4.
|
| (And that's despite a 500 mhz advantage to the P4.)

LOL ! He actually proved himself wrong ! That's just funny :)
So the 1800+ should REALLY be called a 1900+ and still it only runs at 1.53GHz,
and that's enough to be equal to a P4 2GHz ...
Wonder why they didn't test it against a P4 1.8GHz ?

SoS

<snip>
| > > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
| > > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
| > > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
| > > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
| >
| >
| If you are running the benchmarks in the UT2003/Benchmark folder then that
| is about right. I have 9700 pro on XP2400+ and I get just over 41fps at the
| same settings. If it is not the benchmark exe then I know nothing.

Benchmark exe ? Isn't it just the ut2003.exe with command line options ?

you are definitly a bit low on the frame rate.
what card did you have before?
did you completely remove the old drivers?
also if UT 2003 is acting up, try renaming or deleting the UT2003.ini file
from the Ut2003 system folder , then it will generate a new one when you run
it next , this solved a problem with mine when i "tweaked" the game a bit
too much and got worse performance.
Also are you running AA or AF?
 On my 9700 pro i found i get 60+ fps with 4x AA and 16 x performance AF.
I have an xp 2200 and a AIW 9700 pro.

"SoS" <n...@no.dk> wrote in message
news:3e2e709b$0$148$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> <snip>
> | > > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> | > > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> | > > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> | > > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
> | >
> | >
> | If you are running the benchmarks in the UT2003/Benchmark folder then
that
> | is about right. I have 9700 pro on XP2400+ and I get just over 41fps at
the
> | same settings. If it is not the benchmark exe then I know nothing.
>
> Benchmark exe ? Isn't it just the ut2003.exe with command line options ?

"SJAndrew" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in 
news:VJoX9.778295$P31.585445@rwcrnsc53:

> My *guess* is that you're now CPU bottlenecked.
> 
> 
> "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
>> I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
>> Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
>> following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
>> turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
>> normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
>> installation.
>>
>> I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
>> the ATI website.
>>
>> I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
>> of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
>> appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
>> framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

No, there's something else amiss here... I'm running an Athlon 1700+ (1.467 
GHz) with a Radeon 9000 Pro 128MB card and get much better framerates. My 
Athlon classic 1400 with a 128MB Radeon 8500LE averages around 45.

Might try newest catalyst drivers perhaps.  



-- 
____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

"Diavire" <@.> wrote in 
news:3e2e2031$0$139$e4fe...@dreader7.news.xs4all.nl:

> more like 1.8-2Ghz
> 
> --
> -DmD-
> [w00t2]Proxivire
> Idiot savant
> DiamonD BushAngel the Ork: Snikmazh the Wretched
> Vampires are your Friends ^
> http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?bite=Proxivire ^
> 
> 
> "Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
>> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4
> 1.5GHZ.
>>
>> Your best bet would be to either get a faster cpu or add more memory to
> your computer.
> 
> 
> 

Thanks for all the top posting...

Anyways, no, it's around 1.5 GHz. 1800 is not the speed of the processor.

-- 
____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote in news:Xns930B...@216.168.3.30:

> "Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in
> news:v2s6...@corp.supernews.com, on 21 Jan 2003: 
> 
>> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a
>> Pentium 4 1.5GHZ. 
>> 
> 
> You understand wrong if you think that

No, he's correct. 



-- 
____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

"Hans Gruber" <hanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:b0l9d3$q1492$1...@ID-147232.news.dfncis.de: 

> "Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
>> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium
>> 4 1.5GHZ. 
> 
> I would love to see proof of that. Got a URL of a site with benchmarks
> to back this claim of yours? ;)
> 
> 
> 

Here's another...

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2281


-- 
____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

Make sue that you set "anisotropic filtering" to "application preference" in
Direct D.  That makes a HUGE difference!




"LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> installation.
>
> I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
> the ATI website.
>
> I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

You can post all the links you want, but you seem to be missing the point.

1.) The XP 1800+ runs at an actual 1.53 ghz.

2.) It performs a little faster than a P4 1.8 ghz, close to a P4 2 ghz in
benchmarks, games and apps.

The mistake that most people make in comparing the two is not realizing that
the Athlon handles more instructions per clock cycle than the Pentium IV.
The post that started all this claimed that the Athlon XP 1800+ was the
equivalent of a Pentium IV running at 1.5 ghz. That's just not true. The P4
1.5 is slower, and not just by a little bit.

In fact, test after test at site after site shows that AT THE SAME ACTUAL
CLOCK SPEED the Athlon wins. On the other hand, comparing an XP 1800+ to a
P4 1.8 is about right, though I'd pick the Athlon for most apps and games
and save some bucks in the process.

That's the whole reason AMD started using a "performance rating" higher than
the actual clock speed, so people who do their homework wouldn't be fooled
by the higher numbers.

Apparently some people still are. But don't take my word for it, read the
cpu reviews at www.anandtech.com or www.tomshardware.com or anywhere else
they match the two.

"Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930B50AC7281boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...
> "Hans Gruber" <hanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:b0l9d3$q1492$1...@ID-147232.news.dfncis.de:
>
> > "Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
> > news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
> >> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium
> >> 4 1.5GHZ.
> >
> > I would love to see proof of that. Got a URL of a site with benchmarks
> > to back this claim of yours? ;)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Here's another...
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2281
>
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________
> Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
>  Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger
>        or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!
>                    Thank You.
>
>                The Microsoft Team

You can post all the links you want, but you seem to be missing the point.

1.) The XP 1800+ runs at an actual 1.53 ghz.

2.) It performs a little faster than a P4 1.8 ghz, close to a P4 2 ghz in
benchmarks, games and apps.

The mistake that most people make in comparing the two is not realizing that
the Athlon handles more instructions per clock cycle than the Pentium IV.
The post that started all this claimed that the Athlon XP 1800+ was the
equivalent of a Pentium IV running at 1.5 ghz. That's just not true. The P4
1.5 is slower, and not just by a little bit.

In fact, test after test at site after site shows that AT THE SAME ACTUAL
CLOCK SPEED the Athlon wins. On the other hand, comparing an XP 1800+ to a
P4 1.8 is about right, though I'd pick the Athlon for most apps and games
and save some bucks in the process.

That's the whole reason AMD started using a "performance rating" higher than
the actual clock speed, so people who do their homework wouldn't be fooled
by the higher numbers.

Apparently some people still are. But don't take my word for it, read the
cpu reviews at www.anandtech.com or www.tomshardware.com or anywhere else
they match the two.

"Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930B50AC7281boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...
> "Hans Gruber" <hanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:b0l9d3$q1492$1...@ID-147232.news.dfncis.de:
>
> > "Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
> > news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
> >> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium
> >> 4 1.5GHZ.
> >
> > I would love to see proof of that. Got a URL of a site with benchmarks
> > to back this claim of yours? ;)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Here's another...
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2281
>
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________
> Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
>  Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger
>        or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!
>                    Thank You.
>
>                The Microsoft Team

I shall not be swayed to bottom-posting by some newsgroup nazi >)

You seem to have a problem reading and comprehending what's said.

an Athlon 1800+ runs at 1.533Ghz
a Pentium 4 1800mhz runs at 1.8Ghz (duh)

however, that Athlon 1800+ performs equal or better than that Pentium 4
1.8Ghz

so saying an Athlon 1800+ is the equivalent of a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz is
incorrect, performence-wise
price-wise that might be correct >)



--
-DmD-
[w00t2]Proxivire
A tale as old as time
Proxivire the Hobbit: Saradoc Hedgeworth from Gamwich
Vampires are your Friends ^
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?bite=Proxivire ^


"Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930B5074795D2boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...
> Anyways, no, it's around 1.5 GHz. 1800 is not the speed of the processor.
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________
> Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
>  Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger
>        or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!
>                    Thank You.
>
>                The Microsoft Team

"SoS" <n...@no.dk> wrote in message
news:3e2e709b$0$148$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> <snip>
> | > > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> | > > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> | > > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> | > > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
> | >
> | >
> | If you are running the benchmarks in the UT2003/Benchmark folder then
that
> | is about right. I have 9700 pro on XP2400+ and I get just over 41fps at
the
> | same settings. If it is not the benchmark exe then I know nothing.
>
> Benchmark exe ? Isn't it just the ut2003.exe with command line options ?

Yes, but they are in a folder called benchmarks. XP recognises them as DOS
batch files.
Jules

Nah, the Athlon 1800+ is both faster and cheaper than the Pentium IV 1.5.
($56 vs $119 on Pricewatch today.)

The old Intel/AMD holy wars still rage, and the Dark Empire still depends on
the uninformed majority who get their information on PC performance from
cartoon characters on TV ads and pimply sales dorks at Wal-Mart.

There are good reasons for some people to buy P4 systems, but believing that
they are automatically faster and more stable than similarly spec'ed AMD
systems aren't among them. I count my dollars and know what level of
performance I want to obtain. I have been building my own AMD systems for
several years now, and have a hard time controlling the giggles when I hear
how much people spend for poorly configured brand-name boxes because they
saw an "Intel Inside" sticker and big numbers next to "mhz" and "megs" on
the sales brochure.

I noticed that at one point this thread was cross-posted to a Dell
newsgroup. I have a Dell 2.4 ghz Pentium 4 with a gig of ram and a SCSI
drive on my desk at work. It's a nice machine, but I paid less than half as
much for the parts to build my XP 1700+ overclocked to 2100+ with 512 megs
of PC133 (the mobo predates DDR and I'm upgrading one piece at a time,) and
a pair of cheap IDE drives striped in RAID 0. Guess which one loads Windows
faster, launches apps quicker, performs better in serious Photoshop work or
silly 3D shoot-em-ups? Guess which one locks up several times a day for no
apparent reason? (Hint: The answers to question 1 and question 2 are not the
same.)

Once again for the Intel Ayatollahs and Dell Divas who are about to put a
bounty on my head, I'm not saying the P4 isn't a fine processor or Dell
doesn't make good PCs. What I am saying is that people who disrespect AMD
based-systems out of ignorance are, well, ignorant. When they spread
misinformation, as happened here, they should expect someone to set them
straight. If they read with an open mind, they might even learn something.

(Skid relinquishes soapbox to make way for informed dissenters ;>)

"Diavire" <@.> wrote in message
news:3e2ea07b$0$2246$e4fe514c@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl...
> I shall not be swayed to bottom-posting by some newsgroup nazi >)
>
> You seem to have a problem reading and comprehending what's said.
>
> an Athlon 1800+ runs at 1.533Ghz
> a Pentium 4 1800mhz runs at 1.8Ghz (duh)
>
> however, that Athlon 1800+ performs equal or better than that Pentium 4
> 1.8Ghz
>
> so saying an Athlon 1800+ is the equivalent of a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz is
> incorrect, performence-wise
> price-wise that might be correct >)
>
>
>
> --
> -DmD-
> [w00t2]Proxivire
> A tale as old as time
> Proxivire the Hobbit: Saradoc Hedgeworth from Gamwich
> Vampires are your Friends ^
> http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?bite=Proxivire ^
>
>
> "Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns930B5074795D2boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...
> > Anyways, no, it's around 1.5 GHz. 1800 is not the speed of the
processor.
> >
> > --
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
> >  Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger
> >        or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!
> >                    Thank You.
> >
> >                The Microsoft Team
>
>

"Diavire" <@.> wrote in
news:3e2ea07b$0$2246$e4fe...@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl: 

> I shall not be swayed to bottom-posting by some newsgroup nazi >)

<plonk>









> 
> You seem to have a problem reading and comprehending what's said.
> 
> an Athlon 1800+ runs at 1.533Ghz
> a Pentium 4 1800mhz runs at 1.8Ghz (duh)

That's what I said... where's the problem, killfile-bait?


> however, that Athlon 1800+ performs equal or better than that Pentium
> 4 1.8Ghz
> 
> so saying an Athlon 1800+ is the equivalent of a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz is
> incorrect, performence-wise
> price-wise that might be correct >)

I didn't say *anything* about it's performance whatsoever, just posted a 
link with the clock speeds. 
____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

"Skid" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote in news:s8yX9.86954$1q3.17562@sccrnsc01:

> Nah, the Athlon 1800+ is both faster and cheaper than the Pentium IV
> 1.5. ($56 vs $119 on Pricewatch today.)
> 
> The old Intel/AMD holy wars still rage, and the Dark Empire still
> depends on the uninformed majority who get their information on PC
> performance from cartoon characters on TV ads and pimply sales dorks
> at Wal-Mart.

I think those "intel inside your music" commercials with the choppy looking 
video are hysterical. They must make them look choppy like that to 
desensitize the customers to stuttering performance. And, if I take the 
context of the ads at face value, my AMD rigs won't burn CD's or print 
labels because it doesn't have an Intel processor.
 

> There are good reasons for some people to buy P4 systems, but
> believing that they are automatically faster and more stable than
> similarly spec'ed AMD systems aren't among them. I count my dollars
> and know what level of performance I want to obtain. I have been
> building my own AMD systems for several years now, and have a hard
> time controlling the giggles when I hear how much people spend for
> poorly configured brand-name boxes because they saw an "Intel Inside"
> sticker and big numbers next to "mhz" and "megs" on the sales
> brochure. 

I have 2 Intel and 2 Athlon rigs. I have *far* more trouble with the Intel 
rigs.

> Once again for the Intel Ayatollahs and Dell Divas who are about to
> put a bounty on my head, I'm not saying the P4 isn't a fine processor
> or Dell doesn't make good PCs. 

Heck, I'll say it! Dells are sh*t and Intel sucks. There.

> What I am saying is that people who
> disrespect AMD based-systems out of ignorance are, well, ignorant.

And will buy overpriced sh*t thinking it's good stuff.

____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

"Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930B6BD426C35boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...

> > so saying an Athlon 1800+ is the equivalent of a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz is
> > incorrect, performence-wise
> > price-wise that might be correct >)
>
> I didn't say *anything* about it's performance whatsoever, just posted a
> link with the clock speeds.
> ____________________________________________________

But you posted the link with no comment right behind someone who had
corrected a mistake about the XP 1800+ having performance equivalent to a P4
1.5.

"Diavire" said the XP 1800+ performed "more like 1.8-2Ghz" P4.

Then you said, "no, it's around 1.5 GHz. 1800 is not the speed of the
processor."

Maybe you misread him, maybe he misread you, but the point was getting lost
either way.

Top-posting vs bottom posting is even more of a bullshit personal preference
argument than AMD vs Intel. Finger-pointing and name-calling on either side
is silly. Meanwhile this thread, my posts included, has gotten way off
topic. I'm outta' here.

"Skid" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote in news:s0xX9.86264$1q3.17087@sccrnsc01:

> You can post all the links you want, but you seem to be missing the
> point. 
> 

No, I didn't. If someone wasn't top posting and mixing all the replies up, 
you'd see that.


> 1.) The XP 1800+ runs at an actual 1.53 ghz.

...*exactly* what the link says... 
> 
> 2.) It performs a little faster than a P4 1.8 ghz, close to a P4 2 ghz
> in benchmarks, games and apps.

Nightowl posted:

"The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4 
1.5GHZ."

-to which Davire replied:

"more like 1.8-2Ghz"

(meaning what? The AMD 1800+ runs at 1.8 to GHz, or performs like a P4 1.8-
2GHz?)

-then DeMoN LaG posted:

"You understand wrong if you think that"


This is how the whole thing started. No one really clarified clock speed or 
performance. At this point everyone went tilt... 
 
 
____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

I don't have any background programs running.  Also, changing
resolution settings hardly makes any difference either.  The thing is
that once I decided to push the speed to near 1660MHz by putting the
FSB to 144, I started getting much better results, around 50 to 60
fps.

