Frame rates and tweaking

[DarkCrown]

I have a 1700MHz P4 system with 512 Meg of memory and a GeForce FX5200 video card with 128 Meg of memory. I'm playing WoW at 1024x768 with all the video settings at a minimum, and I'm lucky to get 35FPS standing still, alone in a deserted corner of the game. In large raids it drops as low as 8FPS, which is horrible. These numbers seem low to me.

I know that doubling the memory would help, but I was wondering if anyone knows of anything else I could do to improve my framerate. My only remaining thought is that it may be the flatscreen monitor, but I don't know enough about computers to know if that's reasonable.


-DarkCrown

[Roland]

I have a 1700MHz P4 system with 512 Meg of memory and a GeForce FX5200 video card with 128 Meg of memory.  I'm playing WoW at 1024x768 with all the video settings at a minimum, and I'm lucky to get 35FPS standing still, alone in a deserted corner of the game. In large raids it drops as low as 8FPS, which is horrible. These numbers seem low to me.

I know that doubling the memory would help, but I was wondering if anyone knows of anything else I could do to improve my framerate. My only remaining thought is that it may be the flatscreen monitor, but I don't know enough about computers to know if that's reasonable.
-DarkCrown
[right][snapback]68121[/snapback][/right]

Your video card sucks. It's as simple as that. It's not worth the PCB board it was printed on. If you have anything less than a 5600, you wasted your money. Period.

Save up $250 and get a GeForce 6800 (plain). Or, if that's out of your budget, save up $150 and get a 6600. A 6800 will do you fine, although you'll find the card to be CPU limited, so it may not be worth the money to you if you're not going to upgrade your processor anytime soon.

I have a small upgrade lined up for myself, $250, that gets me a new motherboard and processor to go with my CPU-limited video card (a GeForce 6800). My planned upgrade should, in theory, allow me to play WoW at max settings without any hiccups. Although, I also have a way better video card than you and double the RAM (1 Gig).

Your CPU is too low for a 6800, but getting the card will still help, especially if you keep the settings on minimum. Your RAM is a bit low overall, but should be sufficient to play the game with minimal impact on performance. Your video card is, as I said before, absolute crap. It's BARELY manageable for watching a DVD, let alone playing a highly graphics-intensive video game like WoW. Ditch it the second you can, and get at LEAST a 6600 (although a 6600 GT, 6800, or 6800 GT would be more preferable in the long run). And, finally, you'll want to look into upgrading your CPU before long, as that little power will bottleneck the graphics card (in other words, the CPU won't be able to send data to the graphics card fast enough for the card to utilize its full potential; imagine driving a Ferrari in rush-hour - loads of horsepower, but no room to gallop).

Check out the topic on RAM, Graphics Cards, and WoW and you'll see what I mean. Explore that thread and you'll find lots of good advice, which I basically summed up for you.

CPU: $160
Motherboard: $80 - $100
Graphics Card: $120 - $250
RAM: $50 - $100

Total System Upgrade: $410 - $610

If you can't budget it all at once, do it one at a time. First, video card. Then, some new RAM. Finally, throw in a new CPU (and motherboard, if needed), and voila! A virtually brand-new system without spending a fortune. And it will easily least you the next 2 years without a need for an upgrade, if you do it right.

[vor_lord]

Your video card sucks. It's as simple as that. It's not worth the PCB board it was printed on. If you have anything less than a 5600, you wasted your money. Period.
[right][snapback]68123[/snapback][/right]

I occasionally check AH stuff on my PC here at work, and it is running on onboard video (with no video memory, shared system memory!) and it is playable. Framerates are better than what you describe for sure. Your 5200 should be considerably more capable than that.

You should be able to play fine with your card. I wouldn't give up just yet. Have you installed the very latest video drivers from nvidia? That can make a big difference.

I'd certainly make sure you at least try that before you go spend some money.

RAM is probably not your problem if you have 512. 256 is not really enough, but 512 should be fine.

Of course, if you can swing the cards Roland suggests, that will make it nicer. Personally my machine has a 5900XT (the 6600 wasn't out yet, grrr) and it runs perfectly fine with all detail turned up at 1600x1200.

[Drasca]

anything else I could do to improve my framerate.[right][snapback]68121[/snapback][/right]

There's always the obvious option: Lower the resolution. Try 800x600, see if that helps.

Virtual memory: Have you considered a static sized partition? If Win Xp, defrag your hard drive, go into control panels-->system-->advanced-->performance and set a custom size of maybe 1500 megabytes to 1500, or 1024 to 1024. Maybe a little lower or higher depending on how much you like.

Personally, I've never seen WoW + WinXp use more than 800-900 Mbs of page file total.

[Nystul]

1) It's definately NOT the monitor.
2) Reduce the farclip as much as you can before it gets totally annoying.
3) Have you tried 800x600? 1024x768 in a 3D game is a luxury, not a necessity.
4) Make sure anti-aliasing is off, and turn down as many graphics options as possible.
5) If 2 through 4 aren't making a significant difference, then you need more RAM.

Although I must say, 35 FPS is really not a problem in any game, and bottoming out at 8 FPS is still pretty playable for WoW considering the slow pace of the game. Playing on a dial-up connection at 60 FPS would delay your reactions more than playing broadband at a steady 8 FPS, although the game would look smoother at the time.

[Malakar]

Your video card sucks. It's as simple as that. It's not worth the PCB board it was printed on.
[right][snapback]68123[/snapback][/right]

I agree totally. I made the mistake of buying one of those for about 100$ a while back, and it sucked. Got a Radeon 9600 for about 10$ more and it was much better. I hear you need to be careful about the model of NVidia cards you get, they don't make it simple to get a good card.

[DarkCrown]

Thank you for all your suggestions and advice. To add a bit more info: I'm using the latest Nvidia drivers from their website, and I have a 768 Meg static virtual memory partitiion. Lowering the resolution to 800x600 doesn't seem to have a significant effect.
I've defragged the hard drive, reinstalled the video drivers and lowered every option there is on the in-game video menu. I've also tried booting with all of the normal startup items turned off (as Blizzard suggest on their webpage). Heck, I've even turned the sound off.

Like I said in the first post, I'm flat out of ideas. Buying a shiny new video card and some more memory would be a really fine idea, but so would remaining married, so hardware upgrades are just not in the near future.


-DarkCrown

[Roland]

I agree totally. I made the mistake of buying one of those for about 100$ a while back, and it sucked. Got a Radeon 9600 for about 10$ more and it was much better. I hear you need to be careful about the model of NVidia cards you get, they don't make it simple to get a good card.
[right][snapback]68135[/snapback][/right]

Not entirely true. ATi suffers from the same problems. However, NVidia's latest creations (the 6200) ARE a complete step backwards, which is a true shame. Up until now, they've been making leaps and bounds forwards. I don't know what they were thinking with them, nor the 5200, for that matter (which are actually BETTER than the 6200s!). At any rate, what people need to learn to do is do some RESEARCH before you buy something computer-related.

For example:
VGA Charts IV - Doom 3
GeForce 6600 GT AGP - Doom 3 HQ 0x AA, 8x AF
GeForce 6600 GT AGP - Doom 3 HQ 4x AA, 8x AF

These show you a good graphical analysis of the performance of many mid-to-high end video cards. The 6600 GT in AGP form is a very solid card for the money. The 6800, 6800 GT, and 6800 Ultra can't be beat, but they also cost a lot more. The gap between the 6800 and the 6800 GT is far wider than between the GT and Ultra, mostly because the GT runs at vastly higher clock speeds and has more pipelines (although the others can be unlocked in the plain 6800 - just don't expect to get GT-like clock speeds ;)).

For the future, bookmark Tom's Hardware Guide. It's an incredible resource for all things computer-related, and their video card segments are top-notch.

[Concillian]

While I would agree 100% that the 5200 is not a very good card, the one thing that seems to have the most effect on performance in WoW is the terrain distance. I would try lowering that before worrying about anything else.

[Roland]

Thank you for all your suggestions and advice. To add a bit more info: I'm using the latest Nvidia drivers from their website, and I have a 768 Meg static virtual memory partitiion. Lowering the resolution to 800x600 doesn't seem to have a significant effect.
I've defragged the hard drive, reinstalled the video drivers and lowered every option there is on the in-game video menu.  I've also tried booting with all of the normal startup items turned off (as Blizzard suggest on their webpage). Heck, I've even turned the sound off.

