DirectX 9
Just installed this and getting some lag in games now like GTA3. Anyone else installed this?.
Just installed this and getting some lag in games now like GTA3.
Anyone else installed this?
Anyone else installed this?
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
It was a mess, but finally got it to work. here was my situation...
GA-7ixe4 mobo, (now) ATI Radeon 7500 64meg AGP card, Athlon 850mhz,
768mb ram.
to make a VERY long story short, I had tried different AGP cards,
no luck, put in a bigger power supply, no go,
updated drivers like mad, nada...
lowered the clock speed on my mobo, WAMO! gta3 ran like mad,
perfect, so my 850 now runs at 750mhz, that mobo didnt like
8xx mhz proc's. im sure overclocking would work too, but dont have
the money to replace if anything frys or the cooling system (married with children)
But anyway, that fixed my problem, changing the clock speed.
another thing i noticed, not sure if its the card or what i did,
but RTCW plays much faster and its grafics are now out of this world.
it played decent before though, just much better now.
GA-7ixe4 mobo, (now) ATI Radeon 7500 64meg AGP card, Athlon 850mhz,
768mb ram.
to make a VERY long story short, I had tried different AGP cards,
no luck, put in a bigger power supply, no go,
updated drivers like mad, nada...
lowered the clock speed on my mobo, WAMO! gta3 ran like mad,
perfect, so my 850 now runs at 750mhz, that mobo didnt like
8xx mhz proc's. im sure overclocking would work too, but dont have
the money to replace if anything frys or the cooling system (married with children)
But anyway, that fixed my problem, changing the clock speed.
another thing i noticed, not sure if its the card or what i did,
but RTCW plays much faster and its grafics are now out of this world.
it played decent before though, just much better now.
Quote:
Yes but no matter how powerful your PC is or how optimised it is for games that doesn't change the fact that GTA3 is exactly the same across both platforms so how can it play better on one over the other?
what?? are you not listening to anyone??.. either i've got the complete wrong end of the stick (if so i appologuise) or you seem to be ignoring everyone..
If i had a p2 233 with 32MB ram and a riva 128, then you are trying to say that, the game will play exactly the same as it would on the PS2, are you being overly pedantic in your usage of the word "play"?? ;(
the way i see it, if the game stutters then regardless if the game is exactly the same the playability of it will be lower than it could.... hmmm
Yes but no matter how powerful your PC is or how optimised it is for games that doesn't change the fact that GTA3 is exactly the same across both platforms so how can it play better on one over the other?
what?? are you not listening to anyone??.. either i've got the complete wrong end of the stick (if so i appologuise) or you seem to be ignoring everyone..
If i had a p2 233 with 32MB ram and a riva 128, then you are trying to say that, the game will play exactly the same as it would on the PS2, are you being overly pedantic in your usage of the word "play"?? ;(
the way i see it, if the game stutters then regardless if the game is exactly the same the playability of it will be lower than it could.... hmmm
its not the same. For PS2 they KNOW what everyone is using, they KNOW how to optimise the game code. for PC it does matter what you have, they are trying to make it generically for x86 platform. All of the PCs are running differnt OS's, different proc. speeds, different video cards, different amounts of ram. They try to code it using the lowest common demoninator and still make the game work nice, but that doesnt always happen. Thats why MACs are so stable, they follow some form of standards (risc processing, only one brand of proc. not 3 /amd, intel, cyrix/ its a whole different world, ill bet you a mac version would be more stable. (i dont own a mac, and never have, and im not a mac fanatic, i just know they are stable *** machines)
APK
P.S.=> To me? Apple currently represents the "perfect Unix based machine" for end-users... what Unix should always have been! apk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost perfect, because its nix based, it comes with the nix security
issues as well. doesnt seem to be as much of an issue, but I have seen atleast on problem so far. Its by far a prettier, more stable, as user friendly option for those wanting to escape the iron grip of faulty MS bug ridden vaporware.
P.S.=> To me? Apple currently represents the "perfect Unix based machine" for end-users... what Unix should always have been! apk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost perfect, because its nix based, it comes with the nix security
issues as well. doesnt seem to be as much of an issue, but I have seen atleast on problem so far. Its by far a prettier, more stable, as user friendly option for those wanting to escape the iron grip of faulty MS bug ridden vaporware.
1. OSX is slower than OS9. FACT
2. OSX is not more stable than 2K/XP. FACT.
3. OSX is most likely buggier than 2K/XP. FACT.
4. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. FACT.
5. How the heck can Apple represent the "perfect Unix Based Machine"? WTF?
6. This site is not a PRO MS site. It's a site about NT. It is PRO as in Professional. Well some of us anyway.
7. A** is probably censored by default. It's no an MS conpiracy. If it bother's you so much then email Phillip and ask him to remove it, instead of B*tching on the forums.
2. OSX is not more stable than 2K/XP. FACT.
3. OSX is most likely buggier than 2K/XP. FACT.
4. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. FACT.
5. How the heck can Apple represent the "perfect Unix Based Machine"? WTF?
6. This site is not a PRO MS site. It's a site about NT. It is PRO as in Professional. Well some of us anyway.
7. A** is probably censored by default. It's no an MS conpiracy. If it bother's you so much then email Phillip and ask him to remove it, instead of B*tching on the forums.
Quote:
what?? are you not listening to anyone??.. either i've got the complete wrong end of the stick (if so i appologuise) or you seem to be ignoring everyone..
If i had a p2 233 with 32MB ram and a riva 128, then you are trying to say that, the game will play exactly the same as it would on the PS2, are you being overly pedantic in your usage of the word "play"?? ;(
the way i see it, if the game stutters then regardless if the game is exactly the same the playability of it will be lower than it could.... hmmm
I was sort of assuming machines that at least met the minimum requirements. Given the fact that the PS2 is more powerful than your example system (~300Mhz RISC CPU, ~200Mhz GPU, 32Mb RDRAM) it's ludicrous to expect it to run the game after you take the overheads introduced by an inefficient hardware and software platform into account. On machines that can run the game at 60fps the gameplay will still be exactly the same. More powerful hardware won't make all that much of a difference.
Quote:
its not the same. For PS2 they KNOW what everyone is using, they KNOW how to optimise the game code. for PC it does matter what you have, they are trying to make it generically for x86 platform. All of the PCs are running differnt OS's, different proc. speeds, different video cards, different amounts of ram. They try to code it using the lowest common demoninator and still make the game work nice, but that doesnt always happen. Thats why MACs are so stable, they follow some form of standards (risc processing, only one brand of proc. not 3 /amd, intel, cyrix/ its a whole different world, ill bet you a mac version would be more stable. (i dont own a mac, and never have, and im not a mac fanatic, i just know they are stable *** machines)
Thats really only a problem for the developers, not the players. The gameplay will be exactly the same on a Pentium 4 with a Radeon as an Athlon with a GeForce.
what?? are you not listening to anyone??.. either i've got the complete wrong end of the stick (if so i appologuise) or you seem to be ignoring everyone..
If i had a p2 233 with 32MB ram and a riva 128, then you are trying to say that, the game will play exactly the same as it would on the PS2, are you being overly pedantic in your usage of the word "play"?? ;(
the way i see it, if the game stutters then regardless if the game is exactly the same the playability of it will be lower than it could.... hmmm
I was sort of assuming machines that at least met the minimum requirements. Given the fact that the PS2 is more powerful than your example system (~300Mhz RISC CPU, ~200Mhz GPU, 32Mb RDRAM) it's ludicrous to expect it to run the game after you take the overheads introduced by an inefficient hardware and software platform into account. On machines that can run the game at 60fps the gameplay will still be exactly the same. More powerful hardware won't make all that much of a difference.
Quote:
its not the same. For PS2 they KNOW what everyone is using, they KNOW how to optimise the game code. for PC it does matter what you have, they are trying to make it generically for x86 platform. All of the PCs are running differnt OS's, different proc. speeds, different video cards, different amounts of ram. They try to code it using the lowest common demoninator and still make the game work nice, but that doesnt always happen. Thats why MACs are so stable, they follow some form of standards (risc processing, only one brand of proc. not 3 /amd, intel, cyrix/ its a whole different world, ill bet you a mac version would be more stable. (i dont own a mac, and never have, and im not a mac fanatic, i just know they are stable *** machines)
Thats really only a problem for the developers, not the players. The gameplay will be exactly the same on a Pentium 4 with a Radeon as an Athlon with a GeForce.
Quote:
On machines that can run the game at 60fps the gameplay will still be exactly the same. More powerful hardware won't make all that much of a difference.
thats what i meant, on machines that can keep up then the gameplay will be the same yeah, but computers that reach minimum spec dont always keep up with gta3, neither do some high spec machines..
glad we got that sorted..
On machines that can run the game at 60fps the gameplay will still be exactly the same. More powerful hardware won't make all that much of a difference.
thats what i meant, on machines that can keep up then the gameplay will be the same yeah, but computers that reach minimum spec dont always keep up with gta3, neither do some high spec machines..
glad we got that sorted..
Quote:Quote:
;( Let me guess, thats because it's on the PC? The game is exactly the same across the two platforms so how can it play better on one over the other?
Because the PlayStation 2 is optimized 100% for Games only.
I'm not arguing either side of the coin here, but I will say that any PC can match up to a console in gaming and even more....as long as the user is willing to invest the time and money.
The difference is that with a PS2, you are getting it for the games only but with a PC, at least you can customize what you want the PC to be for...50% Games, 50% Applications or 75% Games, 25% Applications, the list goes on and on.
I know any typical 1 Ghz Machine with something as low as a GeForce 2 and 256 MB DDR could play any game better than a PS2, and the person still has the additional uses of the PC that are not found on a PS2, which is again, a gaming console.
And don't forget, the 640 x 480 MAX res PS@ and game cube have
So how can people say the detail is better, and the gfx are better?..lol, and of course play is smoother, any game on a PC at 640 x 480 res would be.
At leat X box goes upto 1980 x something, but still most new T.V's - i think even HD T.V's res aren't that high, maybe wrong on that.
;( Let me guess, thats because it's on the PC? The game is exactly the same across the two platforms so how can it play better on one over the other?
Because the PlayStation 2 is optimized 100% for Games only.
I'm not arguing either side of the coin here, but I will say that any PC can match up to a console in gaming and even more....as long as the user is willing to invest the time and money.
The difference is that with a PS2, you are getting it for the games only but with a PC, at least you can customize what you want the PC to be for...50% Games, 50% Applications or 75% Games, 25% Applications, the list goes on and on.
I know any typical 1 Ghz Machine with something as low as a GeForce 2 and 256 MB DDR could play any game better than a PS2, and the person still has the additional uses of the PC that are not found on a PS2, which is again, a gaming console.
And don't forget, the 640 x 480 MAX res PS@ and game cube have
So how can people say the detail is better, and the gfx are better?..lol, and of course play is smoother, any game on a PC at 640 x 480 res would be.
At leat X box goes upto 1980 x something, but still most new T.V's - i think even HD T.V's res aren't that high, maybe wrong on that.
