What framerate???

[Disaster1]

I know this is probably a hard question to answer, but I don't think I am getting the framerates I should. In ANY game...but for arguments sake I will use Far Cry. I was using fraps and had everything all the way up and was running 20-30 FPS for the most part. I was expecting higher but could be wrong. Here is my setup:

Radeon X800 PRO
80GB Western Digital HD
1.0 GB PC2700 DDR Ram
Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS
DVD +/- RW
DVD ROM
Antec 430W PS
AMD 2700+

I know my card is bottlenecked by my processor, but I don't really notice any improvement in frame rate over my 9800. I also play City of Heroe a lot (an OpenGL game) and get only 25-40 fps with all the details turned up on that. My computer is an emachines, so I can't find much about the MOBO it is a W2785 and from what I can find the board is made by FIC and is an AM39L, but I am afraid to try to update anything on it because I know sometimes retail machines like that use "custom" (for lack of a better term) parts that may or may not be compatible with the manufacturers drivers. There is nothing of interest on the emachines sight. I am going to try to download 3dmark later and see if I can get a score from that for a better point of reference. TIA!

[Disaster1]

3d mark score was 8927. I just used the free version. Seems kinda low for my specs to me...

[entropy]

That's '03 score is just about right for your machine. Oddly enough, I've always felt my framerates weren't justifying my 9800pro...then again I may just be expecting too much.

[Straight_Man]

Entropy, do you have faster RAM??? Audio and base video calcs CAN use RAM. Both things do use drivers, and those drivers make data work space in RAM to have driver buffering for data flow syncing. IF the monitors can handle faster frame refresh, faster RAM might help give video faster to them, SOME.

Maybe 5-8 FPS increase when you go to PC3200 if the board can use that speed-- not much more, but possibly that much. Both CPU and RAM might be slowing down rate to video card, and slower older monitor definitely will not up framerates beyond how fast monitor can paint whole frames while staying frame-synced and not skipping parts or full frames-- if you get skips, could be monitor and not anything else, given a GIG of RAM or more.

Also note, monitors can refresh faster some with lower res and color depth, or just color depth decrease. So, they can paint frames faster, also, that way. Adn vertical hertz refresh can be to get more frames, lower frames per sec when refresh is slower per sec, higher when refresh TIME is lower and fewer thousandths of seconds are needed per frame for vertical painting of many horizontal rows. Also, lower pixel to pixel response time per second in LCDs will give a bit more FPS potentially, as monitors that respond faster can sync to faster refresh rates, ESPECIALLY with LCD screens.

16 msec response means LCD pixels glow or dim faster than 20 msec response, as well as meaning that the current flow from pixel point to pixel point is faster. Both things interact in an LCD to determine total FPS. And, to degree, they do in a CRT also, but in a CRT the GUN speed has more to do with speed per se in that kind of monitor. Total frame time per second is a function of horizontal and vertical refresh rate plus frame signal processing, but on a CRT and an LCD when vertical refresh is slower, the FPS also goes down-- takes more part of seconds to paint whole screen. Proportion is direct, not always same unless other things are same, from monitor to monitor. Radeons are also a TIB less effective at genning screens at real high res AND color depth and with high bit AA and high bit AF on than NVidias of the LATEST type, NVidia has better FIRST drivers than Radeon with latest gens of both compared.

CPU, RAM, GPU, and monitor all have an impact on net video production.

[entropy]

I have pc4000 running at 226 mhz (cpu holding me back). 2.5-4-4-8.

[/end threadjack]