Battle FPS...seems low

[olaf73]

I have an XP2700+/1gig/9800 Pro on XP Pro. I am using Cat 3.9s, but I was using the 3.7s and the FPS was the same, bad.

At normal detail, I get about 24fps at 1600x1200 screen res. That seems low to me, what are you guys getting?

olaf

edit: I am not here for the graphics, but if there is something I can do so that I can boost my FPS and/or the detail, I am all for it.

[ December 16, 2003, 06:59: Message edited by: olaf73 ]

[Saber Cherry]

If you are running 75 Hz refresh, try increasing it to 85 Hz. Or turn off vsync.

I get about 50 fps with much lower specs and an Nvidia Geforce 4600.

[ December 16, 2003, 07:13: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Delphinium]

I have an Athlon2600, Radeon 9700 and can't get better than 25fps. My son's spec is Athlon2000, GeForce Ti4200, he gets 33fps.
Perhaps for this its the Radeons/drivers.
Both machines are 512MB otherwise identical. We both run LCD screens, Steven runs a cheap analogue screen, mine is digital.

The question is what is the main determining factor in the FPS, Steven has an overclocked Ti4200. What does anybody else get ?
I'd expect Saber Cherry to get in the 30's or better with a 4600, I was interested to see how other Radeon usesr fared, as I'd felt let down by 24/25. Resolution makes no difference either.

[olaf73]

I am running 85Hz. Why would Vsync on be killing the frames? I will try that, but I dont think thats it.

It seems more likely to be an ATI vs Nvidia issue, as I installed it on my work machine and get better FPS on it, and its a significantly weaker machine. Its a P4 2G/1gig/Ti500 and it gets 30FPS at the same res.

olaf

[NTJedi]

make sure your display settings are set for 16-bit colors instead of 32-bit.

[Johan K]

A word of warning though. Dom II in 32-bit color looks decidedly better than 16-bit. So reducing the number of colors kind of negates the benefit of having a high resolution.