I got 10576 in my 3D Mark benchmark, which showed that my Graphics
card is performing as expected compared to other 1800+ CPUs and isn't
being slowed down by some background app.  All this indicates to me
that even my Athlon 1800+ is a bottleneck for a game like UT2003
because whatever graphics details is thrown at the 9700 can be handled
well, but it's the physics of the bots running around the map which
saturates the CPU so much.  I checked benchmarks with that of
Anandtech.com, and the numbers seem to check out where even the 2.8GHz
P4 is only achieving around 66 at 1024x768.

So my bottom line, UT2003 players should have at least an Athlon XP
2100+ to get something playable.

"Jules Augley" <aug...@HOMEbtinternet.com> wrote in message news:<b0lohc$fkt$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>...
> "Johnny5" <know...@knowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:LyqX9.31408$vd6.6193979@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > I would check and make sure you don't have some cheesy program running at
> > startup sucking up all your cpu cycles. I have seen some programs put the
> > cpu in 100% utilization......Not good. Also disable any antivirus program
> > you have when you play games.
> > "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> > > I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> > > Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> > > following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> > > turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> > > normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> > > installation.
> > >
> > > I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
> > > the ATI website.
> > >
> > > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
> > > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
> > > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
> > > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
> >
> >
> If you are running the benchmarks in the UT2003/Benchmark folder then that
> is about right. I have 9700 pro on XP2400+ and I get just over 41fps at the
> same settings. If it is not the benchmark exe then I know nothing.
> 
> Jules

Just out of curiosity, how do you check your frame rates in UT2003?

Henry

"LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> installation.

you showed both my quote, and responded to me, then bitch to me about
top-posting?
nice etiquette you've got there yourself bud >)

enjoy the extra few bytes of space you've lost by killfiling me

--
-DmD-
[w00t2]Proxivire
Weapon of choice
Diavire BushAngel the Elf: Thauralataion
Vampires are your Friends ^
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?bite=Proxivire ^


"Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930B6BD426C35boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...
> That's what I said... where's the problem, killfile-bait?
>
>
> > however, that Athlon 1800+ performs equal or better than that Pentium
> > 4 1.8Ghz
> >
> > so saying an Athlon 1800+ is the equivalent of a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz is
> > incorrect, performence-wise
> > price-wise that might be correct >)
>
> I didn't say *anything* about it's performance whatsoever, just posted a
> link with the clock speeds.
> ____________________________________________________
> Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
>  Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger
>        or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!
>                    Thank You.
>
>                The Microsoft Team

once in the game hit the  ~ key then type "stat fps" with no quotes and your
fps and the ave. fps will show-up. it may be "stats fps" so try both.

Randy

"Henry" <junk...@rogersNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:KSBX9.139679$pDv.137509@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Just out of curiosity, how do you check your frame rates in UT2003?
>
> Henry
>
> "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> > I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> > Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> > following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> > turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> > normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> > installation.
>
>

| >> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a
| >> Pentium 4 1.5GHZ. 
| >> 
| > 
| > You understand wrong if you think that
| 
| No, he's correct. 

No he isn't. Equivelent should mean same performance.
They run at similar CLOCK speeds ....

| > Benchmark exe ? Isn't it just the ut2003.exe with command line options ?
| 
| Yes, but they are in a folder called benchmarks. XP recognises them as DOS
| batch files.
| Jules

I know that ... it's the same .exe then ... right ? :)

Thanks Randy.  I'm getting around 55-65 fps in 1280x1024 with everything on
and set to max. with a P4T-E, 9700 pro, and a Intel 2.6 clocked to 3.0.  I'm
happy with that.  It looks smooth.  At 1024x768, I'm hitting close to 90 fps
with everything set to max.

Henry


"Randy" <cake...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v2u1r2m2dqf23c@corp.supernews.com...
> once in the game hit the  ~ key then type "stat fps" with no quotes and
your
> fps and the ave. fps will show-up. it may be "stats fps" so try both.
>
> Randy
>
> "Henry" <junk...@rogersNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:KSBX9.139679$pDv.137509@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Just out of curiosity, how do you check your frame rates in UT2003?
> >
> > Henry
> >
> > "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
> > > I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
> > > Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
> > > following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
> > > turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
> > > normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
> > > installation.
> >
> >
>
>

"Skid" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote in
news:F2zX9.784436$WL3.784774@rwcrnsc54: 

> 
> "Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns930B6BD426C35boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...
> 
>> > so saying an Athlon 1800+ is the equivalent of a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz
>> > is incorrect, performence-wise
>> > price-wise that might be correct >)
>>
>> I didn't say *anything* about it's performance whatsoever, just
>> posted a link with the clock speeds.
>> ____________________________________________________
> 
> But you posted the link with no comment right behind someone who had
> corrected a mistake about the XP 1800+ having performance equivalent
> to a P4 1.5.
> 
> "Diavire" said the XP 1800+ performed "more like 1.8-2Ghz" P4.
> 
> Then you said, "no, it's around 1.5 GHz. 1800 is not the speed of the
> processor."
> 
> Maybe you misread him, maybe he misread you, but the point was getting
> lost either way.
> 
> Top-posting vs bottom posting is even more of a bullshit personal
> preference argument than AMD vs Intel. Finger-pointing and
> name-calling on either side is silly. Meanwhile this thread, my posts
> included, has gotten way off topic. I'm outta' here.
> 
> 
> 

me too... 

-- 
____________________________________________________
Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
 Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger 
       or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!  
                   Thank You. 

               The Microsoft Team

I love this comparison - many people may say that when I went from a 1.2
Duron to a 2000+ XP CPU I should of seen a speed increase of about 66%, in
reality - it was less, one program Seti@Home (very CPU intensive) only saw
an increase of 35%, and many other benchmarks were limited to the speed of
other parts of the PC.

Video encoding again only a saw speed increase of about 35%. Again, CPU
intensive, is this due to the limited FP Unit on the XP CPU's? Genuinely
there are many programs which are not running at the equal 2GHz P4.

But AMD use the "Office and Gaming" speed benchmarks - who needs a faster
Wordprocessor that's already ridiculously fast? As to Databases and
Spreadsheets, the first is often limited by the HDD speed, and the 2nd by
the speed of the XP's FP unit....

Have I made my point?

"SoS" <n...@no.dk> wrote in message
news:3e2f0927$0$143$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> | > Benchmark exe ? Isn't it just the ut2003.exe with command line options
?
> |
> | Yes, but they are in a folder called benchmarks. XP recognises them as
DOS
> | batch files.
> | Jules
>
> I know that ... it's the same .exe then ... right ? :)

Yeah. I didnt know what else to call them.
Jules

"Diavire" <@.> wrote in
news:3e2ea07b$0$2246$e4fe...@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl: 

> I shall not be swayed to bottom-posting by some newsgroup nazi >)
> 
-->snip<--
 *PLONK*

-- 
---
Chip
http://www.chip.ods.org

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges."
     - Tacitus

On 21 Jan 2003 20:01:55 -0800, lld...@yahoo.com (LL Deja) wrote:

>I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
>Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
>following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
>turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
>normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
>installation.
>
>I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
>the ATI website.
>
>I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
>of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
>appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
>framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

Well, I just installed a Ti4200, 2 days ago, and I am sort of making
my mind up as to it was really worth it,, I updated from a Gainward
GF4 MX-440 that I had before...

Oh,, according to all the Ti pundits, there should be a world of
difference because GF4 MX's are crap, but, I am not so sure that the
MX-440 I had was all that bad afterall... Visually there is not that
much difference between the 2 cards. As a matter of fact, I would say
there's very little to be seen at all in UT2003. As for frame rates, I
would say that this was the biggest let-down af all... What a joke..
This was under WinXP Pro...

I have 2 operating systems - Win98SE and XP Pro,, each on a removable
HDD. I simply choose which one I want to run, plug it in and boot it
up... They both have UT2003 installed and there is a big difference in
the way they both run. Up until now, with the MX-440,, Win XP Pro made
UT2003 look good texture-wise but ran just like a wet week => slow as
hell (but acceptable) - like a lot of other games in it... Win98SE
looked visually not quite as attractive but I could set things higher
and it ran much faster... It is most noticeable when the action got
tough. Win98SE just doesn't slow down as much as in XP... That's a
fact,, not a biased opinion...!!!!

My system...
AMD XP2000+
Asus A7M266 m/b
512 mb PC2100 RAM
Gainward GF4 MX-440 (now a Leadtek GF4 Ti4200 - 128mb)..
SB Live
etc etc...

Since I dropped in the new Ti4200,, I was not that impressed with what
I saw, over the MX card..
Now,, admittedly, up until now I have played UT2003 mostly in the
Win98SE environment,, and that the first time I played it with the new
Ti card, was under XP Pro, which I know to be lesser in performance,,
but nevertheless, I should have noticed a good deal of a performance
hike upwards, according to the Ti-xxxx lovers of the newsgroups. There
was f**k all to be seen and I was all but pissed off at what I didn't
see...
I honestly thought that under XP Pro, the Ti4200 card would have
helped the gaming department along quite some. It appears to me that
even though I am looking for "any" excuse to actually like XP Pro,
that it may always be a dog...
I fired up UT2003 under Win98SE this afternoon and what a difference..
Now this is what I call a better outlook. It was quite noticeable. It
ran faster, and never slowed down one bit. I still have to say that
the texturing looks a bit watered down compared to XP Pro though..
Why,, I'll never know,, as all the settings are higher in 98SE...

I have never bee one for benchmarks BUT I decided to run the ones
provided in UT2003 under the ..\Benchmarks\ folder...

The log file with the results revealed the following.. This is with
the Ti4200 and nVidia 41.09 drivers in both O/S's...

Win98SE
=======
dm-antalus
15.696627 / 53.848038 / 118.841019 fps
Score = 53.894920

WinXP Pro
=========
dm-antalus
7.887990 / 47.581390 / 93.240173 fps
Score = 47.602287

What the hell that all means is unknown to me but there is a marked
difference between the 2 O/S's... I wont post the rest of them but
they are all similar... What the above does not portray is just how
visually poor it looks under XP...

I don't know how they compare to others, but I think I can recall
seeing better...

I will now play and try the console command and see what horrific
results appear...

I don't know anything about the Radeon cards but don't feel alone if
you don't get what you are expecting...

what is it with you people feeling the need to tell me I'm "plonked"
if you don't wanna see me, just killfile and be done with it, be kwajut,
move on
lalala-bla

get lost kid :)

--
-DmD-
[w00t2]Proxivire
Famous last words
Diavire BushAngel the Hobbit: Ferdibrand Gardener from Tookbank
Vampires are your Friends ^
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?bite=Proxivire ^


"Chip Anderson" <b_ander...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns930BDDD3236EAbandersbellsouthnet@65.82.44.10...
> -->snip<--
>  *PLONK*
>
> --
> ---
> Chip
> http://www.chip.ods.org
>
> "Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges."
>      - Tacitus
>
>

There are 101 ways to improve your PC's improvement besides upping the
CPU type/speed/brand,, or adding more RAM or splashing out for a new
video card (even though this all helps a lot quicker).. A poorly setup
system will not getting radically better by adding more bits and
pieces. You may indeed just amplify the problem(s) while partially
sacrificing some of the potential performance gain...

Regular maintenance,like a clean registry, defragging regularly,
updated drivers and system files, may well be just a few of the many
ways to help things. Then there are also the hidden things which may
not improve, but may decrease system performance,,, viruses (virii for
the purests).. There are also other things to consider like all those
friggin icons in the taskbar which load up at bootup time.. These each
rob a small amount of RAM and slowly degrade gaming performance. I
have seen PC's which have maybe a dozen icons in the taskbar and the
owners complain of the time it takes to bootup. I wonder why...  I
cannot get it throught their thick skulls how saturating this way
is... Not only that, but with each icon present in the taskbar, you
run the risk of having memory clashes which result in hung games,
crashes, or just slower games...

Here's the BIGGEST software trick which may improve or degrade your
gaming performance. I am going through it right now... It's called
"Having the correct Operating System"...

I have gone on about the virtues of Win98SE over XP for games, in the
past and in the present, and even this very evening, I still verify
the fact (at least in my small computer world) that Win98 SE pisses
all over XP for game performance. I cannot say that this statement
could be universally applied to all computer users, as I haven't seen
every system. But,, on the other hand I cannot say that adding more
hardware (which has been suggested) to enhance XP's performance is a
logical approach to "fixing" things.. You simply don't buy an O/S then
build a PC around it. You update O/S's onto an existing PC. All things
being equal,, your system should be at least as good as it was with
its previous O/S or maybe even better. I think I am not the only one
to admit that XP is an exception to that suggestion, at least in many
cases for those who updated from Win98SE... It offers many things
which 98 doesn't but it simply wont comply totally when it comes to
games...

At the moment, I run both O/S's side by side on removable HDD's and in
every case where I have the same game installed on both HDD's,, 98SE
comes out ontop when it comes to share game speed and performance. The
"one" thing that XP has over 98 is that it looks better. In some
cases,, a lot better but I soon grow tired of good looking scenery and
textures if the game begins to act like a slug...

With UT2003,, I have changed many settings in XP and I have finally
got some reasonable performance out of it. In 98SE, I can shunt these
settings upwards and still have better speed...

I have an XP2000+ CPU and with at least one of my O/S's I can say that
I do not need to go any higher to get good performance out of UT2003.
Of course a better CPU will always ultimately help things along, but
this almost a universal fact of computer life... I am not sure if your
baseline of an XP2100 as being the minimum CPU is valid or not but I
think as time goes on, you will be able to go higher with that
"minimum" desired standard of acceptance for UT2003 and indeed any
game.. It really depends on how we define "playable" and
"acceptable"...

It has been an interesting chat...

May the gods of UT2003 smile down at us all.......


On 22 Jan 2003 10:31:47 -0800, lld...@yahoo.com (LL Deja) wrote:

>I don't have any background programs running.  Also, changing
>resolution settings hardly makes any difference either.  The thing is
>that once I decided to push the speed to near 1660MHz by putting the
>FSB to 144, I started getting much better results, around 50 to 60
>fps.
>
>I got 10576 in my 3D Mark benchmark, which showed that my Graphics
>card is performing as expected compared to other 1800+ CPUs and isn't
>being slowed down by some background app.  All this indicates to me
>that even my Athlon 1800+ is a bottleneck for a game like UT2003
>because whatever graphics details is thrown at the 9700 can be handled
>well, but it's the physics of the bots running around the map which
>saturates the CPU so much.  I checked benchmarks with that of
>Anandtech.com, and the numbers seem to check out where even the 2.8GHz
>P4 is only achieving around 66 at 1024x768.
>
>So my bottom line, UT2003 players should have at least an Athlon XP
>2100+ to get something playable.
>
>"Jules Augley" <aug...@HOMEbtinternet.com> wrote in message news:<b0lohc$fkt$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>...
>> "Johnny5" <know...@knowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:LyqX9.31408$vd6.6193979@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>> > I would check and make sure you don't have some cheesy program running at
>> > startup sucking up all your cpu cycles. I have seen some programs put the
>> > cpu in 100% utilization......Not good. Also disable any antivirus program
>> > you have when you play games.
>> > "LL Deja" <lld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:c4d04f8b.0301212001.303ccd2b@posting.google.com...
>> > > I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
>> > > Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
>> > > following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
>> > > turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
>> > > normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
>> > > installation.
>> > >
>> > > I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
>> > > the ATI website.
>> > >
>> > > I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
>> > > of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
>> > > appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
>> > > framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
>> >
>> >
>> If you are running the benchmarks in the UT2003/Benchmark folder then that
>> is about right. I have 9700 pro on XP2400+ and I get just over 41fps at the
>> same settings. If it is not the benchmark exe then I know nothing.
>> 
>> Jules

You don't make points with bad facts. Floating-point performance on an
Athlon XP is faster than an equivalent Pentium 4, not slower. It does media
encoding better, not worse. Check the benchmarks in cpu reviews at the major
hardware sites and see for yourself.

