Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Really stupid GeForce 2 Ti question

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member Logan[TeamX]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    On a 3rd world power grid
    Posts
    669

    Really stupid GeForce 2 Ti question

    Man, am I licked on this one.

    Bought a GeForce 2 Ti to go with my nice shiny new XP 1800+ system. Runs like a charm in either Win2K Pro or XP Pro UNTIL I try and play anything, such as and not limited to Counter-Strike (loading the opening menu is a no-go, monitor goes into power-save mode and needs a hard-boot), Unreal Tournament (same deal), Red Alert 2 - Yuri's Revenge (same deal), Dungeon Siege (same deal).

    Now, I can load Quake III in Win2K, but not XP, from what I recollect.

    Here's the kicker: I can install WinME and play all of those games flawlessly, and I mean flawlessly. I get a flat-out 85 FPS in UT and CS, 91-92 clean FPS in Q3, and about 40-60 FPS in Dungeon Siege. All quoted FPS are at 1024x768, max graphics and options where available.

    Now for the meat. Am I correct in assuming the HAL in Windows 2000 and XP (Hardware Abstraction Layer) is killing my initialization? And if so, is my cheesy 15" monitor limited to those rates for what it can display in-game?

    Those are my theories, I await your replies.

    Thanks!

    Logan[TeamX]

    PS guess you want system specs, huh? AMD XP 1800+, K7S5A mobo, 256MB-DDR2100, 20Gig Western Digital 5400RPM HD at ATA100, WinME, DX 8.1, Detonators at 30.82 currently.

    Detonators tested on the old system included 21.83 or somesuch (shipped with the vid card), 30.82, and the new Detonator 40s. All returned the same results. Trust me. I spent a LOT of **** time testing all of that.

    Thanks again.
    Last edited by Logan[TeamX]; 09-03-2002 at 03:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Ultimate Member grimfandango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,669

    Re: Really stupid GeForce 2 Ti question

    And if so, is my cheesy 15" monitor limited to those rates for what it can display in-game?


    if you get a better monitor you got all the way to 1600x1200 and more!



  3. #3
    Ultimate Member AllGamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    16,305
    yup, this are the time when i'd consider a Monitor Upgrade

  4. #4
    Senior Member Logan[TeamX]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    On a 3rd world power grid
    Posts
    669
    Update: I disabled Vsync in teh OpenGL properties page of my Nvidia properties. I now max out at 100 FPS in CS (the Half-Life engine limit). Still locked at 91-92 in Q3 and 85 in UT.

  5. #5
    Ultimate Member AllGamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    16,305
    that sounds more like normal to me

  6. #6
    Ultimate Member grimfandango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,669
    you get 80+ fps..


    what wrong with that!?

  7. #7
    Ultimate Member tricktx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Kelbrook,UK
    Posts
    1,075
    i get 80fPS with the same specs but with an Ati 7500 which is in te same level as a gf2ti

  8. #8
    Ultimate Member grimfandango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,669
    Originally posted by tricktx
    i get 80fPS with the same specs but with an Ati 7500 which is in te same level as a gf2ti
    I guss some are never happy!



  9. #9
    Ultimate Member AllGamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    16,305
    Originally posted by grimfandango
    I guss some are never happy!

    that's why i don't buy into the FPS thing, but in the Quality.

    else people will go insane trying to catch up the ficticious numbers

  10. #10
    Ultimate Member grimfandango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,669
    Originally posted by AllGamer



    that's why i don't buy into the FPS thing, but in the Quality.

    else people will go insane trying to catch up the ficticious numbers
    yea!

    as long as the game works fine on your sys...

    be happy!


  11. #11
    Senior Member Logan[TeamX]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    On a 3rd world power grid
    Posts
    669
    I used RivaTuner and disabled the Vsync in D3D as well, I now get up to 205 FPS in low-traffic areas in Unreal, and about 115-130 in firefights.



    Thanks anyways guys!

    Logan[TeamX]

  12. #12
    Senior Member Logan[TeamX]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    On a 3rd world power grid
    Posts
    669
    I guess I should ask as to why I can't get my games to initialize properly in Win2K or XP... is the Hardware Abstraction Layer messing me over???

    Anyone else with a double MCP or better have any insights on this???

  13. #13
    Extreme Member! BipolarBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Norton Noo Joisey
    Posts
    41,522
    Win2K and XP 3D problems are usually caused by old or questionable drivers. The Detonator 21.83 drivers are the most compatible drivers. Seek them out.

    Be sure to install DX 8.1 in Win2K.
    MS MCP, MCSE

  14. #14
    Ultimate Member AllGamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    16,305


    What about the 40.x drivers?

    these are stable and Excellent for performance

  15. #15
    Extreme Member! BipolarBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Norton Noo Joisey
    Posts
    41,522
    Maybe, but I'm not sure that they will work on every possible configuration. I am sure about the 21.83 drivers.
    MS MCP, MCSE

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •