• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

X1900XTX not performing

Associate
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Posts
19
Hey guys,

First off I should probably list my spec:-

AMD64 San Diego 4000+ @ 2.6Ghz
2x1Gb Corsair XMS (2-3-3-6 )
Sapphire X1900XTX
Sapphire A9RD580ADV (ATI Crossfire Xpress 3200)
Enermax Liberty 630W PSU
2x250Gb WD SATAII
Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP x 2

I built this under the impression it should have zero problems with any current games and most for at least the next 12 months. From what Ive heard about the X1900s they should be making light work of any game at the resolution I play at (1680x1050).

I have read various bemchmarks with Battlefield 2 that claims 120FPS+ at 1600x1200, yet I get seemingly random fluctuation that ranges from 25-100. At times will sit idley at 25ish.

The above is just an example, all the games I play seem to suffer the same problem.

Over the past month I have put it down to me expecting too much from the card but after reading a lot about other peoples experience with it Im inclined to believe something is not right.

3Dmark would suggest everything is going fine, I have a score of 4939, but when it comes to actual gaming Im pretty sure Im not getting the performance I should be.

The only thing I could think of was an IRQ conflict but the GPU has IRQ18 to itself. Beyond that I have no clue.

Cheers in advance for any help you can give.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
13,489
3D Mark 2005 score?
Driver version?
ATI Services running?

AA, AF, quality settings?

100 is BF2s max, I dont know how the benchmarks get 100+, might disable the limit. But they run at 4xAA and 16xAF or something, which with my X1900XT @ over XT-X can simply not get. This is at 1600x1200.

Reviews are extremely fishy sometimes.

CR.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Oct 2004
Posts
305
Location
sunny suffolk
Bf2 doesn't like ALT+TAB'in back to desktop, it drastically reduces performance. So make sure you don't before testing. Also try running it at a lower res to see if it still seems a bit slugish, coz if it does it is a system problem not graphics.
I have x1800xt run bf2 maxed out at 1280x1024 and it flies. Only on the odd full 64man map does it dip below 25fps and even then it's not for long.
3Dmark is a graphics test, try a broader system benchmark like SiSoft SANDRA and compare with similar systems, especially bandwidth tests.
Also BIOS settings are very important, if you built this pc yourself (or even if you didn't) don't asume that the defaults will be perfect for your pc.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Posts
19
Thanks for the quick reply.

Sorry, my first post, wasnt sure exactly what info to give you.

Havent tried 3dMark05....Ill go grab the trial version now.
Catalyst 6.8
I have no idea what ATI services are...

AAx4
AFx0

Yea there is a way to unlock BF2s FPS limiter but I rarely get 100 anyway, it usually sits between 25-50fps on a 40 player server.

I understand these reviews are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but the general concensus on the X1900XTX is that it should handle anything with ease and to me 25fps on a year old game is not ease.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 May 2006
Posts
12,192
Location
London, Ealing
Laurie1403 said:
Thanks for the quick reply.

Sorry, my first post, wasnt sure exactly what info to give you.

Havent tried 3dMark05....Ill go grab the trial version now.
Catalyst 6.8
I have no idea what ATI services are...

AAx4
AFx0

Yea there is a way to unlock BF2s FPS limiter but I rarely get 100 anyway, it usually sits between 25-50fps on a 40 player server.

I understand these reviews are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but the general concensus on the X1900XTX is that it should handle anything with ease and to me 25fps on a year old game is not ease.

Try disabling CATALYST A.I
 
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Posts
19
Final8y said:
Try disabling CATALYST A.I

Difference is negligible with or without Catalyst AI.

3dMark05 score - 9980.

KangooVanMan, can you give me any examples of what to look for in the BIOS? Any values that I should know to be detrimental?

Cheers again.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
13,489
Laurie1403 said:
Difference is negligible with or without Catalyst AI.

3dMark05 score - 9980.

KangooVanMan, can you give me any examples of what to look for in the BIOS? Any values that I should know to be detrimental?

Cheers again.

Ok thats too low.

Was the settings set at performance with no AA or AF and Adaptive AA etc off?

TBH i would uninstall ATi drivers using Driver Cleaner Pro. Download Omega drivers and use them.


CCC is a pile of poo and Omega drivers use the original Control panel and the excellent ATi Tray Tools.

Try that :)
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
13,489
Hmm still abit low :confused:

Is that one of the early ATi mobos? Or a later one?

Earlier ones had poor performance IIRC.

Its in 3D mode because 2D is 9-9.8k :confused:

Try a game.

No AA or AF, Sliders to Quality in D3D/DirectX settings in ATi Tray Tools.

OpenGL is rarely used now, so I just shove them to max :)

See how BF2/other games perf is.

If its ok start at 2xAA and 4xAF etc :)

CR.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Posts
19
Not sure how old my mobo model is, I dont really follow the technology unless Im buying.

2006-09-01 21:48:23 - GRAW (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter)
Frames: 1085 - Time: 61938ms - Avg: 17.518 - Min: 0 - Max: 32

2006-09-01 21:56:32 - GRAW
Frames: 1866 - Time: 58018ms - Avg: 32.162 - Min: 3 - Max: 49

first result is was at 1680x1050 with no AA or AF, second is at 1024x768....thats not right is it?

Cheers for all your help btw Concorde, much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
13,489
Laurie1403 said:
Not sure how old my mobo model is, I dont really follow the technology unless Im buying.

2006-09-01 21:48:23 - GRAW (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter)
Frames: 1085 - Time: 61938ms - Avg: 17.518 - Min: 0 - Max: 32

That was at 1680x1050 with no AA or AF....thats not right is it?

Cheers for all your help btw Concorde, much appreciated.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Hmm. What does CPU-Z say your CPU is running at? Task manager showing any major CPU usage? Closed all programs, antivirus' etc?

All chipset drivers updated? :confused: Infact all drivers updated? Try again..

After all that clear CMOS overnight, then try. Reinstalled windows?

I very much doubt the cards buggered.. EDIT: 0 FPS indicates CPU/mem bottlebeck :confused:
 
Last edited:
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Posts
19
Oh good god, CPU-Z says im clocking at 2.4Ghz. Which is fine. Whats a little disturbing is that I ordered a San Diego 4000+ from Overclockers and Ive just found out I have a Clawhammer core, which is 130nm as opposed to the San Diegos 90nm.

Ill have a look through the benchmarks and see if I have any 0fps readings. If I do have a bottleneck I would probably put it down the the CPU I DIDNT ORDER!
 
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Posts
19
Ok, I just decided to try GRAW on all low settings running 1680x1050. Im getting exactly the same frame rates, in some instances lower FPS that with everything on high with 16XAF....

Does anyone have any insight to such a bloody annoying problem?
 
Soldato
Joined
7 May 2006
Posts
12,192
Location
London, Ealing
Laurie1403 said:
Difference is negligible with or without Catalyst AI.

3dMark05 score - 9980.

KangooVanMan, can you give me any examples of what to look for in the BIOS? Any values that I should know to be detrimental?

Cheers again.

Well it was not for the benefit of 3D mark.

When i moved over to the latest Cats some games lost 75% FPS. Like 180 fps down to 100fps i worked out that it was the Cat A.I settings that needed changing this time as the A.I works differently now.
 
Back
Top Bottom