Folks with Geforce 3 and a 700mhz pc or less, please read!!

**GB_Cobber** · 03-17-2002, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by low-standards
well, at least now i can play giants at 1024x768x32 with all max graphics and have acceptable framerates. giants too!! the ONLY game I know how to benchmark is quake 3, retial version, unpatched. I went from 45fps with the voodoo 3 all max (16-bit of course) to 57fps all max and 32-bit. max payne WILL NOT even LoAd on my system now. it gets past the videos in the beginning but then locks hard!!!! oh well. at least i get 32 bit textures and 32 bit color. which i can't tell the differnece. HOWEVER, daddy loves the anti-alaising!! so freaking sweeet. Thanks for all the posts and suggestions, this message board rocks. i'm going to d/l the latest drivers from nvidia now. hopefully i'll get more fps. doubt it. stupid 700mhz.

c-ya!!

You might want to turn off Vsync in Open GL when benchmarking Q3.
And going by that 57fps it seems your also running at 60Hz refresh rate.That'l give you a headace and its bad for the eyes.
My MX400 used to get 56fps in Q3 1024-32 max. Now i get around 90 with the Ti. You should be seeing at least 75-80 only because your FSB is slower.

**Triton** · 03-17-2002, 02:41 PM

I would say get it! I bought a Geforce 2 Ultra to run with my Celeron 466, before I had a V2. It worked very well, I could run 1600x1200 in most games very fine. I later bought the CPU I've now, a PIII 700. It became better and more balanced out. I know I can get more out of my games with a faster processor, but I can play any game under the sun with max details and the highest resolution, including Return to Castle Wolfenstein to take an example. I run Medal of Honor: Allied Assault at 1280x1024 with almost every option set to max, the other ones are at the next highest and with 2x FSAA. With a G3 it will work even better and you get more features, and for $200 it's a good choice, IMO.

Not exactly relevant to this, but you might want to give it a look: http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...ng/default.asp

**Newbie-Overclocker** · 03-17-2002, 10:29 PM

Get a PIII 1ghz $110 and a cheap GF3 Ti200 $130 and sell your 500E to make up the difference I got $75 for a 600E aweek back.

**yunez** · 03-18-2002, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by low-standards
I went from 45fps with the voodoo 3 all max (16-bit of course) to 57fps all max and 32-bit. max payne WILL NOT even LoAd on my system now. it gets past the videos in the beginning but then locks hard!!!! oh well. at least i get 32 bit textures and 32 bit color. which i can't tell the differnece.

hmm...$130 for 12 FPS..kindof makes you think. Maybe we get too hyped up about FPS. And this is from a voodoo3 to a geforce3, thats quite a generation gap.

**Un4given** · 03-18-2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Mandorallen of Molynnr

Ah...if it's the article that I'm thinking of, isn't that the one where they experianced that VIA bug which severely limits performance on SDR platforms?

They didn't say anything about any bugs, and the only VIA bug I know of is the PCI latency, which shouldn't affect the AGP. They just showed that the GF3 series GPU did better when combined with a DDR based system, and the GF2 series were actually able to, in some cases, beet the GF3 on platforms where SDR SDRAM was used.

**Mandorallen of Molynnr** · 03-18-2002, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Un4given

They didn't say anything about any bugs, and the only VIA bug I know of is the PCI latency, which shouldn't affect the AGP. They just showed that the GF3 series GPU did better when combined with a DDR based system, and the GF2 series were actually able to, in some cases, beet the GF3 on platforms where SDR SDRAM was used.

They didn't say anything about any bugs, however performance of the Geforce 3 card on the SDR KT133A system was so bad that it could only be the Win98/Geforce3/KT133A bug which was affecting their test system.

I meant to post this artical, but lost the link. The thread in which I originally posted the link is now a 404 - File not found on internet.com, corrupted thread I guess.

http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/006334.html

Suffice to say that it showed about up to 20% performance loss in certain conditions. Setting AGP aperture size up to 128MB, or reverting to certain BIOS flashes fixed the issue, and performance difference between a KT133A/KT266A at high res was very small.

**Mandorallen of Molynnr** · 03-18-2002, 01:56 PM

Found it posted on another forum :

http://www.onlinekosten.de/hardware/artikel/?ID=106

Looks like I was wrong...up to 60% performance loss in some situations, and they didn't have a direct comparison of chipsets.

Still, a 1 GHz Athlon w/ KT133A got 111FPS in Quake 3 at 1280x32 high detail while a Athlon XP 1900+ w/ KT266A got 128FPS. The performance difference between the two is not much considering the increase in processor speed.

**LouIII** · 03-18-2002, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Vengance_01
You will get perfromce that wil;l be at or about a geforce ultra. Plus you will not be able to upgrade down the future.

rather than doing that this is what i would do.

You can get a ecs SiS 745 for 60$
Get a duron 1.0GHZ 49$( new morgan core based on the XP core)
and get a stick of 256 DDR for like 70$
also get a decent cooler like the Volcano 6u. its like 15$

Then sell you current MOBO, CPU, and RAM and get a geforce 2 GTS-V for 49$. You will have a nice rig that can play any game today at full details in 1024-768 rez.

If you have any questions feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] or reply to this thread. all prices were from www.newegg.com

This is good advice. I think spending your money on your system's foundation (mobo, CPU, memory) is the smarter way to go. I have a PIII 800, a 440BX mobo, and SDRAM, and upgraded a few months ago from a GF256 to a GF3 Ti 200. I definitely saw a performance increase, but I think I would've gotten more for money had I upgraded my mobo, CPU, and memory. Then again, I probably would've bought the GF3 Ti 200 after all of this anyway.

**Ganja** · 05-13-2002, 07:23 PM

From what I noticed is that I only notice frame rate drops in areas that are obviously very CPU dependant.Also depends which game too.
But when processing power isnt choking my geforce 3 blazes

**Scolecite** · 05-13-2002, 09:42 PM

Why not get a GeForce 4 Ti 4200???

Who cares if his processor is 700Mhz it will still rock.

**Fatal** · 05-13-2002, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Vengance_01
You will get perfromce that wil;l be at or about a geforce ultra. Plus you will not be able to upgrade down the future.

rather than doing that this is what i would do.

You can get a ecs SiS 745 for 60$
Get a duron 1.0GHZ 49$( new morgan core based on the XP core)
and get a stick of 256 DDR for like 70$
also get a decent cooler like the Volcano 6u. its like 15$

Then sell you current MOBO, CPU, and RAM and get a geforce 2 GTS-V for 49$. You will have a nice rig that can play any game today at full details in 1024-768 rez.

If you have any questions feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] or reply to this thread. all prices were from www.newegg.com

is the duron really a good chip compared to thunderbirds and XPs? im tight on money and dont want to have to buy a new mobo just to get the most out of my video card. btw what type of ram does the cpu pair up with? i have been told my fsb is the reason im not getting the best frames...

**Indus** · 05-13-2002, 10:54 PM

Umm what's up with Ganja today? That's the 2nd 3 month old thread he's dug up today.. :rolleyes:

**steppy76** · 05-13-2002, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Indus
Umm what's up with Ganja today? That's the 2nd 3 month old thread he's dug up today.. :rolleyes:

Look at his screen name...he musta been living up to it today.

Thread: Folks with Geforce 3 and a 700mhz pc or less, please read!!

Thread Tools

Display

Re: got the Geforce 3 ti 200 and wellll.....ummm......

Re: got the Geforce 3 ti 200 and wellll.....ummm......

Posting Permissions