PDA

View Full Version : hi.. some performance problem gt7800



RaZieL
03-08-2006, 02:19 AM
hey.. so i got like this new pc a while ago, at the start it worked SO FRIGGIN AWESOME, u could feel the pawah of it.. now its a bit crapier

no idea why, i got newest nvidia drivers, my machine is heavily tweaked, not so many progs running on same time ever [tho it should handle quite easily!] and so on

how can i restore the power to my card?
drivers/clean up of something?

btw, the firm is leadtek, and on their cd there's some weird prog with pretty g*y gui that allows u to oc and do stuff with the card, any1 got any idea what im talking about ? would like some1 to explain to me how to use it etc

btw, it the adjustments of the card [in desktop->right click etc], theres many tabs in "advanced options"
would really appreciate if some1 could write down what each does and how it affects ur gaming/video watching! thx alot all, gn

Munkul
03-08-2006, 05:18 PM
yeah, those programs are ok, but a better idea is to leave it alone, and use coolbits, a registery tweak. download it (google it) and run it. then you have driver level overclocking. make sure the card is running at default speeds, by clicking the default tab. i dont know how familiar you are with these tweaks, so brig up the advanced display tab or whatever, and click on the clocking tab.

RaZieL
03-18-2006, 12:30 PM
thx, its on default ofc ;) nn to overclock my gt7800 :p

bf2nut
03-19-2006, 04:02 PM
raziel,
for starters u better being running 2 gigs minmum for res,s above 1024x768.and weres your specs man?games u play.i ran my same res,s with 7800gt before this 7900gtx 512 and it was fine but my pc is massive so ultimaly the cards were always the bottleneck til now....7900gtx is insane

Edit by Yawg:
Stop listing system specs in every other Goddamn post. Make a signature with your specs for reference, but don't make the list so long vertically.

Yawgm0th
03-20-2006, 09:08 AM
raziel,
for starters u better being running 2 gigs minmum for res,s above 1024x768.and weres your specs man?games u play.i ran my same res,s with 7800gt before this 7900gtx 512 and it was fine but my pc is massive so ultimaly the cards were always the bottleneck til now....7900gtx is insane
Funny, I can play everything but F.E.A.R. and Battlefield 2 at high or max settings on 1600x1200. Those two play at 1280x960 on near-max settings. My 6800GT is the only limiting factor in any game except BF2. Even for BF2, your comment is far from true.

As for your actual problem, what are the rest of your system specs?

bf2nut
03-22-2006, 09:28 AM
Funny, I can play everything but F.E.A.R. and Battlefield 2 at high or max settings on 1600x1200. Those two play at 1280x960 on near-max settings. My 6800GT is the only limiting factor in any game except BF2. Even for BF2, your comment is far from true.

As for your actual problem, what are the rest of your system specs?i started off bf2 using a 6800gt,then 6800ultra,7800gt,now 7900gtx.why 4 cards for bf2?because i run 1800x1440 settings maxed out and the 6800gt as my bf2 starter in my experience only i felt chugged after 1280x768 ,settings hi,and it did ok?so i moved up cards every 2 months til i found performance along the way and was waiting on nvidias release of a newer card.im not going to say any more,plz read and educate yourself.i did...yawgmoth i would like to hear rest of your comp specs plz.why no sig?

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BS7pGccgKZYJ:bf2hardware.sytes.net: 6583/+bf2+ram+usage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

simply clik the link take 2 min and read the page its on,its right on the money.sheesh i chugged at the time using 2 gigs,your 1 gig must be nice stuff...:ponder:

Yawgm0th
03-23-2006, 08:59 AM
No sig because I rarely feel the need to list of system specs, but I constantly find myself linking to some of the programs down there.
My 9800 Pro system consisted of the following:
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro OCed a little past XT speeds
Mobile Athlon XP 2400 (Barton core) overclocked to 200x11
768MB of RAM @ 2-3-3-7 and 200MHz (2xGeil PC3500 and 1xKreton PC3500)
Abit NF7-S v. 2 and its onboard SoundStorm audio
80GB 7200RPM 8MB cache WD hard drive
420W Thermaltake Silent Purepower
Played [email protected] everything but textures and lighting set to High. I believe I had some light (2x probably) AA as well, because BF2 really needs some AA.

