Re: How smooth is your AMD Athlon 2200+ with a GeForce4 Ti4200?

Try with no AF or AA.... should run mighty smooth.

Also try with a fixed size swap file and then defrag....

AF + AA enabled is a major strain on the graphics card - Radeon Pro is a bit
better with full AA?

Guy
wrote:
> Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
> system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
> see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
> http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm.../computers.txt ... I am
> using the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.
>
> In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
> Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
> poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
> is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use
> 1024x768 resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy
> Territory (in Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses
> 1152x864 resolution. Even with nothing running in the background for
> both operating systems. Older games like Q3A and their mods are
> smooth, but then they are old games.
>
> What is the bottleneck? I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
> soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
> wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great
> and ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I
> also had the video card since October 2002.
>
> What do you think? Thank you in advance.
>>> o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
> \ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
> ( )

I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I can run
the game settings maxed out at 1024x768, 2XAA, 4XAF, but there might be a
couple of places where the framerate might dip below 42fps. I want the graphics
to be the best they can, with a good framerate. To me that is 42fps or higher.
Also the visual difference between 8XAF and 4XAF is slight, but the fps hit is
high. I tested this with screenshots from Wolf3D. Going to a newer FX card
might help with higher AA and AF settings, as someone mentioned but the
increase in framerate won't be all that much. Also I believe wold3d is very cpu
dependent. The only way your gonna see a very high improvement would be to get
one of the latest cards like the 5900 or ATI 9700/9800 radeon, but then your
cpu would be a big bottleneck for cpu dependent games.

PRIVATE1964 <> wrote:
> I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I can run

Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high resolutions at
1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17" CRT
monitor.


> the game settings maxed out at 1024x768, 2XAA, 4XAF, but there might be a
> couple of places where the framerate might dip below 42fps. I want the graphics
> to be the best they can, with a good framerate. To me that is 42fps or higher.
> Also the visual difference between 8XAF and 4XAF is slight, but the fps hit is
> high. I tested this with screenshots from Wolf3D. Going to a newer FX card
> might help with higher AA and AF settings, as someone mentioned but the
> increase in framerate won't be all that much. Also I believe wold3d is very cpu
> dependent. The only way your gonna see a very high improvement would be to get
> one of the latest cards like the 5900 or ATI 9700/9800 radeon, but then your
> cpu would be a big bottleneck for cpu dependent games.

Yeah, I wonder if it is even worth upgrading my video card.
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

<> wrote in message
news:...
> PRIVATE1964 <> wrote:
> > I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I
can run
>
> Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high
resolutions at
> 1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17"
CRT
> monitor.
>

Heh, i'm the opposite - everything's too small and hard to see on those
resolutions.

Mind you, I only have a 14'' monitor, so 800x600 is pretty much the best I
can do anyway (coupled with the low refresh rate of my monitor).

k y l e <> wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > PRIVATE1964 <> wrote:
> > > I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I
> can run
> >
> > Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high
> resolutions at
> > 1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17"
> CRT
> > monitor.
> >

> Heh, i'm the opposite - everything's too small and hard to see on those
> resolutions.

> Mind you, I only have a 14'' monitor, so 800x600 is pretty much the best I
> can do anyway (coupled with the low refresh rate of my monitor).

Ah, 14". Yes, I remember those. You should get a bigger screen.
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: NT or NT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )