Slow Geforce 2?

Started by
25 comments, last by Lukerd 22 years, 2 months ago
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;
-----------------------"When I have a problem on an Nvidia, I assume that it is my fault. With anyone else's drivers, I assume it is their fault" - John Carmack
Advertisement
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.
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
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
My sig used to be, "God was my co-pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him..."
But folks whinned and I had to change it.
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 --//
quote:Original post by Maximus
If you''ve had my experiences with athlons/durons and their lack of stability...

That probably doesn''t come out as it should. You should probably have written "If you''ve had the experiences I had with a lack of stability that I had while running Athlons or Durons." I''m not correcting your grammar (I mess up grammar often too) so much as your phrasing. You seem to blame the CPU for the stability the way you said it. It''s much more likely to be something else (software probably; OS and drivers are often to blame for such issues) not running correctly on the CPU if it''s anything. In addition, poor motherboards cause many more stability issues than processors do.

quote:Original post by Null and Void
That probably doesn''t come out as it should. You should probably have written "If you''ve had the experiences I had with a lack of stability that I had while running Athlons or Durons." I''m not correcting your grammar (I mess up grammar often too) so much as your phrasing. You seem to blame the CPU for the stability the way you said it. It''s much more likely to be something else (software probably; OS and drivers are often to blame for such issues) not running correctly on the CPU if it''s anything . In addition, poor motherboards cause many more stability issues than processors do.


Yeah I guess it did come out wrong, but Im yet to have any good experiences with any athlons/durons which their owners claim are stable. Ive crashed an athlon xp by:

1) Leaving it sit idle
2) Opening a console box in winxp
3) Typing ''/quit'' at the q3a console under win2k
4) Opening a cpuid app under winxp

Im not going to type out every random crash Ive had with them, but in my experiences they just arent worth the trouble. Before my upgrade a couple days ago, I had been running a celeron2 600mhz on the cheapest dodgiest motherboard ever, and it was more stable than nearly every other system I had access to (it hadnt crashed in over a year easily). The dodgy mobo also ran the cpu faster than any other mobo I tried it in as well, seeing as the dodgy board detected the cpu as a P3e, and ran its FSB at 120mhz instead of 66mhz.

-----------------------
chain=chain->chain;
-----------------------"When I have a problem on an Nvidia, I assume that it is my fault. With anyone else's drivers, I assume it is their fault" - John Carmack

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement