Curse

kyusai · Apr 16, 2008, 01:38 AM // 01:38

I finally re-formatted my PC and got it back up and running with a new video card. I purchased a 256MB Radeon HD 2400 Pro and thought I was going to get blown away results from it. I installed Guild Wars and I am only getting 30 fps constant. Is there any way to increase my FPS so that the game looks much smoother?

Brianna · Apr 16, 2008, 02:00 AM // 02:00

Hmm, post your other system specs to see what we're dealing with.

It's not always just the video card that produces good frames, the processor plays a role in it too.

For instance my 1.8 Ghz Amd Sempron and GeForce 8600GT only get 20-30FPS, that is because the processor sucks and it's too slow. when I had the 8600 in this computer, with an AMD Athlon 6000+ it got 60.

kyusai · Apr 16, 2008, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Dell Dimension 4600
Pentium 4 with HT (Hyper Threading) @ 3.0GHz
1GIG of RAM
80GIG Hard Drive
256MB Radeon HD 2400 Pro
Dell 19' CRT P992 Monitor

Brianna · Apr 16, 2008, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Hmm that processor should be just fine for it then, and 1 gig of RAM is good.

It may just be that particular video card model - or the drivers.

I don't know a lot about ATI cards, maybe someone who does could confirm if that card should get more than 30 frames or not?

kyusai · Apr 16, 2008, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Before I had a 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro and it ran pretty smoothly but then I had problems with it and then it just dyed out on me. This new card I have, the 256MB Radeon HD 2400 Pro is faster, newer technology, and should be running an efficient FPS rate. At my Display Settings, it says "Plug and Play Monitor"...Maybe do I have to put in my Dell P992 Disc to update the drivers of the monitor? I have all the updated drivers for my graphics card already.

rob0626 · Apr 16, 2008, 02:12 AM // 02:12

correct me if i'm wrong, but the monitor doesn't effect the frame rates. fps is all internal hardware based. is your bios updated? and what is your gpu clock and the graphics memory clock speed?

Admael · Apr 16, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Monitor effects frame rates. Vsync caps your FPS to the speed of your monitor's refresh rate.

kyusai · Apr 16, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

I just re-formatted so I would assume my BIOS is updated...Here is some information that might be helpful:

-40 Unified Stream Processors
-Memory path - 64-bit interface
-GPU Clock – 520MHz
-Memory Clock - 800MHz effective

rob0626 · Apr 16, 2008, 02:38 AM // 02:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

Monitor effects frame rates. Vsync caps your FPS to the speed of your monitor's refresh rate.

burned. my bad. thanks for correcting me. well because hertz is defined as cycles/s, the refresh rate should be equivalent to the max fps allowed. i doubt it is as low as 30 tho... which is the fps.

Control Panel > Display > Monitor

Under there the screen refresh rate is listed, make sure the hide modes that cannot be displayed is checked. what is the refresh rate.

EDIT: idk much about ati but the 64-bit interface is a lot slower than an 128-bit one. that could would slow it down, but i dont think to only 30 fps. what interface is the card ex. pci, agp, pci-e?

Joshthor · Apr 16, 2008, 03:09 AM // 03:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyusai

I finally re-formatted my PC and got it back up and running with a new video card. I purchased a 256MB Radeon HD 2400 Pro and thought I was going to get blown away results from it. I installed Guild Wars and I am only getting 30 fps constant. Is there any way to increase my FPS so that the game looks much smoother?

this card will NEVER blow you away. i have the exact same card, and on max settings i get about 25-30 fps constant. best thing you can do to increase the fps is lower/turn off the things you dont want/need (i dont use shadows, dont pay attention to them, also i take off reflections). this isnt an amazing card. also, the human eye sees at 28 fps (i think thats the number, i know im only 4 off at max) so you shouldnt really have much of a sight difference with 30 than say 45 or even 3242 (i think you could have a siezure at this rate actually).

note: with reflections and shadows and post processing and v-sync (i dont see much of a difference with any of these) i get 45-55 fps

Lord Sojar · Apr 16, 2008, 03:36 AM // 03:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshthor

this card will NEVER blow you away. i have the exact same card, and on max settings i get about 25-30 fps constant. best thing you can do to increase the fps is lower/turn off the things you dont want/need (i dont use shadows, dont pay attention to them, also i take off reflections). this isnt an amazing card. also, the human eye sees at 28 fps (i think thats the number, i know im only 4 off at max) so you shouldnt really have much of a sight difference with 30 than say 45 or even 3242 (i think you could have a siezure at this rate actually).

note: with reflections and shadows and post processing and v-sync (i dont see much of a difference with any of these) i get 45-55 fps

Actually, the human eye can can see as many as 4000 FPS. But, at some point, it become irrelevant. That point is around 50-60FPS. 90-120 is said to be optimal, 24 being a comfort level for continuous motion (a movie). But oh well. :P

Here, have a look at this:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

But yeh, that card is far from top of the line. Expect 25-40 on that thing, especially with the inefficient P4 processor.

kyusai · Apr 16, 2008, 03:44 AM // 03:44

I might as well just buy a new computer :P

Brianna · Apr 16, 2008, 05:09 AM // 05:09

Aye, if you're going to buy one new big part, just buy all new parts to compliment it.

I'd say it's about time you bought a new system anyway, just use your old one as a secondary system for mucking around on.

Blackhearted · Apr 16, 2008, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyusai

Before I had a 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro and it ran pretty smoothly but then I had problems with it and then it just dyed out on me. This new card I have, the 256MB Radeon HD 2400 Pro is faster, newer technology, and should be running an efficient FPS rate. At my Display Settings, it says "Plug and Play Monitor"...Maybe do I have to put in my Dell P992 Disc to update the drivers of the monitor? I have all the updated drivers for my graphics card already.

Just cause it's "new" does not mean it's better. A radeon 9800 pro has quite a bit more raw pixel pushing power than a 2400 pro. As well as a significantly higher memory bandwidth. The only advantage over the 9800 pro is shader model 4 support. Which means little on a low end card. You shoulda done more research buying buying this "upgrade" tbh..

Admael · Apr 16, 2008, 05:34 AM // 05:34

You can get more FPS if you turn vsync off. I played the game fine with my Core Duo. (first gen Core series, similar/slower than the Pentium 4's)

I got like <20 FPS in town and 40 consistent, 50 max with vsync on. You probably can get more by turning it off!

No need to upgrade so soon.

Bront · Apr 16, 2008, 06:09 AM // 06:09

Check your default settings.

If you have AA and other bells and whistles all cranked up to max, the 2400 may have a slight problem. Try turning AA down. that's often a big culpret.

Aera · Apr 16, 2008, 06:58 AM // 06:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

You can get more FPS if you turn vsync off. I played the game fine with my Core Duo. (first gen Core series, similar/slower than the Pentium 4's)

I got like <20 FPS in town and 40 consistent, 50 max with vsync on. You probably can get more by turning it off!

No need to upgrade so soon

V-Sync has no graphical difference whatsoever. The only thing it does is set a maximum FPS, which is equal to the refresh rate of your monitor. Getting higher FPS than your monitor can display is bad, because it can cause your monitor to cause tears etc. in your screen.

As I said, there's no graphical difference, and there's no visual difference between 75 or 200 fps, so there is no reason to NOT have V-Sync enabled.

( unless you're benchmarking )

moriz · Apr 16, 2008, 01:13 PM // 13:13

the radeon 9800PRO is considered a high end card 3 years ago, which also happens to coincide with the release of GW. my friend had one of these cards before, and it could run GW at max settings, with driver-forced AAx8 and AFx16, and maintain 56-57 fps at 1280x1024 resolution.

the HD2400PRO is more geared towards office apps and multi-screen support than actual gaming. if you want decent gaming performance, you'll need at least a HD2600PRO or HD2600XT.

and just as another point of reference:

comparing a 9800PRO to a HD2400PRO is like comparing a '69 ferrari to a '08 civic. the ferrari is still gonna beat the living bejesus out of the civic no matter what. same thing with the cards.

tijo · Apr 16, 2008, 01:56 PM // 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

comparing a 9800PRO to a HD2400PRO is like comparing a '69 ferrari to a '08 civic. the ferrari is still gonna beat the living bejesus out of the civic no matter what. same thing with the cards.

QFT!

Unless you buy a new video card, you'll be stuck with fps you have. As for v-sync, it synchronizes your fps with your monitor's refresh rate. i.e. if your refresh rate is 60Hz, your fps will be 30, 60 etc if your video card is capable to maintain it.

EDIT: this doesn't apply to your case, but v-sync is there to prevent tearing on high end systems where the fps can be too high for your refresh rate.

lordpwn · Apr 16, 2008, 02:23 PM // 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by tijo

this doesn't apply to your case, but v-sync is there to prevent tearing on high end systems where the fps can be too high for your refresh rate.

Without vertical sync some tearing is inevitable no matter how fast (or slow) the game runs. It's not caused by the FPS being higher than the monitor's refresh rate, but by the video buffer being changed while the monitor refreshes. V-sync forces the primary video buffer to change only while the monitor's not refreshing, eliminating the nasty effect.

Of course, since it hurts the FPS a little (and can cause a frame or two of input lag) it makes more sense to turn it on if the game is already running very fast.