Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Lukerd

Slow Geforce 2?

Recommended Posts

Hi I'm sorry if this is OT but I have searched everywhere and I can't find a solution. I have a Geforce2 mx 400 (Supposed to be the faster version of the mx) and I expected programs to run fast with them and at first I didn't notice that they weren't. I mean Unreal Tournement runs at a decent frame rate and I wasn't bothered. But while running one of my programs noticed that with NOTHING being drawn the frame rate only gos up to 300fps. So I ran 3DMark 2001 and I only achieved 640 points. I searched the internet for benchmarks of similar machines and found that they had scores of 1100+. I am running Windows 2k, and I have the latest Detenator drivers and the latest Via 4 in 1 drivers. I only have an AMD k6-2 500 and an Via MVP3 chipset but my 3DMark scores should be higher than this. So if any of you have any possible solutions please tell me this is driving me mad. (Whats even more worrying is the computers at my college are performing better than mine) Oh and My motherboard only supports AGP 1x and 2x but the graphics card supports 2x and 4x does this make alot of difference to the speed? Thanks "To err is human, to really mess up requires a computer" Edited by - Lukerd on January 29, 2002 7:42:36 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Lukerd
I am running Windows 2k, and I have the latest Detenator drivers and the latest Via 4 in 1 drivers. I only have an AMD k6-2 500 and an Via MVP3 chipset but my 3DMark scores should be higher than this.

I used to have a K6-II 500 Mhz also. I still have the Geforce 2 GTS that I had back then. When I upgraded to an Athlon on a DDR motherboard (not sure how big of a difference DDR made; I just wanted to invest in it while the prices were low) with AGP 4x (see below) my speeds more than doubled in some situations. It's mainly a bandwidth thing at higher resolutions.

quote:
Original post by Lukerd
Oh and My motherboard only supports AGP 1x and 2x but the graphics card supports 2x and 4x does this make alot of difference to the speed?

Yes, that could be responsible for as much as halving your score.



Edited by - Null and Void on January 29, 2002 8:10:19 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks that was a quick reply. I thought it might have been something to do with Win2k. Guess this means an upgrade :D. That is unless there is any way of speeding it up that you guys know of?

"To err is human, to really mess up requires a computer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m sending you a little (76kb) file which runs two threads - one for keyboard and mouse input, the other just for rendering. Press ecsape to exit it.

In the directory you run it from, there will be two .txt files - one shows the display modes for your grapics card, the other shows the average FPS.

On my machine ,PII 350 (@ 392mhz) 512Mb PC100 I get the following FPS

Geforce 256 DDR - approx 1390 FPS
Geforce 2 MMX 200 - approx 960 FPS

The difference is accounted for the DDR Memory on the 256.

Let''s us know what the FPS is.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Lukerd
Thanks that was a quick reply. I thought it might have been something to do with Win2k. Guess this means an upgrade :D. That is unless there is any way of speeding it up that you guys know of?

The only version of Windows I''ve allowed on my machine for a long time is Win2K, so that''s what my comparisons are based on. Win2K does fine for games, so I keep it around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks alot!!!

I''ll try that tonight (I''m at college at the moment)
and Ill post back tommorrow. I really wasn''t expecting so many replies so quickly.




"To err is human, to really mess up requires a computer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Shag

I used your program and the fps went up to the grand(sarcasm) score of 433fps. Something has gotta be wrong thats half your score on a faster processor. I cant believe the AGP speed can make that much difference, can it?

"To err is human, to really mess up requires a computer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The k6-2 is an incredibly poor cpu. I have my doubts to whether it would be faster than the p2 350.

-----------------------
chain=chain->chain;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well according to benchmarks and reviews the K6-2 is equivelent if not slightly better than the P2. mine is running at 504 mhz. Maybe youre getting mixed up with the Cyrix MII as these do run ALOT slower than a PII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you run the second app I sent you, rather than the first ...


There's deffiniately something wrong (to state the obvious). I removed the multithreading and the main loop is simply ...

      
while (MessageHandler() == true)
{
glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT);

c += 1;
diGetKeyboardState(Keyboard);

if (KEY(DIK_ESCAPE))
{
PostQuitMessage(0);
}

SwapBuffers(hDC);
}


The only thing that should limit the speed is the time it takes to swap the front and back buffer.

(PS - OT ... is opengl.org down at the moment?)

Edited by - Shag on January 30, 2002 11:31:46 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Lukerd
Well according to benchmarks and reviews the K6-2 is equivelent if not slightly better than the P2. mine is running at 504 mhz. Maybe youre getting mixed up with the Cyrix MII as these do run ALOT slower than a PII.


Im not getting mixed up, I used to own a k6-2, and it performed MUCH slower than the celeron I swapped it for. The k6-2 has a very poor FPU, which is used quite extensively in 3d games.

-----------------------
chain=chain->chain;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a K62-500 as well and it performed very poorly compared to computers of equivalent speeds. I orginally had an ATI XPERT 128 16MB and then upgraded to a Voodoo 5 and the scores I got in games like Quake 2 did not improve at all. When I changed to a Duron however, my scores in all games went way up. The K62 seems to significantly reduce the performance of many graphics cards. From what I have seen, a K62 cannot out perform a P2 of any speed in any game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
personally performance aint important but

for 3d graphics the k6-2 500 == celeron 366 or pII 300 ( i used to have a k-2 300 + 350 a few years ago, the fpu unit sux bollux )

>>Thanks that was a quick reply. I thought it might have been something to do with Win2k. Guess this means an upgrade :D<<

to what? winXP will give u worse performance, going to win98 will increase performance but u will lose stability.

a faster cpu will help matters out (though u will most likely have to get a new mb as well)
if u have the cash grab an athlon, a duron is also a cheap alternative (certainly better than a celeron)

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shag I did use the second program I sent you and 433 fps was the score I got. I don''t think it has anything to do with the processor but probably more to do with the motherboard. I have read the MVP3 chipset has slow AGP.

Zedzeek when I said "guess that means an upgrade" I meant motherboard/CPU upgrade not Windows. Win2k is the only MS OS that I am satisfied with Win 9x/Me is too unstable. And I dont see the point of upgrading to WinXP, it''s just 2k but it looks nicer. Plus that security code thing is just a stupid idea. I''m not phoning Micro$oft everytime I upgrade.

Anyway I''m still trying too find a patch/reg fix or something that might improve performance. I have heard that Win2k/MVP3/Nvidia together can cause problems.

Thanks for everybodys advice. (Although I still disagree that the K6-2 500 == PII 350, thats just silly, maybe 450?)

"To err is human, to really mess up requires a computer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maximus

I''ve just checked the FPU thing and you''re right it is slower than a PII. And in some cases is slower than the celeron, guess I was mis-informed

Check here

If I do upgrade I''ll probably get a Duron I cant afford anything more. That plus the Motherboard will cost £100+ I''d better start saving.

Cheers everyone.


"To err is human, to really mess up requires a computer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horribly off topic.

XP will give worse performance? I don''t believe that for a second...

Look - I hate windows as much as any of you... Win2k was all I would run for the longest time. XP is wonderful... Except for the authorization (which has workarounds), I find it superior to Win2000 in every way.

My rant for the day...
Landsknecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something you may want to consider - the latest Detanator drivers are for XP... They say they are for 2000/Xp, but I found them to be buggy and slow on my 2000 box. I eventually had to downgrade to the previous Detonators... Give that a try and see what happens.

Landsknecht

Edited by - landsknecht on January 31, 2002 4:51:55 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheers I'll try that I don't know how slow it was before installng the latest drivers. But I remember thinking that I didn't get the 50% increase that Nvidia boasted.

"To err is human, to really mess up requires a computer"


Edited by - Lukerd on January 31, 2002 5:04:15 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Landsknecht
They say they are for 2000/Xp, but I found them to be buggy and slow on my 2000 box.

They''re NT 5.x drivers; both 2K and XP use very nearly the same driver model. If it''s crappy in 2K it''s going to be crappy in XP also. I haven''t booted Win2K in a really long time, so I haven''t upgraded my drivers, so I really can''t tell you if they''re stable for me or not .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The celeron2 is a cheap but very viable upgrade (if youve had my experiences with athlons/durons and their lack of stability). As long as you go with the tualatin core and not the coppermine core, that is. Tualatin core is a LOT better, I cant argue when my 1.2ghz box benchmarks considerably better than a 1.6ghz P4, and even higher than a 1.3ghz athlon. Much cheaper too, and absolutely no stability issues

-----------------------
chain=chain->chain;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K6-2 chips with via chipsets require that you install agp drivers (they should have come with your motherboard, but if not check the website) AFTER you install videocard drivers. You will then be at AGP 2x.

I own a DFI K6BV3+/66 with a K6-2 533mhz processor and Gainward Geforce2 Ti/500 XP (I don''t know why they call it a Ti/500- its a Ti/200 card- but that what they call it)

Here are the motherboard AGP driver instructions that were included in the readme file of its installation disk:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIA AGP VxD Driver for Windows 95/98
------------------------------------

The "VIA AGP VxD Driver for Windows 95/98" supports Accelerated
Graphics Port (AGP) functionalities.

Regardless of the operating system you are using (Windows 95 or
Windows 98, you must first install the AGP card''s driver prior
to installing the AGP VxD driver. To install the AGP VxD driver,
click the "VIA AGP VxD Driver for Windows 95/98" button in
AUTORUN.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a post not to long ago on opengl.org, where mcraighead (a driver writer for nvidia) stated he only uses W2K for developement. This means that the XP drivers are NOT developed for XP rather than W2K, but the other way round.

I have seen several machines running XP - but none of them outperform my W2K box - even with faster CPU's.

The Moral - the speed you see using various operating systems is more dependant on the overall hardware configuration. NOT the OS. I use a very nice ABIT motherboard, quality PC100 ram, and a PII350. I think the the amount of software running in the background also has a significant performance impact. The only non necessary thing I run in the background is the SETI@HOME screen saver software (which everyone should be forced to run!)

get it here http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu (unashamed plug)

BTW - don't run messenger software in the background when developing - some of them really screw up your FPS.

Edited by - Shag on January 31, 2002 1:05:30 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SETI@home... I work for a local Community College and we use SETI as our screensaver... Oooooo, pretty colors...

Anyway, the latest Detonators work like greased silk on my XP box, but cause MAJOR graphics corruption on my 2000 box... EXACT SAME HARDWARE. Even the monitors are the same.

Oh well. Good luck in your quest for frame rate!

Landsknecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check the AGP speed on the motherboard, 1X suppoort on the motherboard will not utlize a GeForce III to it''s potential, also the bus speed of the motherboard, chipset and finally the speed of your RAM.


http://www.CornflakeZone.com
//-- Modelling and animation in every dimension --//

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites