All right, here it is. I've tested my system now again and here are results. Avg: 26.789 - Min: 19 - Max: 41 (tested by Fraps 2.5.1) Is this OK? Some ppl have max. 110 fps. Dreadful
Here is one systemmfor example
Ligverd0.5PA64 3200+ @2G1024 GF 6600 (256)--54.5483685 A64 3200+@2G 1Gig RAM GF6600 AVG: 54.54, MIN: 36, MAX: 85
My sys:-------------------
Pentium 4E 3.2GHz Prescott
512MB DDR2 CL3-3-3-10
GeForce 6600GT!! 550,1100 oc'ed PCI-E
ASUS P5GDC Pro
WinXP SP2
One comment/question, are you running the supplied cfg files in the benchmark zip or are you running your settings to compare with others on the benchmark site? There are 2 cfg files supplied, one with minimum config settings and one with ....... you got it, maximum config settings. Which one did you use and which one are you comparing to on the benchmark database? The numbers you posted are comparable to my minimun cfg numbers with a P4 2.5, 512 ram, and 8 mb onboard graphics.
I'm wondering the exact same thing. If he's not using the supplied configs there could be a setting messed up in his configuration that's causing the problem.
MadCatX - Try both the min and max configs supplied with the benchmark and see how they compare to the settings you're currently using. It could be that you have something set up wonky that's causing the problem.
I ran benchmark with the MAX cfg that I get in benchmark .ZIP i downloaded from the bench-site, so It is not here. Maybe it is in my system i played some bad-cracked starforce protected games...
But In 3d mark 03 a have over 8500 pts.
Well, something is definitely wrong. I'd venture to guess you should be getting about twice the frame rate that you are. Can you try unzipping LFS to a clean directory and benchmark that? Maybe you've got a corrupt file or texture or something? Checking a clean install of the demo would rule that out.
I Unzipped LFS to a new dir on another parition and ran test, at MAX setting I got the same results and on MIN i got following:
Avg: 72.477 - Min: 39 - Max: 97
That's what I had in S1H on MAX(you can look in bench-site, my PC is ranked as 7th in S1H)
I am going to do some system maintenace tonight to find problem. Maybe I have just "baggy" Win register or something like that.
Something is definitely wrong with your system, MadCat, but installing that OS is only going to make things worse. I'm betting you have a driver issue of some sort. Maybe not video card or sound card, but possibly something running int he background or an old, slow chipset driver.
Have you checked to see how many things are running in Task Manager? Have you tried performing a clean boot using msconfig? Check out this article and see if it helps (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310353/). If you perform a clean boot and your frame rate is still low, a driver or hardware problem are really the only options left. What motherboard do you have? Maybe your chipset is the problem.
I have i915 chipset (ASUS P5GDC Pro mobo). When I last formated my HD, I have installed NEWEST available drivers for everything. If my prob. will be a driver issue, I wouldnt post it here and solve it myself In TaskManager I ALWAYS when I play terminate all unnecessary processes.
BTW: WinME didnt start - unable to use i915 sys. resources MANY HW conflicts in devmgr....
huh, i upgraded my mainboard and cpu from amd duron @ 1600 mhz and have now amd athlon xp 2600 + @2000 mhz.
old cpu - me driving with 11 AI - 10 FPS
new cpu - me driving with 11 AI - 40 FPS
and alone and mutliplayer im now always on 50 FPS, hell that feels good
(also with higher quality settings as before )
I highlighted your problem. And I assume you run DDR2? If so. I highlight that too.
What do you expect. That's an A64, OC'ed to 2ghz. Your using a P4 and DDR2. DDR2 was a flop, and AMD stayed away from it. Intel though it would be their way to crush AMD, it failed, and cost them a lot.
You can't compair a P4 to an AMD to work out what you should be getting.
That's a nice chip you have there. XP-M or just normal XP. If so you should have got the XP-M Runs 2ghz at lower voltage, thus cooler. But no wounder you had problems. The Duron is the AMD Celeron.
Plus the fact the Barton is a better core then Applebred (I belive that is what was used in that Duron).
dunno if its M i actually was watching the price at most
but wanted high performance too, so there it is.
and cooler...hmm i still use my old cooling system and cpu is after few hours of LFS on 44C pretty cool for AMD
and this cpu costs me only about 100 US $
Heh, sorry, I was refering to the voltages which effect temps. But 44c is pretty good for full load. Infact, it's very good.
Though I stopped watching temps after my last format, as all it did was make me paranoid. So I just set BIOS to sound a warning at 65c, and restart at 75c. So if things start to heat up I'll have a warning sound. Then I have time (depending how fast things heat up) to shutdown. If I don't by 75c. The power gets tripped to the CPU and my system is saved. Though the new BIOS also uses throttiling, which is annoying. But I've not hit it for sometime, it really pisses me off when trying to OC.
News to me. Last I heard AMD was staying away from DDR2 as it was slower then DDR. It had the raw speed but the timings was so lax it couldn't keep up.
Unless now it's been refined so much it's better? I know when it came out when benchmarked, it didn't hold water to DDR. Meh, I've not followed hardware in a few months. But AMD are getting as bad as Intel. A socket change every other week =/
