gf3 ti200 performing worse than gf2pro, please help

bailout

Newcomer
I have recently upgraded from a gf2pro to a gf3 ti200 and have found that it actually performs worse in some games than the gf2. I have tried the standard trouble-shooting that I know of and am hoping that as this board seems to have a high number of people with knowledge of how GPUs actually work that someone here might be able to explain why this is happening and possibly fix it.

The game I am having most problems with is Rowan's Battle of Britain, which is a wwII flight simulator. This game is renowned for stutter problems. By stutter I mean that it runs ok for a fraction of a second then seems to pause and then jump forward again. It is not merely low average fps. I first tried the game on a KyroII card and despite exhaustive tweaking of game settings and different drivers I could never get rid of the stutter and assumed that it was incompatible with the kyro. I then upgraded to a gf2 pro which played the game without stutter. Shortly after that I got a creative gf3 ti200 and on the gf3 the stutter has come back again. I had assumed that the gf3 should be able to handle the game at least as well as the gf2 and cannot understand why it doesn't.

Nothing else had changed on my system other than the graphics card. I simply uninstalled the old drivers and installed the new ones for the gf3. I have noticed very slight stuttering in Ghost Recon as well despite fraps showing framerates of 50-60. Other than this all other games that I have tried work fine and I am getting the sort of 3dmark 2001 scores that I should (approximatly 6400) so I don't think there is any thing basically wrong with the card or the installation. All my chipset drivers are up to date and I have tried the latest Creative drivers and two sets of dets, 28.32 and 23.12. The card is not overclocked at all. The rest of my system is: chaintech 7kjd mb (amd761) running with onboard c-media 8738 sound, 512Mb crucial ddr2100, xp1700, maxtor 30Gb 7200 hd. Although I stress again that absolutely nothing had changed on my system other than the gfx card.

The obvious conclusion is that the gf3 is simply not handling the game as well as the gf2 which I find very difficult to understand.

I have posted the problem on a bob board and someone else reported exactly the same experience going from a gf2 to a gf3 but others with gf3s didn't have the problem. Nobody has managed to get the game working well on a Kyro and people using radeons, both original and 8500s, don't seem to have the problem as bad.

I have tried a version of the game .exe which has a debug feature which generates a file showing frametimes. The stutter I see onscreen is not reflected in the frametimes shown in this file which are low and reasonably consistant. This only makes it more difficult for me to understand. There is a group that is working with source code and they are looking into the relation between file loading and stutter. However, this would not explain why I have found the difference between the two geforce cards and the debug output shows that there are no files loading when I am experiencing stutter. The stutter occurs when I am turning the aircraft and the scenery textures are moving across the screen. It is worst when there are features such as buildings in view.

I am reaonably competant at installing drivers etc but completely ignorant about how gfx cards actually work so I am hoping that some of the more techniccally advanced posters to this board might be able to identify what the problem is.

Please help if you can as I, and others, are desperate to solve this problem.

Many thanks
 
well

i believe your geforce pro is clocked higher than your geforce 3 ti , with higher speed ram so if i'm right the geforce 3 is bandwith or fillrate limited.
 
Even if the Geforce 2 Pro does have faster ram then a Geforce 3 TI200 it uses that bandwidth far less efficiently then the Geforce 3 TI200. The the pro's effective bandwidth is lower then the Geforce 3 TI200's and because of that so is its fillrate.[/quote]
 
The memory is clocked at 400 for both and the core speed is 200 for for pro and 175 for the gf3 ti200. However, as has been said the gf3 should be more efficient.
 
well

in that case mabye you should make sure the older drivers were completely uninstalled.... that happens alot of with radeon drivers and when i went from a geforce 3 ti 500 to my r200 i had to search the registry
 
I have tested the old driver possibility by doing a completely clean install on a spare hd but it was no better.

thanks for the suggestions BTW
 
What CPU do you have? Remember that the GF2 series has the DX7 style fixed function T&L engine, whereas the GF3 emulates this via PS. It may be that the GF3 is a greater CPU load than the GF2. I've been satisfied with the performance of the Leadtek Ti200 (220/460) on a P4 1.8GHz "A" DDR system. It comfortably outperforms a Leadtek GF4 MX440 (300/480) in most 3D games. The GF4 Ti starts hitting it's straps once CPU clock gets to 2GHz+...
 
cpu is an XP1700 so it should be ok.

"GF3 emulates this via PS" what does PS stand for?

