I recently ran 3D Mark 2001SE on my system, with the following results:Ran EndItAll, so no extranious procs going on.Test 1: AA off, Performance set to 'middle', AF 4x,with texture sharpening, so that I was really using 8x.3D Mark Score: 7300Test 2: AA off, Performance set to 'middle', AF off with no texture sharpening3D Mark Score 9500!?!Test 3: AA off, Performance set to 'performance', AF off3D Mark Score 10000Test 4: AA off, Performance set to 'pretty'(or whatever the high image quality setting is, AF off3D Mark Score 10500All scores approximate. Now, my question is, what in the world is up with Test 2? Surely AF cannot hit my FPS that much, as in FS and every other application that uses 3D rendering my FPS are identical with AF or or off. I am very curious....

>I recently ran 3D Mark 2001SE on my system, with the>following results:>>Ran EndItAll, so no extranious procs going on.>>Test 1: AA off, Performance set to 'middle', AF 4x,with>texture sharpening, so that I was really using 8x.>>3D Mark Score: 7300>>Test 2: AA off, Performance set to 'middle', AF off with no>texture sharpening>>3D Mark Score 9500!?!>>Test 3: AA off, Performance set to 'performance', AF off>>3D Mark Score 10000>>Test 4: AA off, Performance set to 'pretty'(or whatever the>high image quality setting is, AF off>>3D Mark Score 10500>>All scores approximate. Now, my question is, what in the>world is up with Test 2? Surely AF cannot hit my FPS that>much, as in FS and every other application that uses 3D>rendering my FPS are identical with AF or or off. I am very>curious....Hi Fred,Your where you should expect it to be...The known fact is that GF4's suffer terribly with AF. AF 4x almost cuts a TI4600 fill rate in half! And it shows in all apps. If you don

Paul --Whew, I had no idea my fillrate was cut in half. I guess that makes sense then, in my rather large 3D Mark score improvement :)Thanks for the info.

Paul...You'd be the person to ask. I just upgraded to a '4200. I did so in part because I heard many reviewers comparing it to the GEF/3 (with some saying it is a slightly enhanced GeF/3). And I did so in part because it didn't require an upgrade to my power supply. I've noticed that AF has no measurable fps impact--even AA seems to have little--vs. the GeF 2 I replaced.My question--are the reviewers right? I've been very pleased with the 4200--spent the past 48 hours burning it in and not one issue or lockup--great stability considering I'm running FS2002 and FS2004 under Win 98. I have found that I prefer my old geF 2 settings--2X Aniso and a -.5 LOD (having applied the Rivatuner patch to NVDD32.dll to access the negative LOD). The results are almost comparable to using 8X aniso without the negative LOD. 8X aniso doesn't seem to hurt fps, but it does seem to hurt texture updates and make the sim more prone to stutters--perhaps a hint toward the fill rate issue you mention.Anyway, what are your thoughts on the 4200?