Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Looking for advice


  • Please log in to reply

#46
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
I do plan on using the new SATA drive but to be honest, I dont know anything about them, I know it's all connected and working, the BIOS is showing it as first boot device, but it gets by passed and then my old drive (master on the IDE strip) boots to my old XP install. Also, the new drive doesnt show up in "My Computer" when I look. so I am a little lost on this. I assume I need to format it, install Vista and go from there to get the SATA drive to show up and then I assume my original drive will show up as "D".

Also, I installed the Crysis SP demo and let it auto assign setting and it set everything to high with AA/AF assigned by my video card, 16x, I dont know how to pull up fps in crysis but it runs super smooth and looks really good.

let me reboot and I'll see what BIOS I have.
  • 0

Advertisements


#47
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
okay, it said system bios version v6.0 (I think), it flashed by pretty quick.

Also, my system temp is 34oC and CPU temp is 30oC, are those good temps?
  • 0

#48
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
Those temps are fine.

You can see your FPS in Crysis by bringing up the console (press the ~ key... it's to the left of the 1 key) and typing r_displayinfo=1. I am surprised that you are getting smooth gameplay with 16x AA. What resolution are you using?

Edited by stettybet0, 12 February 2008 - 06:09 PM.

  • 0

#49
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
Okay, I went back in and checked my settings

Video card is on 16x AA/AF, Crysis is on 8x 1024x768 and I'm getting between 25 and 34fps but it is super smooth and I keep getting my butt handed to me....
  • 0

#50
Rocknrollcows

Rocknrollcows

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts

Okay, I went back in and checked my settings

Video card is on 16x AA/AF, Crysis is on 8x 1024x768 and I'm getting between 25 and 34fps but it is super smooth and I keep getting my butt handed to me....


how does it look visually at 1024x768?

thats pretty cool :) you should be able to play it at 1280x1024 at med-high settings with 40fps with maybe like 4x AA (or so I read)

have fun with koreans XD
  • 0

#51
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
16x AA and AF override in the NVIDIA Control Panel? I wouldn't recommend doing this, just use the in-game AA and AF settings. If you need an override in a specific game, use the profile feature available in the NVIDIA control panel.

You will probably have a better visual experience at a higher resolution with less AA. Try 1600x1200 with 2x AA and see how you like it.

As for getting OWNED in Crysis, if you are playing single player, just use cloak a lot. In multiplayer, just hope there aren't more than 5 hackers in your game... The cheat-prevention in Crysis is pathetic.
  • 0

#52
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
I set the card AA/AF to game controlled, set the game to 1680x1050 and dropped game AA to 4 then 2 and didnt get any better fps....I actually got lower, so I put it all back and it went back up, some times I was hitting 40fps but most times between 25-34fps with no lagg at all. I did notice that the highest graphic setting was grayed out and couldnt be selected, but the system set it all at high. It looked really good, I tried to get a few screenshots but for some reason my capture program wouldnt grab.
  • 0

#53
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
whats faster or better, dual channel mem or setting it up as single channel?
Also, I did a benchmark test using Video Card Stability Test and my card seems to be benchmarking at half what their site says it should, so I'm wondering what might cause it to do that, could it be because I'm using the old IDE drive?
  • 0

#54
Rocknrollcows

Rocknrollcows

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts

whats faster or better, dual channel mem or setting it up as single channel?


Dual channel should be faster if both the sticks are the same speeds
  • 0

#55
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts

whats faster or better, dual channel mem or setting it up as single channel?
Also, I did a benchmark test using Video Card Stability Test and my card seems to be benchmarking at half what their site says it should, so I'm wondering what might cause it to do that, could it be because I'm using the old IDE drive?

Dual channel. I have never used that program and I really wouldn't worry about it, if your card isn't having any issues after long gaming periods then it's fine.
Just because these programs may say something is wrong, it doesn't mean squat.
James

Edited by james_8970, 13 February 2008 - 09:20 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#56
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
what benchmark tests do you guys recommend?
  • 0

#57
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts

what benchmark tests do you guys recommend?


I don't. Real life performance is what really matters. If it is really important to you, 3DMark06 is a popular one.

Also, do you have a widescreen monitor? Because you were using 1024x768, which is not a widescreen resolution, and then went to using 1680x1050, which is a widescreen resolution.

And 1680x1050 should run a bit slower than 1024x768, but it should also look much better.
  • 0

#58
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
yes I have a 22inch wide screen
  • 0

#59
spookymufu

spookymufu

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
okay, ran 3dmark06 and here is the results.....I guess it isnt too bad but to be honest, I really dont know.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 02.jpg

  • 0

#60
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Don't use synthetic benchmarks to view your systems performance. Based on what you have described earlier, you system is fine.
James

Edited by james_8970, 14 February 2008 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP