kt400 and 8x

[LocKStocK]

I've recently invested in a Herules 9700 pro,
all I can say is that I'm really disapointed.
I bought this setup (look at sig) to run a high powered graphics card in AGP 8x
but much to my suprise kt400 motherboards don't support 8x graphics cards or something daft like that.
I've been told to use rivatuner and force it to stay in 4x.....
No and no, I paid good money to run it 8x and it damn well
should do.
I've been hunting around for a solution to this problem, but sadly
no answer has been found yet...
Just wondering if anybody has HAD this problem and have overcome it?
Otherwise, thats a lot or hard earned money gone to waste

 

[Taurus]

no idea. you installed the latest 4in1's, right? have the latest bios, too?

 

[LocKStocK]

Yup, latest Asus mobo drivers...
4.46 Hyperions
3.1 Catalyst 3D Prophet Series Drivers

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Lockstock
I've recently invested in a Herules 9700 pro,
all I can say is that I'm really disapointed.
I bought this setup (look at sig) to run a high powered graphics card in AGP 8x
but much to my suprise kt400 motherboards don't support 8x graphics cards or something daft like that.
I've been told to use rivatuner and force it to stay in 4x.....
No and no, I paid good money to run it 8x and it damn well
should do.
I've been hunting around for a solution to this problem, but sadly
no answer has been found yet...
Just wondering if anybody has HAD this problem and have overcome it?
Otherwise, thats a lot or hard earned money gone to waste

you do realse that there is a total difference perhaps of a couple of fps between 4x and 8x agp ?

the video card will stay working @ the max speed of the agp slot it is in.. mine is 4x and it works @ 4x... I can see that in my ati control panel..

you are not really losing performance running 4x-8x... heck the difference is not that great going from 2x agp to 8x agp

sure.. the theoretical bandwidth is going to be more... but thats about it... what games take advantage of the features is a different story...

personally I would not worry about it... if it bothers you a lot.. just get a new motherboard

 

[Taurus]

Originally posted by Lockstock
Yup, latest Asus mobo drivers...
4.46 Hyperions
3.1 Catalyst 3D Prophet Series Drivers

like i said, what about the latest A7V8X bios?

 

[LocKStocK]

ok
I'll stick with it for a while.
Hopefully the new catalysts will sort it.

By the way, I've had a quick go with 3D Mark 2003 just now.
Everything went fine on the aeroplane bit, I think my lowest FPS
was 80 but it stayed mainly at 130.
I was quite pleased with that. Then as soon as it went onto the
trolls lair one, it all went to hell
It was almost unbearable to watch. My FPS barely ventured over 25 and the video was all stuttery...
But the worst was yet to come, the space marine part kicked in
and I was hitting a fantastic 10 FPS!
Eventually I got so embarresed I had to quit
ALL the settings were on default.
Just out of curiosity, is that normal for my current system?

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Lockstock
ok
I'll stick with it for a while.
Hopefully the new catalysts will sort it.

By the way, I've had a quick go with 3D Mark 2003 just now.
Everything went fine on the aeroplane bit, I think my lowest FPS
was 80 but it stayed mainly at 130.
I was quite pleased with that. Then as soon as it went onto the
trolls lair one, it all went to hell
It was almost unbearable to watch. My FPS barely ventured over 25 and the video was all stuttery...
But the worst was yet to come, the space marine part kicked in
and I was hitting a fantastic 10 FPS!
Eventually I got so embarresed I had to quit
ALL the settings were on default.
Just out of curiosity, is that normal for my current system?

click on my 3dmark03 score and look @ the average framerates

it brings any system to its knees... it is designed to do that...

 

[LocKStocK]

Haha!
Not just me then

 

[Taurus]

i'm not a fan of 3dmark2003. how could my friend's system with a xp 2400+ and ti4200 @ near-4600 level get 1500 points? seems like other people with ati's 9700 pro get 5000 marks or more.

while he manages 12k 3dmark2001 points and the same 9700 pro system will get maybe 16k?

doesn't add up. plus there's been so much controversy over 2003 anyway.

[edit] take sazar's and my friend's system, for example

3dmark2001:
david - 11565 link
sazar - 12247

close match, huh?

3dmark2003:
david - 1572 link
sazar - 4473

and david gets higher scores in the cpu tests. something's not right.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by taurus
i'm not a fan of 3dmark2003. how could my friend's system with a xp 2400+ and ti4200 @ 4600 level get 1500 points? seems like other people with ati's 9700 pro get 5000 marks or more.

while he manages 12k 3dmark2001 points and the same 9700 pro system will get maybe 16k?

doesn't add up. plus there's been so much controversy over 2003 anyway.

there are threads concerning 3dmark on this website...

basically... 3dmark03 is a dx9 benchmark.. your friends video card is a dx8 card and has a lower spec pixel shader version when it comes to game test 2 and 3 (only game test 4 is dx9)

hence he will get a lower score coz his video card does not have the capability in hardware to run all the tests... nor to run the tests it can (except for game test 1) with proper efficiency...

the 9700pro on the other hand is a dx9 card and CAN run all the tests and it also has a higher pixel shader version 2.0.. v/s the 1.3 on the gf4ti4200...

also.. the only controversy concerning 3dmark03 is by nvidia.. because their cards were not producing good marks... nvidia attacked 3dmark03 on various points... which were adequately covered in the whitepaper released with the product...

no one else seems to have any problems with 3dmark03...

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by taurus
i'm not a fan of 3dmark2003. how could my friend's system with a xp 2400+ and ti4200 @ 4600 level get 1500 points? seems like other people with ati's 9700 pro get 5000 marks or more.

while he manages 12k 3dmark2001 points and the same 9700 pro system will get maybe 16k?

doesn't add up. plus there's been so much controversy over 2003 anyway.

[edit] take sazar's and my friend's system, for example

3dmark2001:
david - 11565 link
sazar - 12247

close match, huh?

3dmark2003:
david - 1572 link
sazar - 4473

and david gets higher scores in the cpu tests. something's not right.

3dmark01 is more cpu dependent than 3dmark03... which is more gpu dependent...

it is obvious from the scores...

plus my cpu runs @ 400mhz slower than your friends...

 

[Taurus]

Originally posted by Sazar
no one else seems to have any problems with 3dmark03...

if you were ati in this situation, you wouldn't complain either. it doesn't mean it's justified.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by taurus
if you were ati in this situation, you wouldn't complain either. it doesn't mean it's justified.

if you have read any of the multitude of discussions on this topic... you would probably think differently...

or if you read the white paper published by futuremark... yuo may also think this...

3dmark03 is a STANDARDISED test... it used the dx9 spec... and implements part of dx7 and 8 into the testing procedure...

nvidia chooses to make non-standard hardware and get game developers to code specifically for its non-standardised paths... if the STANDARD path specified in dx9 specs are used (in the nv30 as example) the product runs slow... just ask john carmack...

hence I can't see the argument that futuremark has a shoddy piece of tech out there...

also... look @ the new aquamark benchmark... the dx9 one... ati is performing better on that as well... perhaps due to it having faster standardised paths...

those relying on doom3 benchmarking tools... it is a dx8 game..