:[ Q3Arena.com Message Board ]: : How to get those crazy FPS?!?!

my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

»	:[ Q3Arena.com Message Board ]: » Tech Center » How to get those crazy FPS?!?!

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: How to get those crazy FPS?!?!

Kenny
Visor
Member # 2646

Rate Member

posted 12-07-2001 11:52 PM

I have a Geforce 3 Ti200 card and can't seem to get Quake 3 to display over 90fps!! What's up with that? It's like the frame rate is maxed out. Is there something that I have to do? I think the fixed 90fps display is misleading as I'm sure that I'm having a higher fps than that....

Suggestions?

Posts: 3 | From: Can | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

dAm
Sarge
Member # 2600

Member Rated:

posted 12-08-2001 12:34 AM

where are you seeing the 90fps? In a game or timedemo? If it's in a game you probably have a max set. Change it to
/com_maxfps 200 or whatever in the console.
See what you really get by running a time demo
/timedemo 1
/demo four
(assuming you're patched to 1.29 or higher)
then when the demo's run pull the console back down for results. If changing the max fps doesn't help post more system specs

--------------------

Shut-up and fish

Posts: 577 | From: Calgary | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

sinisterstorm2000
Sarge
Member # 2220

Rate Member

posted 12-08-2001 12:01 PM

Also check to see if you got Vertical Refresh Rate enabled or disabled or something like that which makes the game run at the same refresh rate as your monitor. If you do no game will go above whatever your monitor is set to. IN my case. If it was enabled i would never get higher then 85 by much.

Posts: 104 | From: Corner Brook, Newfoundland CND | Registered: Oct 2000 | IP: Logged

dAm
Sarge
Member # 2600

Member Rated:

posted 12-09-2001 10:48 PM

and turn off VSYNC

--------------------

Shut-up and fish

Posts: 577 | From: Calgary | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

TheKiller
Sarge
Member # 890

Member Rated:

posted 12-10-2001 01:14 AM

If you want to go 'the fastest, jump the highest' don't go upto 200 FPS... set it to 125.

Sounds weird, but from what I've read, and what I've experienced, it's completely true.

Com_MaxFPS 125 is what I would set it to.

--------------------

Talk is cheap, so is my signature.

Posts: 1723 | From: Gibsons, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged

dAm
Sarge
Member # 2600

Member Rated:

posted 12-10-2001 07:07 AM

TheKiller is 100% correct. maxfps 125 is the secret sweet spot. At least it was a secret.

--------------------

Shut-up and fish

Posts: 577 | From: Calgary | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

sinisterstorm2000
Sarge
Member # 2220

Rate Member

posted 12-10-2001 08:36 AM

AHhhhh VSync... that is what i meant.
"Dam" you. : P

Posts: 104 | From: Corner Brook, Newfoundland CND | Registered: Oct 2000 | IP: Logged

Kenny
Visor
Member # 2646

Rate Member

posted 12-10-2001 04:50 PM

Thanks for all who responded!!! It's much appreciated, and now I can see those crazy frame per seconds that I once was so envious about. What a BIG difference a good video card makes! It makes me wonder though, if whether we can actually see any difference between 10 or so fps when up that high of around 180fps. I mean, can we really tell the difference between a 170 and a 180, or 180 and 190?

Just a thought.

Posts: 3 | From: Can | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Scooby
Sarge
Member # 329

Rate Member

posted 12-10-2001 04:54 PM

Nope.
Maybe 1 in 1000 can tell the difference between 70 and 80. The human eye only sees at a max of 60fps or so.

Posts: 2802 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jul 1999 | IP: Logged

Kenny
Visor
Member # 2646

Rate Member

posted 12-10-2001 04:57 PM

As I had thought...it's very hard to distinguish fps when we're dealing with such high numbers in the first place, so why is there a need to overclock graphic cards? Hmm, must be more personal than anything.

Posts: 3 | From: Can | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

TheKiller
Sarge
Member # 890

Member Rated:

posted 12-10-2001 06:21 PM

From what I hear, you can only notice huge differences.
For instance: going from 60 to 120. Both appear to be very smooth on their own, but switching back and forth between them you will initially notice something, but seconds later it will become just as smooth as before.

The occassional gamer notices slight differences between 75 and 85 FPS (well, I do)... but after that, no differnce

--------------------

Talk is cheap, so is my signature.

Posts: 1723 | From: Gibsons, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged

dAm
Sarge
Member # 2600

Member Rated:

posted 12-10-2001 07:23 PM

but the key is that the COMPUTER can tell the difference. That's why there's a sweet spot at 125 I suppose. Makes me wonder. If you have a low end system that would never hit 125fps, is it still a sweet spot?

--------------------

Shut-up and fish

Posts: 577 | From: Calgary | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

sinisterstorm2000
Sarge
Member # 2220

Rate Member

posted 12-10-2001 10:26 PM

Well I got my Geforce TI-200 Card today and i must say. The performance on a P3-733 is supurb. Quake3 hardly drops below 100 fps. The voodoo5 would usually hover around 45. And man does it make a difference. LoL. The smoothness is nuts. In 1024x768 I would never imagine a constant 110 FPS. Its crazy. Exspecially on a P3-733. Man i can only imagine what this card will do when i start upgrading my computer fully. Apparently the Gf3 cards even on 1.5ghz only perform at like 66% of its top. Thats insanely good. For me ne thing above 45 FPS is sweet. This card just is toooooooo crazy. lol.

Posts: 104 | From: Corner Brook, Newfoundland CND | Registered: Oct 2000 | IP: Logged

Redlemons
Sarge
Member # 70

posted 12-11-2001 07:12 AM

quote:
Apparently the Gf3 cards even on 1.5ghz only perform at like 66% of its top.

I remember when my Voodoo2 was the same! Everything I read about it said that the CPU of computers at the time were the bottleneck, and were limiting the card's potential!

Posts: 1711 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jun 1999 | IP: Logged

TheKiller
Sarge
Member # 890

Member Rated:

posted 12-11-2001 05:27 PM

That information is a bit confusing... but here's how it really goes:

1) Low resolutions, CPU is the bottleneck. This is how you can test the theory. Run quake 3 at 640x480, do a timedemo. Do 3, and disregard the first demo, average the last two. Overclock your video card by 10%, you should notice you get 0 frame rate increase. Now overclock your CPU by 10%, you will notice a pretty significant increase in frame rates.

2) High resolutions (ie 1024x768 and above), the Video card is the bottleneck. Perform the same test as in step 1 and you'll notice the exact opposite happens, namely, overclocking the Video card gives higher frame rates and overclocking the CPU has little or no effect.

It all makes sense if you think about what is really happening when you change resolutions in the amount of work being done by both the CPU and the Video Card.

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: TheKiller ]

--------------------

Talk is cheap, so is my signature.

Posts: 1723 | From: Gibsons, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)