Major bottleneck?

[Gus K]

go into the system BIOS and set the AGP Aperture Size to 128MB at least, 256MB is recommended.

Not true, 64m will work fine with a 128m card.

 

[GoNz0]

might not ber true, but its wrote in stone by motherboard manufactureres everywere

 

[Gus K]

but its wrote in stone by motherboard manufactureres everywere

Also not true. No where in my manual do they state such a formula for determining aperture size.

If you upgrade to a graphics card with more memory, you shouldn't be deceived into thinking that it will require even more AGP memory. Aperture size is inversely proportional to card memory. Actually a smaller AGP memory space will be required.

Note that the size of the aperture does not correspond to performance so increasing it will not improve performance.

Still, it is recommended by most to set the AGP aperture to around 64MB to 128MB in size.

Most cards require an AGP aperture of at least 16MB in size to work properly. This is probably because the virtual addressing space is already 12MB in size. In addition, some software has AGP aperture size requirements that are not really specified. Some future games may use larger textures, but for now none use more than 32MB, which translates to an aperture size of 64MB.

Please note that reducing the AGP aperture size won't save you any RAM. Again, what setting the AGP aperture size does is limit the amount of system memory the AGP bus can appropriate when it needs to. It is not used unless necessary. So, setting a 64MB AGP aperture doesn't mean that 64MB of your system memory will be appropriated. It will only limit the maximum amount of system memory that can be used by the AGP bus to 64MB.

Now, while increasing the AGP aperture size beyond 128MB won't take up system RAM, it would still be best to keep the aperture size in the 64MB-128MB range so that the GART (Graphics Address Relocation Table) won't become too big. As the amount of memory on graphics cards increases and texture compression becomes commonplace, there's less of a need for the AGP aperture size to grow beyond 64MB. Therefore, it is recommended that you set the AGP Aperture Size to 64MB or at most, 128MB.

With my 128MB GF4 TI4200, using 3DMark 2001 as a reference, going any higher than a 64MB aperture size makes no difference. And although not conclusive, it actually seemed a bit off the mark when set to 256MB.

But as with all computer related things, one size does not fit all, your mileage may vary.

The above information has been culled from various sites and discussions.

 

[GoNz0]

you should try WWII online and see what happens with 64mb AGP

 

[Taurus]

Originally posted by Gus K
Some future games may use larger textures, but for now none use more than 32MB, which translates to an aperture size of 64MB.

i hope you're not saying that there aren't any games that use more than 32mb of video memory..? for a fact, there is at least one that uses more than 128mb and many that use more than 64mb.

 

[Bretenn]

but it is wise to test the diff. aperture size which suit us...
talking about 3dmark, for mine 128mb give more marks than the 64mb... and i had test numerous time....

 

[Gus K]

i hope you're not saying that there aren't any games that use more than 32mb of video memory..?

No, I was speaking of game textures, which are usually compressed these days to less than 32MB.

It is also interesting to note that most GF4 TI4200 cards with 64mb of memory will usually benchmark faster, at normal resolutions, than the same cards with 128mb. The 128's usually use slower memory. It appears that qualitity is more important than quantity (at least for now), although the 128's will allow you to run at higher resolutions than the 64's.

But the point was that an aperture of more than 128mb is unnecessary, 64 to 128 is fine for 128mb cards, there is no magic formula based on computer memory etc.

 

[LeeJend]

m00m1n

You should be able to do better than 8000 on madonion with an XP 2000 and that Vid card. A friend has over 10,000 with same setup (and no overclcoking). Check the following:

1) When you put the new processor in did you remember to change the CPU FSB setting from 200 to 266? I think its a motherboard jumper on your system.

2). Did the motherboard detect the new chip correctly? At boot up it should say XP 2000 in the upper right area of screen. If not it could be the FSB is set too low (previous comment). Or it may be an older bios that doesn't recognize the XP family. If its a bios problem then you get to flash a new bios. (This does involve risky so ask for help before hand if you arem't comfortabel with flashing.) Check the bios version (upper right during boot) against the MB manufacturers bios rel;ease notes on th ir web site.

3). The third item is the ram speed. Is your ram 200 mhz or 266 mhz? Can it run at CL 2.0 (in ram performance settings), if it can run it at the 2.0 setting and see if it's stable, if not cut it back to 2.0. If the Ram is only 200 mhz @ 2.5 the upgrade won't buy you much FPS increase so it's not worth it unless you have a wad of cash to blow.

Any of the above could be holding your system back that extra 2000 in speed.

 

[Misfire]

i've read magazines and they said you should set aperture size according to your video card memory, and tweaking guides have said that as well.

i get 9998 marks with this vid card

 

[canadian_divx]

i was told at a conference from ati and nvidia in Toronto a few years ago that the apature size should be duble you physical video memory, but i am jsut woundering from some of u guys why u want to get more than 30fps on the highest quality, there is no point to get more than 30

 

[LeeJend]

Divx

BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most first person shooters look like crap at 30. 30 is the minimum usable for gaming. 50 or better gives the smoothness you need for the best game play.

30 FPS also causes eye strain in long gaming sessions.

I've played at 30 and I'm up at 60 or over on most of my games now. The difference was worth the cost.

 

[Gus K]

but i am jsut woundering from some of u guys why u want to get more than 30fps on the highest quality, there is no point to get more than 30

You are wrong. The graphics in games require a much higher rate than 30 to appear lifelike. 30 is playable, but far from fluid. It would appear that there is not much point of rates over 60, as at that rate the eye perceives it as fluid, continuous motion.

A rate of 30 (or even 24 for film) that is of live action/motion is acceptable. If you were to analyze the individual frames you would notice 'blurred' motion frames, which seamlessly carry/blend the motion into a continuous scene. Individual frames in games do not have such 'transition' frames to carry the eye, hence the need for more frames to smooth things out.

If you ever have a chance to view a game at 30, and then see the same game at 60, you won't need any science or instruments to notice the amazing difference in smoothness. It's night and day.