The system on which I play it now (I can choose between Textures or Lighting to have on medium, otherwise it gets really bad in some scenes; AA at 4x) consists of the following:
Athlon 64 3000 (Venice core) overclocked to 274x9 for 2.466GHz (motherboard limitation; I could probably hit 2.8 without a higher multiplier or no HTT limit)
ASRock 939Dual Sata2 (won't go past 274 with this BIOS, and the other BIOS have serious bugs)
1GB of PC3200 Patriot @ 2-2-2-10 (IIRC; I know I set the tRAS to the best value, and it's probably 10, but that's not really an issue and I don't feel like checking) and around 204MHz
6800GT with a minor OC; the game is playable at those settings without the OC
WD 200GB SATA 2 HDD
Soundblaster Audigy 2

So basically, the 256MB of extra RAM, the one-gen-higher-equivelent video card and the faster processor got me a couple setting bumps, higher framerates (which are good, but it was playable before) and slightly decreased loading times (the RAM and HDD help, but the Textures will more than make up for the faster hardware and Lighting comes close).

I also used the 6800GT and 1.5GB in the Barton system for a month or so before I got the rest of the Athlon 64 system. IIRC, I could turn up AA, but Textures and Lighting still needed to be Medium. But I might be totally wrong on that one, in which case performance was identical to with the Athlon 64. We're not really talking about CPU usage though, are we? ;)

Not you need to understand that my gaming systems are rediculously well-tweaked. The kind of tweaking that only makes a difference in a game like BF2, where every MB of RAM counts. So I use SP1 and I disable Windows services and don't run any programs. I'll generally have a commit charge of 85-90MB, while your average system will have at least 150. It won't make a difference in most games, but BF2 isn't most games.

You also need to understand that what I call playable may be different for you. As long as it doesn't lag to the point where I miss something during a firefight or an explosion, I'm good. An average framerate of around 35 is what I find the be "playable" for a shooter, and that also means a minimum of about 25 (which will makes things get choppy in rough situations, but you won't freeze and then find yourself dead from an explosion your computer couldn't handle).

As for that link, I skimmed along, and it seems accurate, except for one thing. I noticed a huge performance drop when using High Textures. On both systems it meant the difference between a comfortable framerate and complete unplayability.

bf2nut
03-23-2006, 09:17 AM
No sig because I rarely feel the need to list of system specs, but I constantly find myself linking to some of the programs down there.
My 9800 Pro system consisted of the following:
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro OCed a little past XT speeds
Mobile Athlon XP 2400 (Barton core) overclocked to 200x11
768MB of RAM @ 2-3-3-7 and 200MHz (2xGeil PC3500 and 1xKreton PC3500)
Abit NF7-S v. 2 and its onboard SoundStorm audio
80GB 7200RPM 8MB cache WD hard drive
420W Thermaltake Silent Purepower
Played [email protected] everything but textures and lighting set to High. I believe I had some light (2x probably) AA as well, because BF2 really needs some AA.

The system on which I play it now (I can choose between Textures or Lighting to have on medium, otherwise it gets really bad in some scenes; AA at 4x) consists of the following:
Athlon 64 3000 (Venice core) overclocked to 274x9 for 2.466GHz (motherboard limitation; I could probably hit 2.8 without a higher multiplier or no HTT limit)
ASRock 939Dual Sata2 (won't go past 274 with this BIOS, and the other BIOS have serious bugs)
1GB of PC3200 Patriot @ 2-2-2-10 (IIRC; I know I set the tRAS to the best value, and it's probably 10, but that's not really an issue and I don't feel like checking) and around 204MHz
6800GT with a minor OC; the game is playable at those settings without the OC
WD 200GB SATA 2 HDD
Soundblaster Audigy 2

So basically, the 256MB of extra RAM, the one-gen-higher-equivelent video card and the faster processor got me a couple setting bumps, higher framerates (which are good, but it was playable before) and slightly decreased loading times (the RAM and HDD help, but the Textures will more than make up for the faster hardware and Lighting comes close).

I also used the 6800GT and 1.5GB in the Barton system for a month or so before I got the rest of the Athlon 64 system. IIRC, I could turn up AA, but Textures and Lighting still needed to be Medium. But I might be totally wrong on that one, in which case performance was identical to with the Athlon 64. We're not really talking about CPU usage though, are we? ;)

Not you need to understand that my gaming systems are rediculously well-tweaked. The kind of tweaking that only makes a difference in a game like BF2, where every MB of RAM counts. So I use SP1 and I disable Windows services and don't run any programs. I'll generally have a commit charge of 85-90MB, while your average system will have at least 150. It won't make a difference in most games, but BF2 isn't most games.

You also need to understand that what I call playable may be different for you. As long as it doesn't lag to the point where I miss something during a firefight or an explosion, I'm good. An average framerate of around 35 is what I find the be "playable" for a shooter, and that also means a minimum of about 25 (which will makes things get choppy in rough situations, but you won't freeze and then find yourself dead from an explosion your computer couldn't handle).

As for that link, I skimmed along, and it seems accurate, except for one thing. I noticed a huge performance drop when using High Textures. On both systems it meant the difference between a comfortable framerate and complete unplayability.
i see.:smilies13i instantly noticed 15 more fps when i dropped in the xfi extremusic card,i never even gave the 8.1 harmon processor on the dfi ultra a chance(1 day)sounds\looks nuts on ultra settings audio eax 5.0 \ and video.

Yawgm0th
03-23-2006, 01:44 PM
Yeah the sound card can make a difference. Speaking of which, both systems ran with Sound on High and changed from software to hardware (both SoundStorm and Audigy cards can do this, and it helps performance a ton). The Athlon 64 also has EAX turned on. If you were using sound with the Software settings that may have hurt performance.

RaZieL
03-25-2006, 01:54 AM
oopsy sorry guys wasnt @ home lately
emmm lets see
2x 512 adata 3200
amd 64 3500 [venice i think]
DFI nf4 ultra
and gt7800gth
and HDD 200gig sata2 [tho its kinda [email protected] tests o_o ] WD or othre firm ^^

bf2nut
03-25-2006, 02:48 AM
oopsy sorry guys wasnt @ home lately
emmm lets see
2x 512 adata 3200
amd 64 3500 [venice i think]
DFI nf4 ultra
and gt7800gth
and HDD 200gig sata2 [tho its kinda [email protected] tests o_o ] WD or othre firm ^^lol razial is having problems indetifying his own components,roffle!!!!dude u wanna play bf2 razial your a rofl riot!your specs are fine man.grab 84.21 drivers leave everything default minus vertical refresh rate (off )only if u run a crt moniter(the long in back ones).quality to hi,7800gt simply owns.:ar15firin

metallicat666
03-25-2006, 07:19 AM
lol razial is having problems indetifying his own components,roffle!!!!dude u wanna play bf2 razial your a rofl riot!your specs are fine man.grab 84.21 drivers leave everything default minus vertical refresh rate (off )only if u run a crt moniter(the long in back ones).quality to hi,7800gt simply owns.:ar15firinso what if the guy cant identify his components exactly.
i dontknow the core in my processor or the HD manufacturer, hell i dont even know what mobo ive got (its a laptop by the way)

no need to be so patronising

RaZiel: in resopnse to your original question, the system may be running slower due to a build up of deadwood in the system, have you tried defragmenting the HD or cleaning the registry, sometimes it can make a big difference

bf2nut
03-26-2006, 11:34 AM
so what if the guy cant identify his components exactly.
i dontknow the core in my processor or the HD manufacturer, hell i dont even know what mobo ive got (its a laptop by the way)

no need to be so patronising

RaZiel: in resopnse to your original question, the system may be running slower due to a build up of deadwood in the system, have you tried defragmenting the HD or cleaning the registry, sometimes it can make a big difference

dude i said he was funny,get about 10 feet away from me plz metallicacat thks.....im here to help ppl,ok there captain serious,lighten up.razial knows i was messin...:uhh:

metallicat666
03-26-2006, 07:29 PM
im here to help people its just that when i read your post i thought that you were taking the piss outta razial. i apologise for my misunderstanding you.

bf2nut
03-27-2006, 06:29 AM
im here to help people its just that when i read your post i thought that you were taking the piss outta razial. i apologise for my misunderstanding you.
np metallcat,
its all good mettalicat(i take shots but refuse to fire back,apology accepted np)hey razial how did u make out?curiuos what moniter your running too,name brand, model number..?:ponder: full comp specs would be nicer tho.:ar15firin