Anyone else got a 2900XT and a similar spec to me (P5N-E SLi)

willhub · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:17

decto said:
Hi,

Both runs were done with the same settings using CAT 7.9 XP
Timedemo seems to run without any frame restriction
In game seems capped to 60 even with vsync off and CCC set to vsync off

I'm just fighting CAT 7.10 which bombed the CCC. I'll let you know if 7.10 is any better.

AD

Those 7.10's were same for me.

Were is the time demo?

decto · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:23

There isn't a time demo as such but you can make one ingame then use it

Drop the console

>recordDemo 2900
Play for a while
>stopRecording

Then you can use
>timeDemo 2900

more here

http://www.tweakguides.com/Quake4_9.html

Edit:

OK, now have the CAT7.10 working thanks to drivercleaner.
Same settings and I get 103.1 102.8 102.7 so a small increase

AD

willhub · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:51

decto said:
There isn't a time demo as such but you can make one ingame then use it

Drop the console

>recordDemo 2900
Play for a while
>stopRecording

Then you can use
>timeDemo 2900

more here

http://www.tweakguides.com/Quake4_9.html

Edit:

OK, now have the CAT7.10 working thanks to drivercleaner.
Same settings and I get 103.1 102.8 102.7 so a small increase

AD

103.1 102.8 102.7 ?

I dont get it, 103fps?

I'll give fraps a go.

decto · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:52

Yes,

What sort of FPS are you getting ?

AD

willhub · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:53

decto said:
Yes,

What sort of FPS are you getting ?

AD

Havent tried it yet.

But how is it constant 100+fps then with fraps its showing a totally different fps.

decto · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:57

willhub said:
Havent tried it yet.

But how is it constant 100+fps then with fraps its showing a totally different fps.

When running the timedemo any framerate cap is removed, it renders as fast as it can regardless.

When running in game there seems to be a cap of 60fps during most of the gameplay and you get dips e.g. while it saves between checkpoints which can be in the 20's and 30's.

AD

Edit:

I've also just tried the timedemo with high rather than ultra textures. averages approx 108 so not much faster

J.D · 29 Sep 2007 at 18:29

Will. That's quite a bad performance from your system and DiRT!!!. I was hoping the 2900Pro would get me playable FPS at about 1600x1200.

What settings are you using for AA and AF and also is that at max in-game settings?.

Cyber-Mav said:
yes dirt really hit my performance badly. and crysis was buggy like mad, but will have to wait for final release to see how it is.

i thought it was just me that noticed slowness and ghosting effects on tft/lcd's i do find thier response speeds too slow for gaming really. although its always fun to play on a bigger screen.

I thought it was my 1 gb but seeing you with the 4gb makes me know it's just my card not being able to cope with DiRT. There may be hope still for Crysis to get it looking quite good and playable with the x1900/1950 series.

Aye, as soon as I seen Call of Duty on my m8's BenQ FP241W with a GTX and overclocked Conroe I knew it wasn't the hardware holding it back and I thought it was terrible. I got my 22" with 1ms slower response time and I couldn't score like I do normally so I went and got the Viewsonic CRT 21" to replace my office reject 17" CRT for online gaming. LCD is fine for single player FPS games and is fun but for speed and sharpness online they can't cut it. I've been playing Call of Duty for years on the CRT online so it was easily noticed. Funnily, none of my m8's think it's a problem and can't see the difference. The same on CSS even though I don't play it much I didn't like it on the LCD (same problem as CoD).

Tom|Nbk said:
Just get her a GTX to give to you

Hahahahaha

. If only I didn't have a conscience

.

willhub · 29 Sep 2007 at 19:57

J.D said:
Will. That's quite a bad performance from your system and DiRT!!!. I was hoping the 2900Pro would get me playable FPS at about 1600x1200.

What settings are you using for AA and AF and also is that at max in-game settings?.

I thought it was my 1 gb but seeing you with the 4gb makes me know it's just my card not being able to cope with DiRT. There may be hope still for Crysis to get it looking quite good and playable with the x1900/1950 series.

Aye, as soon as I seen Call of Duty on my m8's BenQ FP241W with a GTX and overclocked Conroe I knew it wasn't the hardware holding it back and I thought it was terrible. I got my 22" with 1ms slower response time and I couldn't score like I do normally so I went and got the Viewsonic CRT 21" to replace my office reject 17" CRT for online gaming. LCD is fine for single player FPS games and is fun but for speed and sharpness online they can't cut it. I've been playing Call of Duty for years on the CRT online so it was easily noticed. Funnily, none of my m8's think it's a problem and can't see the difference. The same on CSS even though I don't play it much I didn't like it on the LCD (same problem as CoD).

Hahahahaha . If only I didn't have a conscience .

it was max AA in game (4X AA), 16xAF, Ultra settings but high shadows, 1440x900.

J.D · 29 Sep 2007 at 20:04

willhub said:
it was max AA in game (4X AA), 16xAF, Ultra settings but high shadows, 1440x900.

This is making me rethink about the 2900Pro now and aiming for the 640mb GTS instead. I'm looking to get it next week but will have to save a few extra quid for the GTS. Why does Christmas have to be so close!.

I don't want to have the 2900Pro and wait for DX10 drivers to sort out whilst the GTS is fairing a little bit better. I'm sure someone was running DiRT with good settings (not max) @ 1920x1440 on a 320mb GTS. Is DiRT just not great with ATI or something?.

willhub · 29 Sep 2007 at 20:12

J.D said:
This is making me rethink about the 2900Pro now and aiming for the 640mb GTS instead. I'm looking to get it next week but will have to save a few extra quid for the GTS. Why does Christmas have to be so close!.

I don't want to have the 2900Pro and wait for DX10 drivers to sort out whilst the GTS is fairing a little bit better. I'm sure someone was running DiRT with good settings (not max) @ 1920x1440 on a 320mb GTS. Is DiRT just not great with ATI or something?.

well to put things into perspective, when I had my GTS 640mb at 650/2.2, at 1440x900, 16xAA/AF, all ultra apart from shadows which wont stick at ultra for some reason, I was hardly ever under 30fps, sometimes it dipped to around 23fps but that was fine, other times it was up nearly 40+.

V_R · 29 Sep 2007 at 20:21

Why did you swap to the 2900XT?

willhub · 29 Sep 2007 at 20:38

V_R said:
Why did you swap to the 2900XT?

I dont think I can answer that question tbh, I dont know.

RavenUK · 29 Sep 2007 at 20:56

willhub said:
well to put things into perspective, when I had my GTS 640mb at 650/2.2, at 1440x900, 16xAA/AF, all ultra apart from shadows which wont stick at ultra for some reason, I was hardly ever under 30fps, sometimes it dipped to around 23fps but that was fine, other times it was up nearly 40+.

Nothing wrong with the 2900's performance as the latest reviews show, screw the crap so called current DX10 titles and crappy port dirt, lets see what crysis plays like.

J.D · 29 Sep 2007 at 21:08

The GTX and GTS can run this game but the X2900 struggles. So please explain how is that a crappy console port? :confused:

.

Raven. Why not put the ATI flag down for now and stop attacking anyone who doesn't approve of the X2900's as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've done the same myself at times but you are really taking the extra mile and over a lot of threads whenever a 2900 gets mentioned.

When the DX10 drivers get sorted out then I can easily see the X2900 being a match for the GTS but for now in DX10 and with AA enabled(or is that still the case today?) the GTS outshines the X2900. This is how it is right now so there's no use in future fix's for someone who is buying now and doesn't have days/weeks/months to wait/hope for a great set of drivers.

I think I'm still going to go ahead and order the Pro though as DX9 and XP is good for the 2900's. Or should I consider the GTS?. I'm not planning on moving over to Vista for a while yet (maybe after xmas) but by then I will have the money ready for the GTX's successor and a new system. I've got Vista ultimate, had it installed in dual boot but I don't really like it and it was a PITA to install Call of Duty for my online fun. So the 2900Pro will be used in DX9 only it looks like. So is it worth the Extra £70 for the 640mb GTS in XP DX9 over the 2900pro?.

jrodga2k5 · 29 Sep 2007 at 21:15

Willhub my spec in sig is comparable enough to yours since I am now running at XT speeds with my pro so name a series of games you would like me to test that you have and what part to test them at!

Which of the following can we compare?

Oblivion
Team Fortress 2
Half Life 2
Episode 1
Stress Test in Counter Strike
Stress Test in Lost Coast
World in Conflict
Medal of Honor Airborne
Bioshock

J.D · 29 Sep 2007 at 21:18

I'm really interested in World in Conflict in DX9 and DX10 after seeing that poor performance of the X2900 in that Firingsquad review. Airborne I'd be interested in too. Any chance you have a copy of DiRT lying around jrodga2k5?

.

jrodga2k5 · 29 Sep 2007 at 21:26

J.D said:
I'm really interested in World in Conflict in DX9 and DX10 after seeing that poor performance of the X2900 in that Firingsquad review. Airborne I'd be interested in too. Any chance you have a copy of DiRT lying around jrodga2k5? .

My review has a few benchmarks of World in Conflict in DX9 and Il run at XT speeds tomorrow and see how it does, i bet it performs better than the review thing! Especiailly with the 7.10betas! Also dont have dirt im afraid!

Ran a quick one and bearing in mind my CPU is not as fast by a long shot but the res is lower @ 1280x1024 i got 30fps average with 4xAA and 4xAF! So not so bad considering they used a Quad

J.D · 29 Sep 2007 at 21:31

RavenUK said:
Blah blah, who say the 2900 struggles with dirt, Will? considering his system is the equivalents of a dead dog, I'm not surprised it runs like crap, runs fine for me, never dipped below 30fps in the demo, all set to max and 4XAA, i never bought it because i don't buy junkgo buy your GTS, its clear you are easily influenced by one guy and his dodgy PC, see anyone else moaning about their XT, thought not. DX10, what is it good for, absolutely nothing.

go buy your GTS, its clear you are easily influenced

You are acting like you will be affected by my purchase of the GTS if it were to be. I'll buy what is the best at DX9 and with XP and I don't give a toss what you think. End off. If you took the time to read ALL of the posts then you'd have seen me asking what is the best option for me.

Why are you so protective over the 2900's? :confused:

. It effects you that much that you get abusive over it. If you don't believe me then please read through some of your posts over the last week.

RavenUK · 29 Sep 2007 at 21:33

jrodga2k5 said:
My review has a few benchmarks of World in Conflict in DX9 and Il run at XT speeds tomorrow and see how it does, i bet it performs better than the review thing! Especiailly with the 7.10betas! Also dont have dirt im afraid!

Are you sure the betas have the optimisation in them for WIC, the 7.9 hotfix is a later build than the beta and has confirmed performance increase for WIC, maybe better of with them.

http://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&questionID=29837

jrodga2k5 · 29 Sep 2007 at 21:35

RavenUK said:
Are you sure the betas have the optimisation in them for WIC, the 7.9 hotfix is a later build than the beta and has confirmed performance increase for WIC, maybe better of with them.

http://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&questionID=29837

Thanks mate il give them a try

in both XP and Vista!