What I have difficulty reconciling is that I have never seen any suggestion of the gf3 underperforming the gf2 in any review or discussion that I have seen before. The game is probably two years old so a gf3 ought to be able to cope. The only idea I have had so far is that the gf3 is doing something more to the image than the gf2 did. However there is no visible difference and radeons have good image quality processing but don't seem to have the problems with the game that gf3 has.
 
well

mabye you should have gone with ati , they have much better drivers than nvidia :eek: have you tried newer games ? like wolfenstien and jedi knight 2 , i mean if the geforce 3 is better with these games does it really matter if the older games are a bit slower ? i mean that is why you upgrade isn't it , to play newer and soon to be released games faster , not the old games that already play fast enough ?
 
bailout:

Provide more details on your system, and it'll be easier to help you out. What motherboard are you using, drivers, operating system, direct x version, etc.

jvd:

mabye you should have gone with ati , they have much better drivers than nvidia

You're one day early for the April Fool's joke. ;)
 
well

Well it would be a good april fools day joke if i wasn't dead serious. :eek:
I left nvidia during the geforce sdr/ddr days because of crappy drivers... like my quake 3 sky looking like crap.


you say you are using creatives latest driver , mabye you should try nvidia's latest... it might not help but then again it may.
 
Oy jvd, you're basing driver experiences based on S3TC problems in Quake 3 years ago? :eek: Yet you didn't leave ATI when they released drivers that made the whole game look like crap and got high benchmark scores? For what it's worth, both issues have been fixed on both cards.

By the way, I remember hearing that the S3TC issue in Quake 3 was due to the S3 implementation, something NVIDIA couldn't change at the time. I've heard even S3 owners had the problem. Can anyone clarify that? I don't know if I got this from NVIDIA or a website, it's been a while.
 
well

well when i bought my geforce sdr i was actually playing quake 3 , i haven't played it in about 2 years... well okay i tried bid for power which was okay and thats about it.

actually i think it was a problem with the hardware that was later fixed through drivers by forcing the sky to be rendered in another level of sxtc


honestly after buying a top of the line geforce sdr and then having it replaced with a ddr version of the same card a few weeks later and then buying a geforce ti 500 and having it replaced with a geforce 4 a couple months later really really pissed me off ... i really hate nvidia now. I can still admit when they make a good card but it doesn't mean i will buy it.
i
 
I can relate with the GeForce SDR/DDR issue. I bought the GeForce256 SDR the day it came out, and then I remember seeing that the DDR version came out at the same price I paid for the SDR. I went to CompUSA to exchange and get the DDR version, and they wouldn't let me. It still played Quake 2 super fast for me, which was the only game I was playing a lot of back then. I didn't really have any issues with it though, and I don't ever play Quake 3. I much prefer Quake 2 over 3.
 
then you can see why i like ati , i bought a radeon 64meg vivo when it came out and it was thier top of the line for 1 year , i bought a r8500 and its still top of the line , the only diff is a memory increase , not a big deal.
Its also nice that you see a huge diffrence when you upgrade from one ati card to another. same thing used to happen with 3dfx , bought a voodoo , voodoo 2 was a big speed increase , bought a dual voodoo 2 saw a big increase , bought a voodoo 3 , it ran the same as 2 voodoo 2 boards but had better image quality and i got back a pci slot. voodoo 5 increased alot over the voodoo 3. geforce 4 ? not enough speed increase or feature increase for me to spend 700 bucks in a 4 month time period .
 
bailout, give us the info Matt requested so we can get a better idea of your problem. I think it might be hardware-related, though--you might try fiddling with your AGP setting (2x/4x, SBA on/off, aperture size), or checking to see if you have an IRQ conflict.
 
By the way, I remember hearing that the S3TC issue in Quake 3 was due to the S3 implementation, something NVIDIA couldn't change at the time. I've heard even S3 owners had the problem.

actually i think it was a problem with the hardware that was later fixed through drivers by forcing the sky to be rendered in another level of sxtc

Both of the above are right. The problem was that nV was using 16bit interpolation for decompression resulting in excessive banding(which S3 also suffered from). The hardware was in fact designed to do this and this was within the S3TC/DXTC specifications. The problem was worked around in later drivers by allowing users to force S3TC3 which looks better then any board running S3TC1(has a lower compression ratio), and now the hardware(GF4) end has been fixed with DXTC/S3TC1 both using 32bit interpolation for decompression.

Currently by default TC is off in Quake3 by default, which is more then likely the reason that most users think it has been fixed(the driver hack requires a hack, it isn't a checkbox feature).
 
All my chipset drivers are up to date and I have tried the latest Creative drivers and two sets of dets, 28.32 and 23.12. The card is not overclocked at all. The rest of my system is: chaintech 7kjd mb (amd761) running with onboard c-media 8738 sound, 512Mb crucial ddr2100, xp1700, maxtor 30Gb 7200 hd. Although I stress again that absolutely nothing had changed on my system other than the gfx card.

directx 8.1, win98se

Yes, I did buy the gf3 in part to play new games but also to play my old games better. Flightsims have a much longer playing life than fps style games.

I would have got a rad8500 but the gf3 was much cheaper :D
 
bailout:

Sorry, didn't see you post your specs and all. That'll teach me to read fast early in the morning. :)

I see you're using the on-board sound that comes with the motherboard. In this case, I'm betting this is the culprit to some of the games stuttering. From what I've read, on-board sound usually eat up a ton of CPU resources, and in the process, games suffer as a result. Try disabling it (probably can do this in the BIOS) and see if the game still exhbits stuttering.
 
Back
Top