Observations on 128MB video card

[Guest]

Hi allAfter some teething troubles, I've got my GF3Ti200 up and running. It has replaced a GF2 GTS 32MB.The difference is astounding. I don't get any more FPS (it's locked at 25 anyway) but everything is now maxed, and best of all the purple squares I used to get all over the landscape while FS painted in the textures have completely disappeared. I can now run at 1280/32bit with 4X AA, and using NVMax I've been able to add a few other visual tweaks. This card handles it all with ease - I suspect it must be the extra memory, and I'd heartily recommend it to anyone thinking of upgrading.Cheers

[Guest]

What other system specs do you have? I'm thinking of upgrading, but don't know whether to spend the money on a graphics card or a new processor.Richard.

[Guest]

WinXPAMD 1.4512MB RAMGF3 Ti20019" Diamondtron Monitor (the best part of my system!)

[Guest jase439]

I doubt it's so much the extra memory (although I'm sure it certainly helps), but the improved memory bandwidth is giving you the magic shot in the arm.I'm gonna have to score me a GF3 or 4 here soon. I have the same GF2 GTS as you did.J

[Guest cornclose]

No, I think its the extra memory.Avoid AGP texturing = Better PerformanceChris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimuk

[Guest]

Are you sure its a Geforce 3 Ti200?? I'm just asking because, Geforce3 only have 64mg (but memory efficient, compare to a Geforce 2). I'm running a Geforce 3 at the same setting at your, and its running, no need for a Geforce4 yet :-).Benoit Picard:-wave

[Guest]

Er......yes, I'm absolutely sure it's a GF3 Ti200.....

[JimmiG 244]

There are 128MB GF3s too...It seems 128MB makes a lot of difference. I can't use 4x FSAA on my Ti500 64MB, the FPS becomes too low.

[Guest]

Yea, Leadtek makes a 128MB GeForce3 TI200.Fs2002 isnt really as demanding on the video card as sims like Fly and FlyII are. I'm still running my old origional 32MB DDR Radeon, and there's no problems with it, I DO, however, have 768MB of DDR 2100 installed, and an Athlon 1.8+ and it runs liquidly with all the detail sliders at 100%I mean, FS has never been a graphically intense game, compared to some of the insane 1st person shooters they have out now. The biggest hit comes from just supporting the physics, weather, dynamics, terrain, etc, there's egregious amounts of DATA there. The only time your card would probably come into play are those areas where the scenery is ultra dense (IE: New York City). I mean, its important to have a GOOD card, but you dont have to go overkill with them .....for FS at least.So, spare your expensive video boards for sims like FlyII. You're best off getting yourself some higher throughput RAM (like some DDR 2100/2400) or a faster processor.

[Guest]

Some good points... I have to admit I only bought the 128MB version by chance (wasn't even aware they existed.) It was only

[Guest PaulL01]

>No, I think its the extra memory. >>Avoid AGP texturing = Better Performance Yeah, disable your AGP who needs it! And you should replace your AGP card with a PCI card, actually if you can still find an old visa local bus mother board that will be even better! And rip out all the extra ram modules you have as they just get in the way and slow everything down....:-lol :-lol :-lolAre you running a P350 or somthing? As that advice will kill the performance of any decent up to date machine.Paul

[Guest PaulL01]

>Hi all >>After some teething troubles, I've got my GF3Ti200 up and >running. It has replaced a GF2 GTS 32MB. >>The difference is astounding. I don't get any more FPS (it's >locked at 25 anyway) but everything is now maxed, and best >of all the purple squares I used to get all over the >landscape while FS painted in the textures have completely >disappeared. I can now run at 1280/32bit with 4X AA, and >using NVMax I've been able to add a few other visual tweaks. >This card handles it all with ease - I suspect it must be >the extra memory, and I'd heartily recommend it to anyone >thinking of upgrading. >>Cheers I Damion,Thanks for posting your results! I almost went for one of these when they first appeared but am holding off any purchase untill fall.From all the benchmarking I've seen of this card it runs a tad slower than its 64mb sibling which is quite common when comparing cards of different amounts of memory running at the same speed, But the higher res and 4xAA is exactlty where this card will shine as the 4xAA needs the extra headroom (memory) and now you've got it. :) Which card did you get and how much?Paul

[Guest]

Hi PaulI have to say in defence of Cornclose that until I installed my new card, I found that by disabling AGP in dxdiag I got better performance in FS. PS Thanks for your help in an earlier thread with getting my new card up and running; the blurring I mentioned was due to a fault in the hardware as you suspected.

[Guest PaulL01]

>Hi Paul >>I have to say in defence of Cornclose that until I installed >my new card, I found that by disabling AGP in dxdiag I got >better performance in FS.Yeah, I hope he understands that I am just ribbing on em. :) Old hardware and old advice is all I am saying. try disabling AGP now and see what happens! :) Selecting 2,4,8,16 or on even some MB's 32 mb aperture within the BIOS and that will kill AGP, many 32MB cards and older MBs did not handle AGP very well and that for the most part is no longer the case. on my system for instance if the AGP is set to less than 128mb performance in D3D and openGL will drop by 15% and more. On my chaintek-DDR board going all the way up to 256MB was the best, trying 256 is also what is recommended by Nvidia in thier GF3 FAQ, But as is the case performance will vary between older and newer hardware.If someone wants to give Advice on hardware settings it is best to qualify it with what hardware that advice is working on, as many folks will read way to much into that "advice" and mess up thier perfectly good machine. :(what is enteresting is how the 1x ,2x or 4x AGP is still not being used properly on many MB's. however 8x AGP will finally be making its apperance on MBs and Vid cards and I am looking forward to it. >PS Thanks for your help in an earlier thread with getting my >new card up and running; the blurring I mentioned was due to >a fault in the hardware as you suspected.Any time Damion. :)Was that also a 128mb card?Paul

[Guest]

Your observations mirror exactly mine, which I've posted here before. The memory footprint of FS2002 when max or near max settings are used is obviously very large. The extra 64mb of frame buffer makes a noticeable difference.Viva La Difference!