PC upgrade not what i was expecting

[Insane]

My recent upgrade feels, shall i say, a little disappointing.

Ive gone from :-
AthlonXP 2600, Gigabyte NF2 Board, 1GB PC3200, Radeon 128MB 9600XT, IDE Hard Drives

And gone to :-
Athlon 64 X2 4200 on Socket AM2, Gigabyte NF550 board, 2GB PC6400, Geforce 256MB 8600GT, Sata II Hard Drives

and to be honest, I expected a little more. Some games run at a slightly higher level of detail and slightly higher frame rate. But I was expecting to be blown away, and quite frankly I wasnt. I am running the rig on XP SP2, My cooling is adequte, with my CPU running idle at 19 degrees so i cant see that being a problem. Maybe i was just expecting to much, and the upgrade i got is exactly as it should be, it just feels lacking especially as its more than double the power I had.

Any suggestions, or am I just expecting to much?

Paul

 

[kud125]

what games are you trying to run?
try DX10 games, but that might force you to upgrade to vista...not positive though...

 

[Insane]

Oblivion, HL2, Quake4, BF2. other games of that type aswell. I get a lot of lagging in oblivion, especially in 3rd person mode. it jerks and stutters every 5-10 seconds. Some games like BF1942 just bomb if i try and change the res to anything other than 800x600!

Dont really want to move to vista. I tried the bios emulation OEM version of vista ultimate and it almost killed my other machine, had to re-flash the bios.

 

[Dataforce]

Are you sure you have the correct drivers etc installed?

on that machine, BF should easily do more than 800x600, and oblivion shouldn't be lagging either

 

[Aquilo]

Firstly - Have you reinstalled your OS?

Secondly - Have you installed the latest chipset, graphics & CPU drivers?

 

[koni]

i agree with df check your driver versions mate, my specs are less then yours here is mine:

amd athlon 64 4000 sandiego core, 2gb pc3200 ram, nvidia 6600gt 256mb gcard, 180gb 8mb cache ide drive

i can play most or all of the games you have listed including bf2142 on 1024x768 res with no issues what so ever so i would say a driver is wrong, also check the directx make sure its the latest one

 

[Insane]

Fresh install. Latest Drivers, SP's etc. etc.

Heres my display and directx info:-

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 7/2/2007, 20:19:39
Machine name: INSANE
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2254)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: GBT___
System Model: NVDAACPI
BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.2GHz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Page File: 328MB used, 3611MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Music Tab: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
Network Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D: 0/4 (n/a)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce 8600 GT
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0402&SUBSYS_10201462&REV_A1
Display Memory: 256.0 MB
Current Mode: 1600 x 1200 (32 bit) (75Hz)
Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0011.5822 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 4/20/2007 06:05:00, 5434880 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp: n/a
VDD: n/a
Mini VDD: nv4_mini.sys
Mini VDD Date: 4/20/2007 06:05:00, 6739168 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-4742-11CF-6C61-2B3000C2CB35}
Vendor ID: 0x10DE
Device ID: 0x0402
SubSys ID: 0x10201462
Revision ID: 0x00A1
Revision ID: 0x00A1
Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_A ModeMPEG2_B ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D
Deinterlace Caps: {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
Registry: OK
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Enabled
DDraw Test Result: Not run
D3D7 Test Result: Not run
D3D8 Test Result: Not run
D3D9 Test Result: Not run

 

[Aquilo]

Have you patched all the games up to their latest versions?

With the 8600 being such a new card, it's likely that your problem sits with it, and poor driver/game support.

 

[Insane]

Have you patched all the games up to their latest versions?

With the 8600 being such a new card, it's likely that your problem sits with it, and poor driver/game support.

Yeah, all my games are patched. Ive read several message forums regarding oblivion and the stuttering problem and some people have the same problem. One of the ways suggested was to change the max frames to render ahead from 3 to 0 in nvctrl panel, but that just crashes my machine fully when launching oblivion.

Ive ditched BF1942 & BF Vietnam completely, because I just cant get them to run, everytime i get to the insertion point screen they just lock up.

 

[Aquilo]

Is it possible you've got a defective 8600?

I'd recommend RMAing the 8600, try swapping it for another. (You know the CPU & RAM work, as the motherboard likely is).

Other than that, I can't think of much else it could be. Sorry.

 

[Insane]

Is it possible you've got a defective 8600?

I'd recommend RMAing the 8600, try swapping it for another. (You know the CPU & RAM work, as the motherboard likely is).

Other than that, I can't think of much else it could be. Sorry.

That could be, but there are games that perform well, its just games that ran badly on my old system, just dont seem that much faster on this. Which is why I dont think its the card. FEAR for instance runs pretty much fine, although it struggles with high FSAA & AF, so i turn that down.

 

[Dataforce]

If the game was produced pre-dual core, or shortly after, the problems may lie with the fact that windows sucks.

when you launch the game, press ctrl+alt+del, find the game in the processes tab, right click on it, and go to "Set Affinity" then change it so that only one of the CPU's is ticked (doesn't matter which)

 

[Zion-Servers]

First things first, are you using XP sp2 home. Cause if you are then your not going to notice much difference in the performance seeing as its a single core OS, so i would advise upgrading to pro as this is.

Secondly you also have to remeber that not all games are desinged for dual core purpose and also the second core is mainly used for is cache ne ways.

Your best bet when buying games or wanting to know what performance they use with regards to oding and design is to check there website for information on wether its single core or dual.

 

[Aquilo]

That could be, but there are games that perform well, its just games that ran badly on my old system, just dont seem that much faster on this. Which is why I dont think its the card. FEAR for instance runs pretty much fine, although it struggles with high FSAA & AF, so i turn that down.

Aha. I had got the false impression that all games were performing poorly

Try Dataforce's Affinity trick, and see if that has any effect.

--

XP Home supports dual-core, not dual-processor, so that should not be an issue.

 

[Insane]

First things first, are you using XP sp2 home. Cause if you are then your not going to notice much difference in the performance seeing as its a single core OS, so i would advise upgrading to pro as this is.

Secondly you also have to remeber that not all games are desinged for dual core purpose and also the second core is mainly used for is cache ne ways.

Your best bet when buying games or wanting to know what performance they use with regards to oding and design is to check there website for information on wether its single core or dual.

Im running XP Professional SP2 with a Company Volume License, so its a legit copy.

As for the games not using both cores, ive gone from a 32bit to a 64bit chip, which is supposed to run 32bit apps faster isnt it? Also 2GB ram at PC6400 as apposed to 1GB at PC3200. A Geforce 8600GT 256MB GDDR3 as apposed to a Radeon 9600 128MB DDR, so why am I not noticing massive improvements. Some games I can up the res a little and detail from my old machine, but not as much as I was expecting.

Aha. I had got the false impression that all games were performing poorly

Try Dataforce's Affinity trick, and see if that has any effect.

--

XP Home supports dual-core, not dual-processor, so that should not be an issue.

As for performing poorly, as I replied to zion, its not as singing and dancing as I was hoping for, and obviously there are some issues with certain games, namely the one I play most which is oblivion.

Gonna give the tips a go and see what happens anyway.

Cheers

 

[Dr3AmScAp3]

Im running XP Professional SP2 with a Company Volume License, so its a legit copy.

As for the games not using both cores, ive gone from a 32bit to a 64bit chip, which is supposed to run 32bit apps faster isnt it? Also 2GB ram at PC6400 as apposed to 1GB at PC3200. A Geforce 8600GT 256MB GDDR3 as apposed to a Radeon 9600 128MB DDR, so why am I not noticing massive improvements. Some games I can up the res a little and detail from my old machine, but not as much as I was expecting.



As for performing poorly, as I replied to zion, its not as singing and dancing as I was hoping for, and obviously there are some issues with certain games, namely the one I play most which is oblivion.

Gonna give the tips a go and see what happens anyway.

Cheers

Unfortunatly the comparison of 32bit and 64bit doesnt make your games run any faster at all, this is just a myth. The problem you have is as Zion said, its the way the games are designed and programed to how they perform at certain speeds.

So a 32bit game wont be any faster on a 64bit machine as its acutechture is 32 and not 64, this also applies with single core and dual. If your running single core software then its not going to run at dual core speed and even the dual core software doesnt fully use the dual anyway.

To notice any real difference then you need to be playing high spec games that use the full resource that they are designed for, to even notice any difference.

To put it in a way that would be a good comparison, is to look at game consoles and think. Ill give an exsample, sonic for the mega drive wouldnt run any faster on a 360 and nor would the graphix be over the top.

Its all down to way things are designed and coded to how they run and perform on higher spec machines.

 

[Aquilo]

To put it in a way that would be a good comparison, is to look at game consoles and think. Ill give an exsample, sonic for the mega drive wouldnt run any faster on a 360 and nor would the graphix be over the top.

Its all down to way things are designed and coded to how they run and perform on higher spec machines.

Actually, your analogy is incorrect. Take a look at PS1 games on the PS2, which gain texture filtering. Or Compare Halo 2 on the Xbox, versus the Xbox360. The 360 version gains a resolution jump and anti aliasing, not to mention lighting improvements.

--

You SHOULD be noticing a nice jump, regardless of the architecture. As you're using a 32bit windows, though, your CPU will be running in 32bit mode.

Ignore all that 64bit talk.

The 8600 is a new core, and as I suggested earlier, it might just be driver immaturity. Also, check if you've enabled any stupidly high quality settings in the driver (Eg, MSAA). Things like that will very easily negate any performance boost.

 

[Zion-Servers]

Actually, your analogy is incorrect. Take a look at PS1 games on the PS2, which gain texture filtering. Or Compare Halo 2 on the Xbox, versus the Xbox360. The 360 version gains a resolution jump and anti aliasing, not to mention lighting improvements.

--

You SHOULD be noticing a nice jump, regardless of the architecture. As you're using a 32bit windows, though, your CPU will be running in 32bit mode.

Ignore all that 64bit talk.

The 8600 is a new core, and as I suggested earlier, it might just be driver immaturity. Also, check if you've enabled any stupidly high quality settings in the driver (Eg, MSAA). Things like that will very easily negate any performance boost.

They only gain it because of the hardware and so DreamScape is correct with his analogy about this.

32bit games will only work correctly on 32bit machines and as for 64bit its crap anyway, nothing works correctly with it and he will only notice a slight difference.

 

[Aquilo]

They only gain it because of the hardware and so DreamScape is correct with his analogy about this.

32bit games will only work correctly on 32bit machines and as for 64bit its crap anyway, nothing works correctly with it and he will only notice a slight difference.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?...s&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=125&page=1

Performance != Raw Speed

While the 64bit codepaths do result in lower speeds (generally, and given they were conducted with immature drivers), there are IQ enhancements which counteract these lower FPS numbers.

--


"To put it in a way that would be a good comparison, is to look at game consoles and think. Ill give an exsample, sonic for the mega drive wouldnt run any faster on a 360 and nor would the graphix be over the top."

That was the analogy Zion, and I have proven it incorrect with examples.

--

32bit games only working on 32bit machines is incorrect - Windows x64 has had 32bit emulation layers since it's release (and before, during development).

That said, 64bit mode is only useful for things that would require 64bit integers to be manipulated using the CPU (read: Encryption, compression, and similar stream-based tasks).

--

Dual-core WILL result in a performance boost. Windows is capable of handling both cores. Even if the game is single-threaded (which most modern ones, including Oblivion, if I remember right, are not), the second core will deal with windows events.

Let's not forget that as you play a game, windows doesn't just shut all other operations down. These tasks still require CPU time, and with dual-core, that CPU time is taken from a different core, and so the game should run faster.

 

[Insane]

Well, i got BF 1942 & BF Vietnam running using core affinity! They both run smoothly at 1600x1200 on the second core. A problem running them on multi core/CPU it would seem. Still no joy with oblivion. Setting affinity only makes the problem worse. The main problem is in exterior cells, a small judder ever 10 seconds or so, but enough to miff me off.

I have been using the affinity program called THG TaskAssign to set the cores. but I have to run the program before i run the game. Is there a way to make this run in the background when windows starts up, or something that can set affinity in the games shortcut.

Cheers
paul