🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:01:55 +0000, 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.
 240fps on 3DLabs Oxygen card, extended 1 gig ddr

lol?

"root doot" <bonk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g9MX9.5472$Vh.3146@news2.central.cox.net...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:01:55 +0000, 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.
>  240fps on 3DLabs Oxygen card, extended 1 gig ddr

It's your CPU it is too slow.

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.

>
> 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.

"Shadow" <Fa...@Fake.net> wrote in message news:3F9D7F2D.4DF0B25F@Fake.net...
> It's your CPU it is too slow.

I don't buy that, I used to score at least 4500 in 3dmark03 with the same
setup.  Upgrading to a 2400+ only raised it about 500 points.  We need more
info...

Thats BS its not the processor give us some more info. Dont worry I have a
1800+ with a 9500 Pro and my machine screams. Plus I get around with
everythig turned on I am around 41. During benchmark my Flyby 120 PFS and
bit is 52 and thats at 1024X768 with everything at high and normal
"Shadow" <Fa...@Fake.net> wrote in message news:3F9D7F2D.4DF0B25F@Fake.net...
> It's your CPU it is too slow.
>
> 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.

Maybe you have vsync turned on.  You don't say what OS this is.  If 2000 or
XP you also need a refresh rate fix..  http://www.pagehosting.co.uk/rf/

The non pro 9700 is probaby similar in speed to the 9500 Pro, so someone
else reporting 41fps may be about right with all bells and whistles.

Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?  Do you have
other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some down? Have
you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?


"Shadow" <Fa...@Fake.net> wrote in message news:3F9D7F2D.4DF0B25F@Fake.net...
> It's your CPU it is too slow.
>
> 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.

> Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?  Do you have
> other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some down? Have
> you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?


catalyst 3.9 drivers???
has anyone tried them yet?
3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.

damyjuk

get 169 x 58  with 9500 pro intel 2.66 ghz cpu 1 gig pc 2700 mem
"damyjuk" <aqu...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3fa11b5a$0$235$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?  Do you
have
> > other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some down?
Have
> > you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?
>
>
> catalyst 3.9 drivers???
> has anyone tried them yet?
> 3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.
>
> damyjuk
>
>

"damyjuk" <aqu...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3fa11b5a$0$235$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?  Do you
have
> > other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some down?
Have
> > you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?
>
>
> catalyst 3.9 drivers???
> has anyone tried them yet?
> 3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.
>
> damyjuk
>

Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that ATI tried
to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.  Mine got
so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI Radeon 7500
All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton (333 Mhz)
and 1 gig of ddr 2700, and Seagate 80 Gig SATA, and an 80 gig raid 0+1 set
up (four 40 gig WD drives).  Sound card is a Terratec DMX 6 Fire.  With all
hardware acceleration on, and all graphics settings turned up to highest
levels, all of my games, especially URT 2003, rock.

"George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that ATI
tried
> to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.  Mine got
> so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI Radeon
7500
> All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton (333 Mhz)

Sorry, got to call BS on this one. The "OverDrive" function in the Catalyst
3.8 drivers only works on the 9600XT and 9800XT, which have built-in temp
sensors and throttle back the OC when they get too warm.

The new drivers do absolutely nothing to overclock your Radeon 7500, or any
other non-XT card, and it won't run any hotter with those than with the 3.7
set. Your heat sink is supposed to feel hot, that's how you know it's
working.

Most of us who do overclock our cards with third-party utilities or a hacked
bios use clock speeds much more aggressive than the ones ATI builds into the
new drivers with no ill effects.

"Skid" <sk...@comcast.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:0r7qb.112417$Tr4.314386@attbi_s03...
>
> "George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
> news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that ATI
> tried
> > to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.  Mine
got
> > so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI Radeon
> 7500
> > All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton (333
Mhz)
>
> Sorry, got to call BS on this one. The "OverDrive" function in the
Catalyst
> 3.8 drivers only works on the 9600XT and 9800XT, which have built-in temp
> sensors and throttle back the OC when they get too warm.
>
> The new drivers do absolutely nothing to overclock your Radeon 7500, or
any
> other non-XT card, and it won't run any hotter with those than with the
3.7
> set. Your heat sink is supposed to feel hot, that's how you know it's
> working.
>
> Most of us who do overclock our cards with third-party utilities or a
hacked
> bios use clock speeds much more aggressive than the ones ATI builds into
the
> new drivers with no ill effects.
>


Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the fact is that my 7500 did run
hotter using 3.8.  I do not know why .  However, to be fair, here is ATI's
response to the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE TO ALLEGED HARDWARE OVERHEATING ISSUE


"We have spent a great deal of time analyzing the temperatures due to the
CATALYST 3.8 drivers. We do not under any circumstance see anything near a
10 degree Celsius increase in temperature (but we don't overclock our test
cards either). We do see a slight increase in temperature in certain cases
(3Dmark2003 Nature Scene for example). However any temperature increase is
well within our safety range. Investigation continues and we are trying to
determine why this change in temperature exits. At this point we are
reproducing individual driver packages with code being checked in and
measuring the temperature. However nothing shows the alleged increase in
temperature. One independent website even tried to reproduce this issue, and
found no measurable difference in temperature between CATALYST 3.7 and 3.8.


I think the issue is very real but not sure what the cause is. I know ATI is
spending a great deal of time looking into it but as of yet haven't found
the cause if it is in Catalyst 3.8."

"George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
news:VZbqb.24734$ns.15167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Skid" <sk...@comcast.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:0r7qb.112417$Tr4.314386@attbi_s03...
> >
> > "George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
> > news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > > Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that ATI
> > tried
> > > to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.  Mine
> got
> > > so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI Radeon
> > 7500
> > > All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton (333
> Mhz)
> >
> > Sorry, got to call BS on this one. The "OverDrive" function in the
> Catalyst
> > 3.8 drivers only works on the 9600XT and 9800XT, which have built-in
temp
> > sensors and throttle back the OC when they get too warm.
> >
> > The new drivers do absolutely nothing to overclock your Radeon 7500, or
> any
> > other non-XT card, and it won't run any hotter with those than with the
> 3.7
> > set. Your heat sink is supposed to feel hot, that's how you know it's
> > working.
> >
> > Most of us who do overclock our cards with third-party utilities or a
> hacked
> > bios use clock speeds much more aggressive than the ones ATI builds into
> the
> > new drivers with no ill effects.
> >
>
>
> Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the fact is that my 7500 did run
> hotter using 3.8.  I do not know why .  However, to be fair, here is ATI's
> response to the problem.

Takes more than that to burst my bubble ;>)

I hope you used something more reliable than your finger to measure that
temp increase.

I give you credit for quoting ATI. They measured a single-digit rise in
specific high-stress situations. A website that tried to duplicate those
results saw no increase at all.

And I never, ever, saw any confirmation of your warning that a built-in
overclock in the Cat 3.8 drivers fried any video cards.

There was a lot of mass hysteria surrounding urban legends about monitors
being damaged by outlaw refresh rates, but that was also BS, also refuted by
ATI.

"Skid" <sk...@comcast.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:4jcqb.82209$mZ5.561307@attbi_s54...
>
> "George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
> news:VZbqb.24734$ns.15167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Skid" <sk...@comcast.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> > news:0r7qb.112417$Tr4.314386@attbi_s03...
> > >
> > > "George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
> > > news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > > > Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that
ATI
> > > tried
> > > > to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.
Mine
> > got
> > > > so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI
Radeon
> > > 7500
> > > > All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton
(333
> > Mhz)
> > >
> > > Sorry, got to call BS on this one. The "OverDrive" function in the
> > Catalyst
> > > 3.8 drivers only works on the 9600XT and 9800XT, which have built-in
> temp
> > > sensors and throttle back the OC when they get too warm.
> > >
> > > The new drivers do absolutely nothing to overclock your Radeon 7500,
or
> > any
> > > other non-XT card, and it won't run any hotter with those than with
the
> > 3.7
> > > set. Your heat sink is supposed to feel hot, that's how you know it's
> > > working.
> > >
> > > Most of us who do overclock our cards with third-party utilities or a
> > hacked
> > > bios use clock speeds much more aggressive than the ones ATI builds
into
> > the
> > > new drivers with no ill effects.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the fact is that my 7500 did run
> > hotter using 3.8.  I do not know why .  However, to be fair, here is
ATI's
> > response to the problem.
>
> Takes more than that to burst my bubble ;>)
>
> I hope you used something more reliable than your finger to measure that
> temp increase.
>
> I give you credit for quoting ATI. They measured a single-digit rise in
> specific high-stress situations. A website that tried to duplicate those
> results saw no increase at all.
>
> And I never, ever, saw any confirmation of your warning that a built-in
> overclock in the Cat 3.8 drivers fried any video cards.
>
> There was a lot of mass hysteria surrounding urban legends about monitors
> being damaged by outlaw refresh rates, but that was also BS, also refuted
by
> ATI.
>
>

Yes, I've read about that too, now.  I guess the moral of the story is to
take what you read with a grain of salt.  I do stand by my contention that
my card ran hotter.  I had all kinds of problems with my games.  Everything
else ran fine.  When I rolled back to 3.7, the problems went away.

I can get the 100 FPS easally with my GeForce FX 5600 from XFX with my Intel
Pentium III 1,4 GHz. Maybe gotta do a nice clean format agein :-P

Succes.
Peter "Shaggy" van de Beek.

"George" <geo...@george.net> schreef in bericht
news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "damyjuk" <aqu...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:3fa11b5a$0$235$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > > Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?  Do you
> have
> > > other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some down?
> Have
> > > you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?
> >
> >
> > catalyst 3.9 drivers???
> > has anyone tried them yet?
> > 3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.
> >
> > damyjuk
> >
>
> Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that ATI
tried
> to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.  Mine got
> so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI Radeon
7500
> All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton (333 Mhz)
> and 1 gig of ddr 2700, and Seagate 80 Gig SATA, and an 80 gig raid 0+1 set
> up (four 40 gig WD drives).  Sound card is a Terratec DMX 6 Fire.  With
all
> hardware acceleration on, and all graphics settings turned up to highest
> levels, all of my games, especially URT 2003, rock.

I have no problem averaging 60 to 70 fps with my 9600 pro 256mb card running
on the following setup
AthlonXP 2800+ Barton
Asus A7V600 Bios Rev. 1006
512mb Samsung PC2700
120gb SATA Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus hdd
40gb Seagate Barracuda hdd
Catalyst 3.9
@1600x1200 everything on Highest

"Peter van de Beek" <E.vand...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:Thvrb.238437$Oz2.29692445@amsnews03.chello.com...
> I can get the 100 FPS easally with my GeForce FX 5600 from XFX with my
Intel
> Pentium III 1,4 GHz. Maybe gotta do a nice clean format agein :-P
>
> Succes.
> Peter "Shaggy" van de Beek.
>
> "George" <geo...@george.net> schreef in bericht
> news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "damyjuk" <aqu...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > news:3fa11b5a$0$235$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > > > Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?  Do
you
> > have
> > > > other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some down?
> > Have
> > > > you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?
> > >
> > >
> > > catalyst 3.9 drivers???
> > > has anyone tried them yet?
> > > 3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.
> > >
> > > damyjuk
> > >
> >
> > Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that ATI
> tried
> > to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.  Mine
got
> > so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI Radeon
> 7500
> > All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton (333
Mhz)
> > and 1 gig of ddr 2700, and Seagate 80 Gig SATA, and an 80 gig raid 0+1
set
> > up (four 40 gig WD drives).  Sound card is a Terratec DMX 6 Fire.  With
> all
> > hardware acceleration on, and all graphics settings turned up to highest
> > levels, all of my games, especially URT 2003, rock.
>
>

"Sean Staroselec" <headc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vtami39tai5bab@corp.supernews.com...
> I have no problem averaging 60 to 70 fps with my 9600 pro 256mb card
running
> on the following setup
> AthlonXP 2800+ Barton
> Asus A7V600 Bios Rev. 1006
> 512mb Samsung PC2700
> 120gb SATA Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus hdd
> 40gb Seagate Barracuda hdd
> Catalyst 3.9
> @1600x1200 everything on Highest

What chipset does it have?

> "Peter van de Beek" <E.vand...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:Thvrb.238437$Oz2.29692445@amsnews03.chello.com...
> > I can get the 100 FPS easally with my GeForce FX 5600 from XFX with my
> Intel
> > Pentium III 1,4 GHz. Maybe gotta do a nice clean format agein :-P
> >
> > Succes.
> > Peter "Shaggy" van de Beek.
> >
> > "George" <geo...@george.net> schreef in bericht
> > news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > "damyjuk" <aqu...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3fa11b5a$0$235$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > > > > Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?  Do
> you
> > > have
> > > > > other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some
down?
> > > Have
> > > > > you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > catalyst 3.9 drivers???
> > > > has anyone tried them yet?
> > > > 3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.
> > > >
> > > > damyjuk
> > > >
> > >
> > > Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that ATI
> > tried
> > > to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.  Mine
> got
> > > so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI Radeon
> > 7500
> > > All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton (333
> Mhz)
> > > and 1 gig of ddr 2700, and Seagate 80 Gig SATA, and an 80 gig raid 0+1
> set
> > > up (four 40 gig WD drives).  Sound card is a Terratec DMX 6 Fire.
With
> > all
> > > hardware acceleration on, and all graphics settings turned up to
highest
> > > levels, all of my games, especially URT 2003, rock.
> >
> >
>
>

> > on the following setup
> > AthlonXP 2800+ Barton
> > Asus A7V600 Bios Rev. 1006
> > 512mb Samsung PC2700
> > 120gb SATA Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus hdd
> > 40gb Seagate Barracuda hdd
> > Catalyst 3.9
> > @1600x1200 everything on Highest
>
> What chipset does it have?
>



i get 114 on flyby and 74 with bots with the
ut2003 benchmark program.
i use a 3000+ with a 9500pro on an nforce 2 mobo
with 512mb of fsb400 memory

damyjuk

It is a VIA KT600 chipset, oh and I had some of my settings wrong so while
playing i am a little closer to 90-110.  I will run the benchmarks and see
what comes of it.

Sean


"George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
news:GVMCb.9069$C24.4676@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Sean Staroselec" <headc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vtami39tai5bab@corp.supernews.com...
> > I have no problem averaging 60 to 70 fps with my 9600 pro 256mb card
> running
> > on the following setup
> > AthlonXP 2800+ Barton
> > Asus A7V600 Bios Rev. 1006
> > 512mb Samsung PC2700
> > 120gb SATA Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus hdd
> > 40gb Seagate Barracuda hdd
> > Catalyst 3.9
> > @1600x1200 everything on Highest
>
> What chipset does it have?
>
> > "Peter van de Beek" <E.vand...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> > news:Thvrb.238437$Oz2.29692445@amsnews03.chello.com...
> > > I can get the 100 FPS easally with my GeForce FX 5600 from XFX with my
> > Intel
> > > Pentium III 1,4 GHz. Maybe gotta do a nice clean format agein :-P
> > >
> > > Succes.
> > > Peter "Shaggy" van de Beek.
> > >
> > > "George" <geo...@george.net> schreef in bericht
> > > news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > "damyjuk" <aqu...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3fa11b5a$0$235$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > > > > > Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?
Do
> > you
> > > > have
> > > > > > other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some
> down?
> > > > Have
> > > > > > you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > catalyst 3.9 drivers???
> > > > > has anyone tried them yet?
> > > > > 3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > damyjuk
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that
ATI
> > > tried
> > > > to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.
Mine
> > got
> > > > so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI
Radeon
> > > 7500
> > > > All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton
(333
> > Mhz)
> > > > and 1 gig of ddr 2700, and Seagate 80 Gig SATA, and an 80 gig raid
0+1
> > set
> > > > up (four 40 gig WD drives).  Sound card is a Terratec DMX 6 Fire.
> With
> > > all
> > > > hardware acceleration on, and all graphics settings turned up to
> highest
> > > > levels, all of my games, especially URT 2003, rock.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:43:25 -0600, "Sean Staroselec"
<headc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>It is a VIA KT600 chipset, oh and I had some of my settings wrong so while
>playing i am a little closer to 90-110.  I will run the benchmarks and see
>what comes of it.
>
>Sean
>
>
>"George" <geo...@george.net> wrote in message
>news:GVMCb.9069$C24.4676@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Sean Staroselec" <headc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vtami39tai5bab@corp.supernews.com...
>> > I have no problem averaging 60 to 70 fps with my 9600 pro 256mb card
>> running
>> > on the following setup
>> > AthlonXP 2800+ Barton
>> > Asus A7V600 Bios Rev. 1006
>> > 512mb Samsung PC2700
>> > 120gb SATA Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus hdd
>> > 40gb Seagate Barracuda hdd
>> > Catalyst 3.9
>> > @1600x1200 everything on Highest
>>
>> What chipset does it have?
>>
>> > "Peter van de Beek" <E.vand...@chello.nl> wrote in message
>> > news:Thvrb.238437$Oz2.29692445@amsnews03.chello.com...
>> > > I can get the 100 FPS easally with my GeForce FX 5600 from XFX with my
>> > Intel
>> > > Pentium III 1,4 GHz. Maybe gotta do a nice clean format agein :-P
>> > >
>> > > Succes.
>> > > Peter "Shaggy" van de Beek.
>> > >
>> > > "George" <geo...@george.net> schreef in bericht
>> > > news:uf_pb.30213$BX.4018@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> > > >
>> > > > "damyjuk" <aqu...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:3fa11b5a$0$235$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>> > > > > > Maybe your sound card is a CPU hog?  What is it?  EAX on/off?
>Do
>> > you
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > other programs running in the background?  Tried shutting some
>> down?
>> > > > Have
>> > > > > > you tried the latest ATI Catalyst drivers?  v3.8/3.9 ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > catalyst 3.9 drivers???
>> > > > > has anyone tried them yet?
>> > > > > 3.8 made no diffirence to my 9500 pro at all.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > damyjuk
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Careful with the 3.8 drivers.  I've read in other newsgroups that
>ATI
>> > > tried
>> > > > to overclock the processor too much, and some of them got fried.
>Mine
>> > got
>> > > > so hot, I couldn't touch the heatsink.  I'm using 3.7 on an ATI
>Radeon
>> > > 7500
>> > > > All in Wonder on a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 MB with a 3000+ Barton
>(333
>> > Mhz)
>> > > > and 1 gig of ddr 2700, and Seagate 80 Gig SATA, and an 80 gig raid
>0+1
>> > set
>> > > > up (four 40 gig WD drives).  Sound card is a Terratec DMX 6 Fire.
>> With
>> > > all
>> > > > hardware acceleration on, and all graphics settings turned up to
>> highest
>> > > > levels, all of my games, especially URT 2003, rock.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Hello,

On OpenGL, with all details set to highest, in game, on Antalus map, I get
a sold 210FPS with 4 bots running during game play.

Windows 98SE
Athlon XP 2000+
512 DDR333
GeForce 4 TI 4800SE 128Meg
291Gig total hard drive (5 drives)
Soundblaster Live 5.1
Directx 9.0b (but not used obviously)

If anyone needs verification, I have custom benchmarks, using OpenGL,
instead of InDirectly slow X.

[EAGLE]GreatWing

On 12/15/2003 3:41 PM SDE befouled our nation with:

>Hello,
>
>On OpenGL, with all details set to highest, in game, on Antalus map, I get
>a sold 210FPS with 4 bots running during game play.
>
>Windows 98SE
>Athlon XP 2000+
>512 DDR333
>GeForce 4 TI 4800SE 128Meg
>291Gig total hard drive (5 drives)
>Soundblaster Live 5.1
>Directx 9.0b (but not used obviously)
>
>If anyone needs verification, I have custom benchmarks, using OpenGL,
>instead of InDirectly slow X.
>
>[EAGLE]GreatWing
>
>
>  
>

Why don't you just run the standard benchmarks in openGL and post them 
for comparison.

I love openGL, don't use it for UT2K3 though, but one of the reasons it 
tests faster is because you can't do complex shadows with it in UT2K3.  
Unless that's changed since the last time I tried it.

-- 
pining for the fjords,

Steve [Inglo]

Yeah, overall OpenGL does less and therefore your card doesn't have as much
to do.  But UT was developed using DirectX 8, so to see it all, that's the
way you have to play it.

JK

"Inglo" <ingloogoo@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.xcc> wrote in message
news:o5sDb.71851$Yh1.43859@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> On 12/15/2003 3:41 PM SDE befouled our nation with:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >On OpenGL, with all details set to highest, in game, on Antalus map, I
get
> >a sold 210FPS with 4 bots running during game play.
> >
> >Windows 98SE
> >Athlon XP 2000+
> >512 DDR333
> >GeForce 4 TI 4800SE 128Meg
> >291Gig total hard drive (5 drives)
> >Soundblaster Live 5.1
> >Directx 9.0b (but not used obviously)
> >
> >If anyone needs verification, I have custom benchmarks, using OpenGL,
> >instead of InDirectly slow X.
> >
> >[EAGLE]GreatWing
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Why don't you just run the standard benchmarks in openGL and post them
> for comparison.
>
> I love openGL, don't use it for UT2K3 though, but one of the reasons it
> tests faster is because you can't do complex shadows with it in UT2K3.
> Unless that's changed since the last time I tried it.
>
> -- 
> pining for the fjords,
>
> Steve [Inglo]

I dont get it but I got 139 fps on flyby-inferno and 303 fps on
botmatch-inferno

BOTS-
UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2190 MHz with 511MB RAM
RADEON 9600 SERIES   (6404)

dm-inferno?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds
=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

5.683104 / 17.761080 / 303.907623 fps         rand[19151]
Score = 17.759678

FLYBY-

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2190 MHz with 511MB RAM
RADEON 9600 SERIES   (6404)

dm-inferno?game=engine.gameinfo
exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

16.342604 / 28.650454 / 139.669128 fps         rand[29023]
Score = 28.680090