Haha, I can get 333fps in JA with a GeForce4 Ti4200 in SP and MP.
Check the screenie:
http://216.118.116.39/fps.jpg)
Is this...uh...normal?
Originally posted by Chewy289
Haha, I can get 333fps in JA with a GeForce4 Ti4200 in SP and MP.
Check the screenie:
http://216.118.116.39/fps.jpg)
Is this...uh...normal?
I guess it could be...but its not going to matter unless you have your screen refresh all the way up. ><
50-100 is optimum for most monitors.
I'd guess you're not running with all your settings on maximum. I've got a GF4Ti4200 as well. I don't get 333fps.
My FPS is usually around 60 to 80, but that's at 1152x864x32bit with all settings on maximum.
If you're getting that kinda framerate, you might want to think about raising your details levels or resolution. Otherwise, it's just going to go to waste. Nobody can tell the difference between 300fps and 100fps.
Since the dawn of Q3 it has mattered, FPS affects in-game physics, certain FPS values increase the physics to your advantage...admittedly in a game like JA the effect will not be as noticeable as games like Elite Force/Quake 3, but it's still there. It helps with stuff like jumping higher, dodging faster, increases fire rate (slightly but it means u can give off a second round that little bit faster).
All my game settings are max, refresh rate is lowest possible, monitor resolution is 1024x768, GeForce4 Ti4200, and I can get 300fps.
if that geforce one of the top of the line cards? Mine is a lame mobile geforce4 440 go. I get 50 or 60 max at 1024 X 768 with everything turned up
If you edit your cfg file to remove the cap of 85 FPS, then yes, anything is possible...
I just got it up to 500fps in MP with everything at highest setting.
No I have a cheaper GeForce4 Ti, only $100
Just do this:
r_dynamicglow 0
and
com_maxfps 500
Load a multiplayer map, and look at your FPS!
Updated screenshot of 500fps:
http://216.118.116.39/fps.jpg)
:D
don't stare at the ground/corners when bench marking.
load up that episode 1 duel map and take in as much of the map as you can (FOV), you won't get 500 fps on max quality settings on any card, let alone a low end one.
I'm getting about 80fps on my GF4Ti4200 (with EAX turned off). I do, however, have dynamic glow on. That seems to me to be th only difference. Would turning that off make so much of a difference? Almost 4 times increase in FPS?
Oh, and yes. My maxfps is set to 100. I never reach 100, though.
Originally posted by Stafire13
I'm getting about 80fps on my GF4Ti4200 (with EAX turned off). I do, however, have dynamic glow on. That seems to me to be th only difference. Would turning that off make so much of a difference? Almost 4 times increase in FPS?
Oh, and yes. My maxfps is set to 100. I never reach 100, though.
With a 4200 try what I do:
com_maxfps 200
r_dynamicglow 0
Set the maxfps to 200 not 100, and dynamic glow does make a big difference.
The average human being's eyesight only refreshes at around 45-50fps. A professional-level gamer may be pushing 100, but anything beyond that is just wasted, both from a hardware standpoint and from a human capability perspective.
how many of you can run the game smoothly with anti aliasing on? I get like 20 fps or 10 with it turned on. So i just leave it off.
Originally posted by Ardent
The average human being's eyesight only refreshes at around 45-50fps. A professional-level gamer may be pushing 100, but anything beyond that is just wasted, both from a hardware standpoint and from a human capability perspective.
That's not actually true. You don't see in frames, your eyes don't have a refresh rate. Your eyes are constantly taking in streams of light and images. You can really "perceive hundreds of frames per second", although you're not going to notice it going over about 60 to 100, simply because the extra stuff, even if you are seeing it, is unnecessary.
By the way, is dynamic glow causing extreme slowness for everyone else? How about you guys on nVidia cards? I can't understand why it's so damn slow, even when there's no glowing stuff on my screen, I still only get like 30 FPS! And this is on my Athlon XP 2000+, Radeon 9700 Pro and 768 MB of PC2100... Before I thought it was only a problem on ATI cards, but you guys seem to be having trouble with it, too...
Originally posted by Emon
That's not actually true. You don't see in frames, your eyes don't have a refresh rate. Your eyes are constantly taking in streams of light and images. You can really "perceive hundreds of frames per second", although you're not going to notice it going over about 60 to 100, simply because the extra stuff, even if you are seeing it, is unnecessary.
Well obviously eyes don't refresh. I should have put that in quotation marks, but whatever. The point is the average human simply can't make use of more than 50fps. Some people can make use of up to 100fps, but...you're not one. >< The testees who could make use of that many fps are all military fighter pilots (and maybe a stuntman, can't remember clearly). Professional gamers ranked in somewhere around 80fps...and these are the people who make a living doing what most of us do for fun.
You can "take in" as many fps as a computer can generate, but you'll only make use of about 50 of them per second, on average. Those frames are the only frames the optical nerve ignites the nervous synapse to the part of the brain determining reaction. So...anything else really is fluff. ;)
Eh, it's higher than that. I notice FPS drops all the time from 85 to 60, it's not that hard. I don't notice them in play, nor do I care, only when I'm looking.
Military pilots saw and identified planes that were flashed on a screen in 1/220th of a second, most everyone would see the flash (no matter how short it would seem to them), but without practice, they couldn't recognize the plane like the pilots can.
Originally posted by Ardent
The average human being's eyesight only refreshes at around 45-50fps. A professional-level gamer may be pushing 100, but anything beyond that is just wasted, both from a hardware standpoint and from a human capability perspective. Actually, if you had any level of familiarity with the quake 3 engine you'd realise that certain frame rates boost your movement. Human capability and whatever doesn't matter, and nobody uses certain framerates for that reason anyway, it's purely for a gameplay boost.
The most desired frame rate is generally 125fps, seeing as it's easy to maintain this rate without heavily tweaking the graphics, and that it 'boosts' the distance you jump, which means faster strafe-jumping and slightly longer jumps. There are other frame rate values that give the same effect, 125 is just about the best, but there are some that are fractionally better, I think.
Here's some links with more info on it:
http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Quake3/FAQFPSJumps.html)
http://q3tricks.quakexpert.com/tutorials/framerate.htm)
Frame rate matters because the physics system is dependent on frame rate.
I must admit that I'm interested to see the full screenshot with 500fps ;) as a comparison here is what i get with the rig specs:-
1280 x 1024 4xAA 16xAF High Quality textures and detail settings (everything max in OpenGL driver settings)
The rig is an XP2500 @ 223x11 (~2.5Ghz)
512 Mb DDR3500 (2-3-3-10)
Radeon 9800 non pro @ 411/357 (20k in 3dmark01)
My framerate hovers between 150 & 200 in most maps and in some of the more complex maps it drops to 75
heres a screeny:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/graham.phillips200/shot0045.jpg)
basically once you go above 60fps slowdown is unperceptible so if you have a mad amout of frames per second why not use that excess power to improve image quality with stuff like Anti Aliasing & Anisotropic Filtering. IQ is the real bonus of todays graphics cards, sheer framerate has become far less of an issue.
How did you get that kind of FPS?
i'm using Gforce4 MX.
Originally posted by Chewy289
All my game settings are max, refresh rate is lowest possible, monitor resolution is 1024x768, GeForce4 Ti4200, and I can get 300fps.
sorry but that is BS.
i have a 4600 and i don't get 300 fps with everything maxed. i only get around 200 or so.
With my 9700 PRO, I usually get between 100-200 FPS. that's with all settings maxed out and at 1024x768.
He never did specify if his Ti 4200 is the 8x AGP or the 4x AGP. If at 8x, it's theoretically acheivable.
Okay, it's official now. My rig sux. :(
8x doesn't offer a very significant increase in performance over 4x.
wtf that command doesnt work i still got around 10-20 FPS!!! that sucks ... i have intel Graphics 64mb ,....256RAM whats wrong?
Maybe it's because you have intel card. Also, you need more ram. double or get more ram.
Indeed, any and all Intel graphics cards are horrible.
lol, it's not BS, i can get 500fps with this card:
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB AGP 8x
But, i was staring at a wall and crouching, I can get in the high 100s when normally fighting.
Originally posted by Emon
8x doesn't offer a very significant increase in performance over 4x.
AGP x 8 isn't going to show an improvement over AGP x 4 if the rest of your system is inferior. It makes a HUGE difference if your system can take advatage of the twice-the-speed AGP bus.
Here's my complete system specs:
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (266FSB 256K Cache)
512MB PC2700 DDR RAM
120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache HDD
52x/32x/52x CD-RW
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB DDR AGP 8x
Originally posted by Chewy289
Here's my complete system specs:
AMD Athlon XP 2400+
512MB PC2700 DDR RAM
120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache HDD
52x/32x/52x CD-RW
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB DDR AGP 8x
That's close to my specs, I run a gig of PC3200 DDR RAM and a 2200+ tho. The .2 more mhz don't make a significant difference in gameplay for the $70 more it costs and the $130 for another stick of 512 ram is worth every penny. ;x
AGP8X is great...as long as the game can support it. ;)
Originally posted by Ardent
That's close to my specs, I run a gig of PC3200 DDR RAM and a 2200+ tho. The .2 more mhz don't make a significant difference in gameplay for the $70 more it costs and the $130 for another stick of 512 ram is worth every penny. ;x
AGP8X is great...as long as the game can support it. ;)
2400+ costs $82
2200+ costs $72
$10 more for 200 more MHz is a good deal I think...
Originally posted by Chewy289
2400+ costs $82
2200+ costs $72
$10 more for 200 more MHz is a good deal I think...
didnt when i was building...maybe i need to buy a new cpu <3
Originally posted by FurionStormrage
AGP x 8 isn't going to show an improvement over AGP x 4 if the rest of your system is inferior. It makes a HUGE difference if your system can take advatage of the twice-the-speed AGP bus.
Actually, it still doesn't. 8x AGP bus, 8x AGP card, turn it down to 4x, it's not as slow as you'd think.
My card's a GF4Ti4200 8xAGP with 128M RAM. I can't run it at 8x, though, since my mobo only supports up to 4x.
Perhaps that's why I'm getting lower framerates?
CPU is the major factor in OpenGL speed, so how fast is yours?
Originally posted by Emon
CPU is the major factor in OpenGL speed, so how fast is yours?
Well, it's one of...but you need a lot of things to make OpenGL run quickly. If your machine doesn't run cohesively, as far as OpenGL's concerned it may as well not run. Just a small point.
Of course, the same is true for almost anything. But my point is that OpenGL is largely CPU dependant, as opposed to how Direct3D is very GPU dependand. Upgrading from a GF4 to like a Radeon 9x00 won't have a huge difference in some OpenGL apps as would most Direct3D apps.
Originally posted by Emon
Of course, the same is true for almost anything. But my point is that OpenGL is largely CPU dependant, as opposed to how Direct3D is very GPU dependand. Upgrading from a GF4 to like a Radeon 9x00 won't have a huge difference in some OpenGL apps as would most Direct3D apps.
Fair enough, but the cohesiveness of the parts inside your box should always be a priority. ;) It's sort of like construction: don't start building before you agree on the final plan, or else it'll take a lot longer to finish the job (and is more likely to be shoddy, to boot).
I have experience to prove that. For years, we had built PCs out of scavaged parts to save money, always ran like ****. Once we started building everything from new components... Hey... It works!
Originally posted by Emon
I have experience to prove that. For years, we had built PCs out of scavaged parts to save money, always ran like ****. Once we started building everything from new components... Hey... It works!
I have a cobbled-together and overclocked Mac G4. Runs anything but a web browser like a pile of garbage, but it's an amazing browser machine! ;) Plus it was free, since all the parts were scavenged from the high school's computer lab.
I think we've also got a collection of cobbled-together 486s, Pentiums and Pentium IIs around too. We honed our construction skills with leftovers from our high school's computer labs, but now we go to computer fairs and powershop. :x I think the last round of computers (AMD AthlonXP 2200+ on the ASUS A7N8XDeluxe AGP8X mobo with an ASUS 128mb Ti4200 w/120mb Maxtor(? can't remember) 8mb cache HD and 1gig of Samsung PC3200 DDR RAM and nothing special for disk drive/DVD/CD-R drives) ran at $1080. Coincidentally, I'm still using that build for gaming, as it's pretty rabid. ;) I have a new build for AutoCAD, though. Sheesh that mofo is a RAM beast ;) AMD AthlonXP 2800+ on the A7N8XDeluxe 2.0 with ASUS AGP8X Ti4600 @128mb DDR RAM w/ 80mb Maxtor 8mb cache and 1.5gig of Samsung PC3200 DDR RAM.
I'm sure it'd crush this machine for gaming, but it's used almost exclusively for CAD work. I've built three of them so far, one for myself and two for local architecture firms. No complaints thus far, although I will say that I hate what passes for BIOS with ASUS. But you go with what's best...
I work in neurological rehabilitation, and went through neuro theory in uni... I hope someone a bit tech can confirm this, but I'm fairly sure the optic nerve(that relays visual information to the brain) has its own 'refresh rate'(this is called something different in neurological terms, like a 'gain threshold') Nonetheless, I am almost certain our limited eyes and brain cannot comprehend the true beauty of 300fps+ I think our brain stops nearer to the 150fps mark... but once again I would like someone to confirm this...
As for myself, I run on a 64mb Geforce 5200, 1600x1200, all at 32 bit/high/very high/trilinear settings, with dynamic glow off and I get a crisp 80-100 fps, and have the monitor to match it via refresh rate. Its just amazing for me(compared to my old computer :P). I havent even bothered dumbing things down to clock up the fps to ridiculous speeds, and I'm a performance junkie !!
MTFBWYA
Originally posted by Astrotoy7
As for myself, I run on a 64mb Geforce 5200, 1600x1200, all at 32 bit/high/very high/trilinear settings, with dynamic glow off and I get a crisp 80-100 fps, and have the monitor to match it via refresh rate. Its just amazing for me(compared to my old computer :P). I havent even bothered dumbing things down to clock up the fps to ridiculous speeds, and I'm a performance junkie !!
MTFBWYA
What about volumetric shadows? Do you use that? It caps off quite a few frames as well.
What about volumetric shadows? Do you use that? It caps off quite a few frames as well.
Yeah, I never bother with shadows, OFF they go !
MTFBWYA
What makes good fps THE MOST (100-300)?
-processor
-graphics card
-FSB speed
-OS
-crazy insane codes that forces the fps to the highest
What kind of fps should I expect from this after 2 weeks goes by also
2.8Ghz 800Mhz FSB 512KB Cache
Nvidia Geforce FX 5600 Go 128MB
60 GB 7200RPM hd
15.4" 1680*1050 WideSXGA+
Compatible 3d Sound
512MB RAM
on Jedi Academy on the min, med., and max settings
PLEASE respond to this post, I really want to know :D
I'm getting between 30 to 40 fps in most areas. Is this low for my specs?
P4 1.8GHZ
1Gig SDR PC-133 SDRAM
GF4 Ti4200 128Mb 8x AGP (latest drivers)
SB Audigy
WinXP
I'm running it at 1152x864x32bit with everything on maximum except no anisotropic filtering and simple shadows. Oh, and vsync is off.
That sounds about right Stafire13 since you are running a high resolution with a high texture bit (32). Try running at 1024x768x32 and turn off Force Feedback, turn off shadows completely, and see if that makes a difference.
Originally posted by Emon
I have experience to prove that. For years, we had built PCs out of scavaged parts to save money, always ran like ****. Once we started building everything from new components... Hey... It works!
Hey...
Smartpower 400 Watt PSU
Pentium 2 400 (124x4.0 496 MHz)
PC133 256 SDRAM
Aopen AX63 Pro Rv. 1.0a (bios 1.32)
Maxtor 7200 RPM 40 gig
Maxtor 5600 RPM 20 gig
Vanta AGP 8 Meg Video card (100/85) ;)
Built completely from part I got from teachers that had no use for them (minus the hard drives) I still use this as my main system and works good enough for me. I get about 25-35 FPS in multiplayer at Medium settings 800x600 resolution. I plan on getting a GF4 MX440 64meg for $30 from a friend as a temp upgrade until I finish saving for my college PC.
Thanks, Andy. I'll probably stick to my settings for now anyway, since I'm an eye-candy freak. 30 to 40 fps is enough for me. I just wanted to know if I was getting the performance I ought to have been.