Like I said in the first post, I'm flat out of ideas. Buying a shiny new video card and some more memory would be a really fine idea, but so would remaining married, so hardware upgrades are just not in the near future.
-DarkCrown
[right][snapback]68138[/snapback][/right]

Then, unfortunately, you're SOL. There's nothing more you can do shy of overclocking your video card, and I wouldn't recommend that unless you sunk a small chunk of change into a decent cooling solution. Anywhere from $20 - $50 would be sufficient, depending on what you get and how far you want to take it. A good HSFU (heatsink / fan unit) with some heatsinks / heat spreaders for your video card RAM could make a HUGE difference. Also, Arctic Silver thermal grease (SILVER, not that white ceramic crap, but SILVER) can make a world of difference as well.

Here's what I'd suggest, if you absolutely cannot afford a new video card:
-Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Grease - $7.59
-Vantec IceBerq 4 Pro - $13.49
-OCZ BGA RAMsinks - $11.99

1) Take out your video card, and remove the HSFU (if any), along with any RAMsinks (if any, although it's not likely there will be any). Be careful, as sometimes heatsinks are applied with thermal tape, rather than grease or just screwed on. If it won't come off easy, DO NOT FORCE IT. Throw it in the freezer for about 2 hours, then pull it out and GENTLY pull off the HSFU.
2) Attatch the RAMsinks with the thermal tape to ALL your RAM chips, on both sides (if applicable; may want to do it anyway, even if the chips are only on one side, but be careful of space restrictions).
3) Apply some thermal grease to the GPU, then spread evenly with a flat piece of plastic or business card. Be sure to apply a thin-to-medium layer of grease - enough so that it will contact both the GPU and the new HSFU without dripping out everywhere.
4) Attatch the HSFU cooler to the GPU.
5) Insert your card back into your system and test it out.
6) Download Coolbits 2.0, allowing you to unlock the card's overclocking panels (be forewarned, any OCing will void your warranty!).
7) IF SO DESIRED, begin overclocking your card in VERY small increments, making sure to "stress test" the card after each change (i.e. play a video game like WoW; putting WoW in Windowed Mode works exceptionally well for this sort of testing). Try to avoid making changes in larger than 5MHz increments, and preferably make them in 1MHz - 2MHz increments. Should you run into any video freezing, artifacting, tearing, etc., reduce your clock speeds back until you find the relative "maximum" setting. Don't be surprised if, sooner or later, you have to downgrade the overclocking by a couple MHz, as ambient temperatures in your case / room may affect performance.

All told, this will cost you about $40 plus an hour of your time, but it will be a way to improve your video performance without sinking a ton of money into a new card. You won't get great results, but you should be able to push your minimum FPS up to around 10 - 15 through these methods.

If you won't even do this, I can't suggest anything more to you. You bought the wrong card, and unfortunately you're stuck with it for awhile. In any case, good luck.

[Malakar]

Nice chart. The dramatic performance differences between different versions of the same line of cards is surprising. It kind of defeats the purpose of numbering them, doesn't it?

[Tharn]

I have a 1700MHz P4 system with 512 Meg of memory and a GeForce FX5200 video card with 128 Meg of memory.  I'm playing WoW at 1024x768 with all the video settings at a minimum, and I'm lucky to get 35FPS standing still, alone in a deserted corner of the game. In large raids it drops as low as 8FPS, which is horrible. These numbers seem low to me.

Well, I get something little over 35 fps when I'm looking aroud without many players on my screen. It might be my personal chopiness resolution, which begins only when I get less than 20 fps - maybe I'm too used for lower framerate, since I played Doom at 386, Unreal at K6/200, etc. In general, WoW should not need 30+ fps, but I agree 8 fps is too low.

I have pretty similar computer as you do: AthlonXP 1800+, 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9600 256 MB (recently upgraded from 512 MB RAM and nVidia Ti4200 128 MB - graphics card was fine, btw) and I do fine.

Here's the diagnostics:
1. If your hard-drive is working all the time and your fps drops, you need more RAM. 512 MB is so-so for WoW, but most of the time you should not have this problem, except when you're running to new area. 1 GB should be enough even in more demanding situations, but I am still getting lot of HDD lag during larger scale PvP even with it (probably game is loading new player textures all the time). Then the upgrade would be to 2 GB RAM and RAID and that's as good as it can get with 32-bit CPUs

2. If you can (significantly) increase your framerate by lowering resolution (I'm not sure if WoW offers 640x480) or if your framereate significantly decreases when you increase resolution one step (say to 1280x1024 in your case), your system is limited by graphics card or more precisely it's fillrate and pixel shader capabilities (not many of them in WoW except water, so let's keep it at fillrate). You need new graphics card - Roland has written enough about it.

3. If none of the above works, it's either CPU, graphics card geometry capability or combination of both. If this is applicable - then first check all graphics options, because some of them actually increase performance, most notably Vertex Shaders. I'm not sure how much nVidia 5x00 line has it gimped, but my Ti4200 worked just fine. You can try somewhat overclock your gfx card chip, if you like, and see if it helps. If this does not help, look for faster CPU.

[Roland]

Well, I get something little over 35 fps when I'm looking aroud without many players on my screen. It might be my personal chopiness resolution, which begins only when I get less than 20 fps - maybe I'm too used for lower framerate, since I played Doom at 386, Unreal at K6/200, etc. In general, WoW should not need 30+ fps, but I agree 8 fps is too low.

I have pretty similar computer as you do: AthlonXP 1800+, 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9600 256 MB (recently upgraded from 512 MB RAM and nVidia Ti4200 128 MB - graphics card was fine, btw) and I do fine.

Here's the diagnostics:
1. If your hard-drive is working all the time and your fps drops, you need more RAM. 512 MB is so-so for WoW, but most of the time you should not have this problem, except when you're running to new area. 1 GB should be enough even in more demanding situations, but I am still getting lot of HDD lag during larger scale PvP even with it (probably game is loading new player textures all the time). Then the upgrade would be to 2 GB RAM and RAID and that's as good as it can get with 32-bit CPUs

2. If you can (significantly) increase your framerate by lowering resolution (I'm not sure if WoW offers 640x480) or if your framereate significantly decreases when you increase resolution one step (say to 1280x1024 in your case), your system is limited by graphics card or more precisely it's fillrate and pixel shader capabilities (not many of them in WoW except water, so let's keep it at fillrate). You need new graphics card - Roland has written enough about it.

3. If none of the above works, it's either CPU, graphics card geometry capability or combination of both. If this is applicable - then first check all graphics options, because some of them actually increase performance, most notably Vertex Shaders. I'm not sure how much nVidia 5x00 line has it gimped, but my Ti4200 worked just fine. You can try somewhat overclock your gfx card chip, if you like, and see if it helps. If this does not help, look for faster CPU.
[right][snapback]68172[/snapback][/right]

You don't quite understand. The only ADVANTAGE a 5200 has over the old generation 4200 (even the 64MB, 4x AGP version, like I had!) is DirectX 9 handling. Outside of that, it will perform WORSE in EVERY game compared to a 4x AGP 64MB Ti4200. Compared to a 4x or 8x 128MB 4200, the situation is even more dire, and we're talking low-end, two generation old video cards! DirectX 9 games will be "runnable" with a 5200 (or any FX card and above; Ti series only supports up to 8), but not at all "playable". That's the problem he's having. His card is worse than the lowest of the low 2-generation old video cards (Ti = 2 generations ago, FX = 1 generation ago, 6x00 = current generation, just for clarity's sake).

Unfortunately, this means there's VERY little he can do aside from what he's done. There is no alternative except overclocking the video card or replacing it, and even replacing it may find him CPU limited (although that is liveable). I gave him all the solutions I could, but without at least a moderate monetary investment ($40 for upgrading / overclocking components), he's dead in the water. You can't race a go-kart in Formula 1 and expect to get anywhere, and sadly that's exactly the situation he's in.

[Roland]

Nice chart. The dramatic performance differences between different versions of the same line of cards is surprising. It kind of defeats the purpose of numbering them, doesn't it?
[right][snapback]68163[/snapback][/right]

Not really. Generally, cards in the same line share the same features (to an extent). For example, all the 6x00 line share Shader Model 3.0 and DirectX 9.0c support (for comparison, ATi does not have Shader Model 3.0 compatibility in any of their cards). The FX5xxx line gave birth to DirectX 9 support, which the previous generation (Ti series) did not have. Each evolution of cards brings about more than just increased performance. Part of that increased performance comes from improvements in the actual architecture (such as pixel / vertex pipelines, DirectX and Shader Model support, and faster clock speeds, and in older cases AGP compatibility {being replaced by PCI Express x16 these days}).

Sometimes, cards in the same line do have drastic differences. This generally comes from the "nerf stick" hitting the card in order to make it attractive to the "mainstream" or "budget" segments. Low-end graphics cards exist for the same reason the Celeron and Sempron do - to fill a gap without costing the manufacturer more money. After all, if they can scale down existing technology for a reduction in cost, and then sell that product for less than their other offerings while still making a profit, why shouldn't they? The consumer gets another option to choose from, and the manufacturer gets more money for hardly any work. After all, not everyone can afford the latest and greatest cards.

For example, when I bought my Ti4200, I got the lowest of the low. Long before the 8x AGP version of the 64MB card, there was the plain 4x AGP version. Rather than spend the extra money on the 128MB card, I got the 64MB, since the improvement in performance was virtually negligible (after all, what good are 128MB of RAM if your bus width is only 64-bit? That's what we call memory bottlenecking). Before that, an old TNT2 Vanta had served me quite well. Only now have I replaced my card with one that had more "oomph" and higher standing in the marketplace, rather than go for the cheap end. Part of this was because, for the cost, I was getting a tremendous deal, as the FX generation of cards were only marginally less expensive for far less power (a 5950 Ultra will cost you more than a 6800, but give you LESS performance or long-term viability). Part of this was because there WERE only the 6800 line - the 6600 line hadn't even been introduced, and even when it first was, they had NO AGP versions. And part of it was simply that I was sick of living in the "low end". Being a system-builder, I know the ins and outs of a computer, I know the cost / benefit ratios, and I knew that getting a higher-end video card, even if it was the lowest in the line, would be MUCH better than settling for what I was initially looking at for even $100 cheaper (or even equal priced!). Oh, and part of it was my old card was dying. PAINFULLY.

I can happily say that my card was worth every penny, and it will be worth that much more once I sink about $50 into it for cooling upgrades so that I may overclock it even more. But, then, I had the money to burn and the determination to invest it. My g/f understood that my old card was dying (being unusable in 3D for anything), and that I truly wanted this new card, and that if I could justify the cost, she could accept it without a fuss (I generally handle the monetary affairs, so I generally have a stronger grasp of our financial situation). Besides, I bought her around a grand worth of jewelry this past holiday season, so I think she can live with me buying a new video card for myself. ;) I spoil her so (although she spoiled ME this year with a brand new SLR camera, totalling ~$600 with all the extras; I was SUPER pleased). :)

The thing to remember is to always look at not only the specifications, the warranty, and the brand, but also the benchmarks, reviews, and accessories (such as cooling). If one card has, for example, 12 pixel pipelines, and another worth $50 more has 16, it's a good bet that the more expensive card will be more than worth the extra $50 (especially since half the time a reduction in pipelines is just a "switching off" of them, rather than an actual physical reduction). Likewise, a 128MB card versus a 256MB card that costs $100 more, with both having a 256-bit bus, may just be worth the extra money or it may not be. This is where viewing the benchmarks come into play. On the other hand, a 256MB card costing $100 more than a 128MB card, when both share a 128-bit bus, is almost certainly NOT worth any extra money, simply because the added RAM, while costing a bundle more, will offer virtually no performance gains because it will be bottlenecked in the bus. And when it comes to benchmarks, look at settings that you normally play with (to see how the new card compares with your current one), and then look well beyond your normal settings (to see how the card will handle future games). If the card performs really well in the low end, but terribly in the high end, is it really worth your money? Likewise, if a card performs incredibly well in the low end, and very well in the high end, but costs you an entire paycheck, is buying it right now worth all that extra money, or can it wait a couple months so the price comes down a couple notches? All these are things to consider when shopping for a new video card.

One final example:
Before my old card was on the fritz, I was looking for an upgrade. I had pegged a 5900XT as a possible choice, ranging in price from $150 to $250, or a plain 5900, ranging from about $200 to $300. The 5900 really didn't offer a significant improvement over the XT version, but the cost on some cards (XT high versus plain low) was slim enough that both were still a consideration, instead of me merely opting towards the XT. Unfortunately, I never really managed tp scrape the money together, so I kept putting off the upgrade. Finally, my card started to die one day, after years of service, so I began looking again. When I got into the Guild Wars and WoW betas, I decided it was time (especially since I HAD to get a new card by the time WoW went retail, or I wouldn't be playing at all!). By this time, the 6800 series had come out, and WOW what a difference. Using Doom 3 as an example, a 5900 XT averages around the mid 30's for FPS, while a 6800 pushes a whopping mid 70's! The 6800 FAR outperformed the old-generation top-of-the-line model, the 5950 Ultra, yet cost a whopping $200+ less! And where, in the high settings, the 5900 XT would slow to a crawl, the 6800 would barely go below a fast walk! The deal was settled, and the only thing stopping me from buying one was an INCREDIBLY limited supply. 6800 sold out in HOURS across a multitude of stores, and it was a long time coming before they got restocked. I was going to get a 6800 GT, since the performance in the high end was much better than a vanilla 6800, but still comparable to an Ultra, but it cost an extra $200 (which, when I bought my card, I didn't have) and none of the stores (online and off) had one, so I settled for my plain 6800. I'm exceptionally happy with my choice, despite (or maybe because of) the fact that I am now forced to get a CPU upgrade (LONG overdue; long long LONG overdue) to accomodate it since it's too powerful for my current rig. :D This new upgrade will cost me around $250 all told, but it also allows me to utilize all my old components (RAM, video card, sound card, etc.), swapping only the motherboard and CPU, and leaves me with plenty of room for upgrading. So, all told, $500 later and I have a virtually-new computer that will definitely last me a couple more years before I'm forced to build a new system. And when that time comes, $500 for 2 - 3 years will seem like a drop in the bucket. ;)

[Quark]

You don't quite understand. The only ADVANTAGE a 5200 has over the old generation 4200 (even the 64MB, 4x AGP version, like I had!) is DirectX 9 handling.
[right][snapback]68182[/snapback][/right]

Even calling it's DirectX 9 handling an advantage is a joke. The DirectX 9 support in the 5x00 series was so slow that often people would force a DirectX 8 version of a game to run just to speed the game up. nVidia really dropped the ball with the 5x00 series.

[Tharn]

You don't quite understand. The only ADVANTAGE a 5200 has over the old generation 4200 (even the 64MB, 4x AGP version, like I had!) is DirectX 9 handling. Outside of that, it will perform WORSE in EVERY game compared to a 4x AGP 64MB Ti4200.

Oh, I do. I posted it to help him identify the real cause, although I agree it's most probably the graphics card. That's because:
- he's getting 8 fps in raids (with 512 MB this IS most likely limited by RAM)
- his framerate didn't improve much when he went down to 800x600 (but no numbers, so hard to judge)
Which would indicate it's not the fillrate, but CPU/vertex shader or Darkcrown is oversensitive to low framerates (no pun intended, just your eyes demand it and health goes first).

I only didn't realize 5200 was SUCH a crap (the Ti series was OTOH very good for it's time). What I recall, FX series have awful pixel shader, but I didn't hear any complaints on vertex shader. I unfortunately don't know any benchmarks for this.

If that's the case, his FX5200 is crap of the craps and he could do well buying second-hand Ti4x00 for a few bucks. Of the above benchmarks you listed is one of the most representative UT2K4 which has scores:
FX5200 46.8
FX5200U 61.4
Ti4200 85.9
Ti4600 99.5
I'm not sure what the U there means (higher clock of core and memory, but no idea if it's really overclocked or not), but the 4600 could be budget savior. Of course with more cash at hand, 6600 or 6800 is much better (depending on resolution and AA/AF you want to have).

Likewise, a 128MB card versus a 256MB card that costs $100 more, with both having a 256-bit bus, may just be worth the extra money or it may not be. This is where viewing the benchmarks come into play. On the other hand, a 256MB card costing $100 more than a 128MB card, when both share a 128-bit bus, is almost certainly NOT worth any extra money, simply because the added RAM, while costing a bundle more, will offer virtually no performance gains because it will be bottlenecked in the bus.

RAM and bus speed are two different things. While I agree that instead of buying 256 MB 6600 it's better to buy 128 MB 6800 at the same price point, higher texture memory allows you to play games two years later with larger and more detailed textures without computer having to load it via AGP/PCIe. However, it's only worth it when the price difference is not too high (which it usually is as at the high end) and/or you think you'll stick with your card longer.

[Roland]

I only didn't realize 5200 was SUCH a crap (the Ti series was OTOH very good for it's time). What I recall, FX series have awful pixel shader, but I didn't hear any complaints on vertex shader. I unfortunately don't know any benchmarks for this.

Most people didn't, at first. Hell, many people STILL don't because they don't keep up to date with all the hardware reviews. They figure if one card in the line is better than the previous generation, ALL cards will be. Not always the case, as we see here.

If that's the case, his FX5200 is crap of the craps and he could do well buying second-hand Ti4x00 for a few bucks. Of the above benchmarks you listed is one of the most representative UT2K4 which has scores:
FX5200 46.8
FX5200U 61.4
Ti4200 85.9
Ti4600 99.5
I'm not sure what the U there means (higher clock of core and memory, but no idea if it's really overclocked or not), but the 4600 could be budget savior. Of course with more cash at hand, 6600 or 6800 is much better (depending on resolution and AA/AF you want to have).
[quote]

First of all, yes, his card is the lowest of the low for that generation. It's lower than the previous generation. Secondly, the U stands for Ultra, which means it's a higher clocked (not "overclocked", just a higher clocked version, designed to support those clock speeds; world of difference) card in both core and memory speeds. Sometimes it has advanced features, but generally it's just a higher-clocked card, occassionally with a higher bus-width.

[quote]
RAM and bus speed are two different things. While I agree that instead of buying 256 MB 6600 it's better to buy 128 MB 6800 at the same price point, higher texture memory allows you to play games two years later with larger and more detailed textures without computer having to load it via AGP/PCIe. However, it's only worth it when the price difference is not too high (which it usually is as at the high end) and/or you think you'll stick with your card longer.

As I said earlier, the ONLY performance gains you'll receive will be at the VERY high end in terms of settings (i.e. 1600 x 1200, all settings maxed, maybe maxed AF / AA), and even then it will be marginal at best. It's just generally not worth it to get a card with installed memory being greater than the bus-width can handle. Yes, you will see SOME performance gains - at the very high-end in terms of settings, and generally only LOW-end cards ever have a bus width smaller than their installed memory (my 6800 has 128MB of memory, but a 256-bit bus width, for example).

Oh, and when I said I didn't think you understood, I meant specifically that his card is just absolute CRAP, which I don't think you understood until just now. ;) It really is mind-blowing how horrible that card is.

[Artega]

Oh, and when I said I didn't think you understood, I meant specifically that his card is just absolute CRAP, which I don't think you understood until just now. ;) It really is mind-blowing how horrible that card is.
[right][snapback]68216[/snapback][/right]

ATi FTW.

I choppy framerates from time to time - usually when landing in OG (or any other highly-populated area), or when hostile players are being loaded. I'd attribute this to my 512MB of RAM, though.

A minor question, though - I use a 56k connection, which is fine for PvE, but it causes problems in PvP and sometimes in PvE. Monsters and other players often won't show up at all until they're within 20 yards of me, which has caused my instance groups to occasionally wipe (I wander right into the middle of a pack of mobs that wasn't on my screen seconds before), or for me to get ganked (or miss ganking opportunities.) In the case of PvP, I've literally run right by people on my mount before they load (they load behind me), which gives them the first shot, placing me at a major disadvantage.

In large-scale raids (30+ people), the game becomes unplayable - I can count off four or five seconds between my clicking Whirlwind and its actual activation (which means I either die having never used it, or use it twenty yards distant.)

I'm trying to find out if this is client-side lag (i.e., my #$%&ty 56k connection), server-side lag (i.e., #$%&ty netcode from Blizzard), or more related to my somewhat low RAM.

[Nystul]

In large-scale raids (30+ people), the game becomes unplayable - I can count off four or five seconds between my clicking Whirlwind and its actual activation (which means I either die having never used it, or use it twenty yards distant.)

I'm trying to find out if this is client-side lag (i.e., my #$%&ty 56k connection), server-side lag (i.e., #$%&ty netcode from Blizzard), or more related to my somewhat low RAM.
[right][snapback]68241[/snapback][/right]

If you are getting a big FPS drop and harddrive is churning when you have these problems, it would be your RAM. More likely though, it sounds like a connection issue. If it is consistently this bad every time you raid, I would say it is your 56k connection. As far as the efficiency of the network code, whether it is good or bad, it is not something that is likely to be improved upon much if at all.

[TaiDaishar]

Whoa, my system is an ANTIQUE and I only ever noticed an FPS drop at the end of the Euro beta when 50+ people were about casting spells, ressurecting and the such and even then it seemed that only the Felguard really shot my frame rate, except for that the game ran PERFECT for me on low settings (except Texture set at High) and at 800x600.

And if you're curious, my system spec is:

P3 667Mhz
512MB RAM
Geforce 2 400MX 64MB

That vid card can't be THAT crap that even my ole GF2 surpasses it!

Edit: Darn 3's always look like 6's!