Here's one one media encoding that shows the P4 2 ghz tied with an XP 2000+
(which runs at 1.67 ghz,) and beaten by a 2100+ (that runs at 1.73 ghz.)
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1595&p=8

Here's one that shows the Athlon's raw fpu supremacy in rendering with 3D
Studio Max, the XP 2100+ at 1.73 ghz beats the Northwood P4 2.2 ghz chip by
a noticeable 6 percent. http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1595&p=9 The
comparison database for one common benchmarking tool, Sysoft Sandra, shows a
default P4 2.0 with a raw Whetstone fpu score of 1122. The XP 2000+ in the
same database is listed at 2547. The only way the P4 can top the Athlon in
floating point is when the software is specifically coded to support SSE2,
on a level playing field the Athlon wins every time.

There are plenty of other comparisons scattered all over the web that
support the same conclusions. Check them out for yourself.

The P4 is not as great a cpu as many would have you believe. Shortcuts were
taken in the design to allow it to ramp quickly to higher clock speeds. I
once saw a comparison where a P4, a P3 and an Athlon were all clocked to the
same 1 ghz speed for a test. The Athlon swept the tests, because it
processes more instructions per clock cycle. The P3 actually beat the P4
because it was more efficient at lower speeds. The P4's architecture and
Intel's unparalled fabbing ability have allowed them to top the 3 ghz mark
while AMD is struggling to get the XPs much beyond 2 ghz, and Intel has paid
a handful of software developers to incorporate SSE2 to make up for its
SLOWER fpu performance.

"You pays your money and you takes your choice," as Popeye used to say. But
knowing the facts makes the choice simpler. To get the biggest bang for the
buck in the apps and games most consumers use, AMD makes more sense -- all
IMHO, of course.


"Alan Shepherd" <sp...@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XpGX9.1075$Ne7.7910514@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I love this comparison - many people may say that when I went from a 1.2
> Duron to a 2000+ XP CPU I should of seen a speed increase of about 66%, in
> reality - it was less, one program Seti@Home (very CPU intensive) only saw
> an increase of 35%, and many other benchmarks were limited to the speed of
> other parts of the PC.
>
> Video encoding again only a saw speed increase of about 35%. Again, CPU
> intensive, is this due to the limited FP Unit on the XP CPU's? Genuinely
> there are many programs which are not running at the equal 2GHz P4.
>
> But AMD use the "Office and Gaming" speed benchmarks - who needs a faster
> Wordprocessor that's already ridiculously fast? As to Databases and
> Spreadsheets, the first is often limited by the HDD speed, and the 2nd by
> the speed of the XP's FP unit....
>
> Have I made my point?
>
>
>

That was good reading and confirms what I expected. Thanks.

Bruce Tyler had the audacity to claim:

> Well, I just installed a Ti4200, 2 days ago, and I am sort of making my
> mind up as to it was really worth it,, I updated from a Gainward GF4
> MX-440 that I had before...

-- 

.

"Jay "Boogieman" Edwards" <boog...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930B5074795D2boogie350NOSPAMyahoo@216.168.3.44...
> "Diavire" <@.> wrote in
> news:3e2e2031$0$139$e4fe...@dreader7.news.xs4all.nl:
>
> > more like 1.8-2Ghz
> >
> > --
> > -DmD-
> > [w00t2]Proxivire
> > Idiot savant
> > DiamonD BushAngel the Ork: Snikmazh the Wretched
> > Vampires are your Friends ^
> > http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?bite=Proxivire ^
> >
> >
> > "Nightowl" <ati...@killspammers.min.midco.net> wrote in message
> > news:v2s69lb7e9052a@corp.supernews.com...
> >> The Athlon 1800+ from my understanding is the equivelent of a Pentium 4
> > 1.5GHZ.
> >>
> >> Your best bet would be to either get a faster cpu or add more memory to
> > your computer.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for all the top posting...
>
> Anyways, no, it's around 1.5 GHz. 1800 is not the speed of the processor.

The AthlonXP performs better than a P4 at the same clock speed.  This is why
the AthlonXP all have numbers like 1800+ after them cos it's the P4
equivalent speed.  The actual clock speed is 1.5 (and a bit) GHz.

Please research your statements and make sure you know what you're on about
before posting.

>
> --
> ____________________________________________________
> Windows is suck! All you harddrive are belong to us!
>  Please click 'OK' to install our trojan keylogger
>        or 'CANCEL' to install it regardless!
>                    Thank You.
>
>                The Microsoft Team

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:05:20 +1300, Bruce Tyler <top@bottom.au> wrote:

>On 21 Jan 2003 20:01:55 -0800, lld...@yahoo.com (LL Deja) wrote:
>
>>I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
>>Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
>>following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
>>turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
>>normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
>>installation.
>>
>>I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
>>the ATI website.
>>
>>I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
>>of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
>>appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
>>framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.
>
>Well, I just installed a Ti4200, 2 days ago, and I am sort of making
>my mind up as to it was really worth it,, I updated from a Gainward
>GF4 MX-440 that I had before...
>
>Oh,, according to all the Ti pundits, there should be a world of
>difference because GF4 MX's are crap, but, I am not so sure that the
>MX-440 I had was all that bad afterall... Visually there is not that
>much difference between the 2 cards. As a matter of fact, I would say
>there's very little to be seen at all in UT2003. As for frame rates, I
>would say that this was the biggest let-down af all... What a joke..
>This was under WinXP Pro...
>
>I have 2 operating systems - Win98SE and XP Pro,, each on a removable
>HDD. I simply choose which one I want to run, plug it in and boot it
>up... They both have UT2003 installed and there is a big difference in
>the way they both run. Up until now, with the MX-440,, Win XP Pro made
>UT2003 look good texture-wise but ran just like a wet week => slow as
>hell (but acceptable) - like a lot of other games in it... Win98SE
>looked visually not quite as attractive but I could set things higher
>and it ran much faster... It is most noticeable when the action got
>tough. Win98SE just doesn't slow down as much as in XP... That's a
>fact,, not a biased opinion...!!!!
>
>My system...
>AMD XP2000+
>Asus A7M266 m/b
>512 mb PC2100 RAM
>Gainward GF4 MX-440 (now a Leadtek GF4 Ti4200 - 128mb)..
>SB Live
>etc etc...
>
>Since I dropped in the new Ti4200,, I was not that impressed with what
>I saw, over the MX card..
>Now,, admittedly, up until now I have played UT2003 mostly in the
>Win98SE environment,, and that the first time I played it with the new
>Ti card, was under XP Pro, which I know to be lesser in performance,,
>but nevertheless, I should have noticed a good deal of a performance
>hike upwards, according to the Ti-xxxx lovers of the newsgroups. There
>was f**k all to be seen and I was all but pissed off at what I didn't
>see...
>I honestly thought that under XP Pro, the Ti4200 card would have
>helped the gaming department along quite some. It appears to me that
>even though I am looking for "any" excuse to actually like XP Pro,
>that it may always be a dog...
>I fired up UT2003 under Win98SE this afternoon and what a difference..
>Now this is what I call a better outlook. It was quite noticeable. It
>ran faster, and never slowed down one bit. I still have to say that
>the texturing looks a bit watered down compared to XP Pro though..
>Why,, I'll never know,, as all the settings are higher in 98SE...
>
>I have never bee one for benchmarks BUT I decided to run the ones
>provided in UT2003 under the ..\Benchmarks\ folder...
>
>The log file with the results revealed the following.. This is with
>the Ti4200 and nVidia 41.09 drivers in both O/S's...
>
>Win98SE
>=======
>dm-antalus
>15.696627 / 53.848038 / 118.841019 fps
>Score = 53.894920
>
>WinXP Pro
>=========
>dm-antalus
>7.887990 / 47.581390 / 93.240173 fps
>Score = 47.602287
>
>What the hell that all means is unknown to me but there is a marked
>difference between the 2 O/S's... I wont post the rest of them but
>they are all similar... What the above does not portray is just how
>visually poor it looks under XP...
>
>I don't know how they compare to others, but I think I can recall
>seeing better...
>
>I will now play and try the console command and see what horrific
>results appear...
>
>I don't know anything about the Radeon cards but don't feel alone if
>you don't get what you are expecting...


Played UT2003 and this time I used the console command "stat fps"
(this was from XP Pro)...
I played the same map as above = Antalus (sounds like = And Tell Us)
Settings were 1024x768 and nominal (not maxed out)...  Got immediate
frame rates from 40 to over 90 and average from 37 to over 70...

I will try Win98SE the same asap... Got so much to do during the
day...

Bruce Tyler <top@bottom.au> wrote in
news:opev2v8dbdalnv...@4ax.com: 


> Here's the BIGGEST software trick which may improve or degrade your
> gaming performance. I am going through it right now... It's called
> "Having the correct Operating System"...
> 
> I have gone on about the virtues of Win98SE over XP for games, in the
> past and in the present, and even this very evening, I still verify
> the fact (at least in my small computer world) that Win98 SE pisses
> all over XP for game performance. 

I have had pretty much the same experinces myself. However, I find that I 
prefer either 98 (original flavor) or ME to be better than SE. I just find 
SE to be really buggy, but that could have just been the system it was on 
(Compaq AMD K6-II 533 ATX-compatible Presario - it had an Asus ATX board in 
it, not proporietary). It's the only system I ever ran SE on and 98-1 was 
far more stable, but then I've always ran 98-1 or ME on my own systems. 

I build a lot of computer systems (entry level gaming mostly) and which OS 
I install depends on the computer aptitude of the end user. If someone 
knows a bit more about computers, I install 98; If they're a total noob, I 
install ME (I like the system restore function).

Windows 9x of *any* flavor requires some major tweaking though. I happen to 
like the TweakAll utility myself (by "Abston's Shed" or something like 
that). It lets me clean up the boot sequence, bypass the windows splash 
screen, tweak the file system caches, tweak the network and modem (RWIN & 
MTU) and add additional stack pages. Not too shabby for a freeware. 

I tried XP and I just don't like it. IMO, the kernel is *great* but the 
interface is "odd" and I have serious doubts about it's security in an 
online environment. Also, there's just some things about it, like being a 
PITA to run older games on and it's unfriendliness toward many multimedia 
apps, that irritate me. And there's something that seems "sinister" about 
it that I can't quite put my finger on.