Just wanted to know how much the VCACHE setting you posted has helped???? When I check my Ram usage under windows, 256MB of available ram now becomes 133MB available. Can windows really be using that much...that is the stupidest thing I have seen.

Just curious.......

I'm sure you both have already tried it, but sometimes it's the simple things we forget...

Sky

PS If you have tried it, THIS IS NOT A FLAME. Only info that may have slipped through...

My system specs are this:

p3 600e @ 900mhz
Asus p3v4x motherboard
Asus GeForce DDR (6800 for those keeping score)
384 megs of pc 133 Ram
4 x 20 gb hd's (all ata66)
SBLive
2 network cards
1 ata66 card
1 cd/r
1 dvd-rom

My motherboard chipset is via 133a, using the old via 4.17 4 in 1 agp,ide,etc drivers. This is important, because the newer via drivers have problems with some motherboards. Some people with a setup close to mine can get q3 frame-rates in the single digits using the other drivers (as opposed to over 100 fps using the 4.17 drivers).

Another thing that I had to do was set my agp apeture size correctly. On my old Abit board (bx6 rev2), I could set my agp apeture to anything I wanted with no noticable difference in fps or smoothness. This board will only be smooth using 64 or less for the agp apeture size. I also have disabled video caching, because for the GeForce it will only make things slower and can cause problems.

The other thing that has caused problems for me is my driver settings for the GeForce. Right now I am using the latest official drivers from Nvidia, although I have also used 3.77 and the 5.x series. I had to make sure that I had zeroed out the settings for pci texture size in direct3d, and also played around with the "render frames ahead" setting. On some of the Nvidia drivers, this made a noticable difference in FA-18, and in Need for Speed 5 was the difference between very playable and unplayable.

I also do not, repeat NOT screw with vcache settings manually. This has always caused more stuttering for me when I have messed with it. The only adjustment close to that that I have done is choosing network server as the type of computer I have in the my computer-properties-performance-file system settings. This is the only way that I know of that works with the vcache settings that actually works. The other thing that I have done is frozen my swap file at 300 mb, and then optimized it so that it would be at the front of my primary disc.

I also run a memory manager and defragmenter before playing FA-18. Usually my RAM usage (when first booting and not running anything but the TSR's I have and Windows) is around 20-30 percent of my RAM. After doing almost anything, my RAM usage will almost always jump to 58-90 percent, even after quiting those programs. I just run a defragger (like Rampage, WinRam 2000, etc.) before playing to free up as much contigious RAM as possible. I also kill everything that is not gaming related.

The thing that I have noticed is that depending on your mb, chipset, and vidcard, your bios and driver settings can make a huge difference. Just because you have a 900 mhz system does not mean that it will scream. The combo that I have is very sensitive to any misstep whatsoever.

I have been building and working with computers for 20 plus years. When I built my new rig and installed need for speed 5, I figured it would scream because I had everything set up "properly". When I fired it up, the game would either crash, or would be unplayable (I was getting one frame every 5 to ten seconds). FA-18 also ran worse then it did on my p3-500. I tried new drivers, tried patching the program, and had no luck. Then I messed with my bios (changing settings to somewhat unorthodox ones), and messed with the driver settings, and viola...it ran better then I could have imagined. It also fixed the issues I had with FA-18.

When I switched to my new system, I was actually angry that it ran FA-18 worse than my p3-500. However, since FA-18 was smooth on my old system, I knew that it had to be some weird interaction with my new mb and my vidcard.

If you bypass the os and write directly for hardware, you will certainly get better performance. But the people without that hardware will have a broken product. A great example of this is anything based on the Unreal engine. Unreal works great on 3dfx hardware, because it was originally written using glide. However, when Epic added d3d, they were unwilling to go back and trash all of their original code (for obvious reasons). So they built d3d on top of glide. The result is buggy and slow.

Jane's went another route, which is to code to the os. Then performance would be linked to your drivers and their interactions. This is a good way to do it, and Jane's has been very responsible in fixing anything that was incorrectly coded into the game (such as the problem with the wedge on Geforce cards.) The problems with framerates are (well, except that this game takes ALOT of cpu) going to be directly related to your drivers, bios, hardware, and the interaction they all have together. This is something that it out of the control of Janes.

Of course, Janes could fix framerates by doing what Microprose/Hasbro did in F4. They can turn off features. I look at it this way: In F4, imagine the framerates if you had your air and ground bubble high enough to deagg everything in the Korean theater. This is what is happenning in Jane's.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were unable to get the framerates and smoothness that someone using an intel running at the same speed was able to get.

I think that their is something in the nature of the bios used on some of the athlon motherboards that is causing this problem. I do know that the first versions of the mb's for the Athlon were abit flakey. That's understandable since it is relatively new technology.

Heck, I remember when the bx chipset was having problems. All of those were ironed out, and now the bx is known for its performance and reliability.

Hopefully for our Athlon friends there will be (or is) some bios revisions out their to help them. I know that I had to update my bios on my new mb before I had acceptable performance. Just FYI, my bios has gone through 3 revisions already, and they are currently testing the fourth. This is on a board and chipset that was very recently introduced.

Thanks for the info..I was equally interested in your system specs. My specs are 100% identical to yours and I am shell shocked that you can get 900MHZ out of her...Are you sure??????

The highest I got it with awesome cooling was 808MHZ. Also, with respect to the Via 4 in 1 driverset...I think you mean version 4.17 not 3.17

I could be wrong here and if I am please direct me to the 3.17 driver set.

Again, thanks for the insight....

I figured you had it covered, but it never hurts to mention...

Sky

I lucked out on my chip. I had purchased four at one time, three for some systems at work and one for personal use. I was then able to test and pick the chip that would stand overclocking the best. I do use some pretty good cooling, but it is purely air-cooled. I don't use a peltier or watercooling.

I learned my lesson from when I built my p3-500. That chip can almost always overclock to the upper 500's with stock cooling, and with good cooling it is pretty easy to hit the lower to mid 600's. My chip would only go to 512.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sky_King:
Seawolf,

I figured you had it covered, but it never hurts to mention...

Sky

---