Driver Flashpoint Beta 600
Cpu: tbird 900. Not overclocked, runs stable. Mobo: abit kt7a-raid.
The r600 open source mesa driver only exposes opengl 3.3, while game requires opengl 4.1. OpenGL 4.1 for r600 might come later, I 'worked. I bought Arma and Arma 2 without ever being able to play them because I was a huge fan of Operation Flashpoint. Now for the first time I can buy an Arma game.
Video: inno3d twinview (dual head) geforce2 mx400 64M w/ tv out($110 ) os: winME so i install the card and everything seems to work ok. I play a little cs, etc. I'm not really impressed with the framerates. Actually, maybe even a little slower.
It's hard to tell when you spend most of the time doin 2d stuff. So i go to the next LAN party and compare and realize that my frames should be twice as high for the system. In cs, 800x600x32 I'm getting no more than 40fps when the dude next to me is getting almost an almost solid 100 on his system, wich is is a little faster but the video card theoretically is slower than mine. Then i try operation flashpoint and it friggin looks like software mode! I figure it's just drivers so we download the detonator drivers to see if that fixes it- no luck. Then one of the guys says that the kt7 has power issues with the geforce2 cards.
Is this true? A search pulled up some boot problems but nothing like this.crawls back to the case cooling forum. I went from a Voodoo Banshee to a GF2 MX and found my framerates just barly increased in some games. In glide games they dropped (had to run in D3D of course). I only had a p2 333 at the time but the GF2 MX went back to the store. I'm still using the banshee and its running fine, I'm upgradeing to a used Voodoo 3 I picked up cheap this weekend.
So much for that T&L stuff offloading work from the CPU. Later on (christmas) I'm going to go to a GF2 GTS 64 meg and the frame rates better kick huge ass for the money. Quote: I bet all the problems you are having wouldn't be happening if you really knew what you were doing. You are a cock. Anyways, to get a better idea what's going on i ran 3dmark2000 again.
Default set, 1024x768x32. It ran way better than last time, actually. Wasn't choppy at all. Got a score of 4623 3dmarks.
Nikko Beta 600
If i recall correctly, this is about twice (or more) of the score i got when i first installed the card. The way 3dmark ran was very encouraging, I'm pretty convinced it's not a hardware issue now. I think the games need to be reinstalled or something cause they still run kinda choppy. But thanks for the help. I think the 4-in-1 drivers might have helped a lot with that. Edit: my bad that was 1024x7x768x32 went down around 3400. Shoulda saved that before writing up the post.
Cata Beta 600/d Led
Beta 600
But it's not too important, it appeared to run just fine. I think people would be more used to 2001 3dmark scores anyways. This message was edited by Wiglaf on October 28, 2001 at 18:35. Can you guys read? I said P2 333 Three Thirty Three. Anyways yes your right it it was better to upgrade the chip. I'm running a duron 750 now.
I realize that the chip was holding the newer card back, but I don't think these geforce2 mxs are really all that hot stuff. Course I'm not a big FPS guy looking for 100+ framerates either. Like I said though if that new geforce 2 GTS doesn't rocket my framerates up from the v3 then I'll be pissed.
I'll probly be upgradeing the CPU around the same time to what ever I can get for around 200 Canadian (tbird 1.4 right now). Quote: You removed all traces of 3dfx drivers? Including in the registry?
I'm 99% sure that this is causing the problem. Did you go to add/remove programs and remove 3dfx tools? Did you sweep your HD and registry for '3dfx', 'voodoo' and 'glide' and remove everything you found? Also keep in mind that the MX is very memory bandwidth limited and although it's faster than your Voodoo3, it's probably now running your games under 32 bit colour and large textures which is something your Voodoo3 couldn't do.
When I upgraded my V3 to my GF2 MX, my framerates increased noticeably but they didn't skyrocket (although the image quality was much better). I remember doing some looking around and concluding that a GF2 MX wasn't really a huge upgrade over a V3. While the MX has T&L and 32-bit colour it doesn't really have the grunt to move it all around at a decent framerate. The only reason I ditched my V3 3000 was that 3dfx went bust; the V3 3000 was never a bad card at all.
A full-blown GF2 GTS, OTOH, is a big step up indeed. BTW, turn off your AGP 4x. You'll thank me for it later! It won't really help your speed, and may make your system unstable. Quote: edit: you use opengl with nvidia cards?
That might be your problem right there. Either you aren't using OGL, or your 3dfx (mini) drivers are still being used. Has switching to D3D made a difference? If it's not your system, try uninstalling and reinstalling CS before you format everything. It's definitely a driver problem, as my V2 gets 30-40 fps avg ( )-I can't imagine AGP being that much of a bottleneck, especially with such an old game. Have you tried setting your video card to Standard VGA Adapter, removing the nVidia drivers via Add/Remove (follow nVidia's instructions, I'm listing this from memory), restarting, then reinstalling the latest nVidia drivers? BTW, Sp@nky, I'd go for a GF2 Pro if you're getting a 64MB card.
The Gainward GF2 Pro/Golden Sample at NewEgg is good, if you're willing to spend $130. Your Tbird 900 is hovering around 30fps playing Counjterstrike? Man, that isn't good. That sound like it would be worse then what a V3 sould get you in 800x600 or so (IIRC the V3 completely sucks for CS too), on my PIII 800, when I was playing it, it is almost perfectly smooth, I am not sure what kind of framerates I was getting but it was way over 30fps. On a P2 333 you won't see a huge difference between a V3 and a GF2MX except in higher resolutions, like 1024x768 or of course anything in 32 bit color, which can look a LOT better. From what I understand. GF2 MX200 - can we say crippled?
GF2 MX400 - he's just in a body cast. GF2 GTS - the original. Still kicks some ass, though, especially in a 64MB model.
(I have one, and like it a lot. Then again, my last card was a Voodoo2. Sniff, the memories.) GF2 Pro - higher memory clockspeeds, I think. Better performance than a GTS. GF2 Ultra - even higher speeds, and stuff! (I think.) Best performance, except. Isn't there a new GF2 Titanium?
Or is that purely GF3 (Ti200/500?). Regardless of what those that haven't made the same 'upgrade' think, an MX is.NOT. much of an upgrade from a Voodoo3. The have about the same memory bandwidth. It's just that the Voodoo3 is also fill-rate limited. So the MX feels alot more 'peaky' and delivers higher benchmark scores, but anyone who's actually used one knows the MX is sometimes good for 1 resolution bump at the same color depth.
Anyways, you should be getting better scores regardless though. My bet is on FSAA being enabled. The card doesn't have anywhere near the muscle you need for FSAA, so just make sure it's always disabled in the drivers. You'd be much happier with a Radeon LE IMO. I have both, and while I'm perfectly happy playing on the MX most of the time (as I was with the Voodoo3), the Radeon LE -with the latest 'beta' drivers- blows it away. In every way.
My MX also just so happens to have the worst 2D I've ever seen, and anything above 1024x768 on the desktop leads to alot of eyestrain for me. The Radeon LE and VE are both solid up to 1600x1200 on a 19' monitor. The MX was a great budget card in it's day, but it's day is long past.