ET Runs Very Slow

(MadRush) #1

Im running Fedora Core 6 (x86_64) on an 1.8ghz AMD 3000+ , a buttload of ram, buttload of swap space, Nvidia GF3 Ti 64mb.

[MadRush@localhost ~]$ glxinfo | grep direct
direct rendering: Yes

heres the whole glxinfo: http://1t2.us/764

It’s slow as crap, even with 800x600 and everything turned off. Openarena plays pretty good, though after a while the other online player movements get choppy. I haven’t played Openarena since I increased my swap space.

Heres what I get when I run it and shut it down without playing a match:
http://1t2.us/771

Heres a long one when I play a match:
http://1t2.us/770

(Nail) #2

maybe try latest drivers, I think these are newer:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-9755.html

(jeeves) #3

your video card is putrid. spend at least 30 bucks and you can buy a video card better than what you have.

(BondyBoy007) #4

video card shouldn’t be a problem, I had a similar card for a while and, with a lesser CPU (XP2500), I was able to cap at 43 fps @ 1034x768 on most maps

(dommafia) #5

ET is very CPU dependent. You can get an nvidia 8800 and u wont notice a difference in fps tbh.

Are you running antivirus software in the background while playing? Like Norton Antivirus’ auto detect. AntiVirus software that is running in the background auto checking is going to bog down your system, especially while playing.

You might want to run some anti spyware and antivirus just to make sure your system resources aren’t being used by hidden malicious programs.

(BondyBoy007) #6

aye, you’re not wrong about the graphics card/CPU bottleneck but I would guess

would imply that it’s not spyware/antivirus issue, but what do I know I’ve always run MS OS’s :oops:

(jeeves) #7

trust me, get a new video card. i’m surprised you can run firefox with that thing. the gf3 even has problems with quake 3(which is based on the same engine as et but et has a good bit lower fps do to maps/textures etc).

spend 70 bucks on a 6800 and you should get 100+ fps. but i recommend upgrading to pci-e and going all out and spending at least 250 on a video card. your cpu is actually pretty good, i guess you can spend a few bucks on a 7900gs, which is the best that they have for agp right now.

(jeeves) #8

video card shouldn’t be a problem, I had a similar card for a while and, with a lesser CPU (XP2500), I was able to cap at 43 fps @ 1034x768 on most maps[/quote]

also that…is really bad man, im sure you think it is ok because you haven’t seen anything better. sorta like a person that uses his monitor on 60hz all the time and says its perfectly fine, even though he gets these mysterious headaches. if only he tried a monitor running at at least 85hz would he know how bad he has it.

(CooperHawkes) #9

@jeeves: If you cannot play q3 fluently on a gf3, then you did something seriously wrong! You can get a steady 250 fps on a gf2 (yes, 2, not 3), as long as the settings are right. And I even played q3 with a voodoo1 at around 50-60 fps… it’s all about the right config. ;-p

@MadRush:
Can you give us some numbers from glxgears?
Does your kernel support agpgart and mtrr? Can you post the content of /proc/mtrr? Maybe something goes wrong while the gfx driver tries to enable write-combining.

(BondyBoy007) #10

video card shouldn’t be a problem, I had a similar card for a while and, with a lesser CPU (XP2500), I was able to cap at 43 fps @ 1034x768 on most maps[/quote]

also that…is really bad man, im sure you think it is ok because you haven’t seen anything better. sorta like a person that uses his monitor on 60hz all the time and says its perfectly fine, even though he gets these mysterious headaches. if only he tried a monitor running at at least 85hz would he know how bad he has it.[/quote]

well I now run ET at 1600x1200 with AA and cap at 125 fps with my monitor at 125Hz, so I do know the difference. 43 fps was very playable

(kamikazee) #11

Seconded. I can even play W:ET on a Geforce 256. (That is the first Geforce card, lads.)

(jeeves) #12

my brothers gf4 has serious issues with tremulous(q3 engine). i think we all have different views of playable. yes, it will work fine for normal quake 3, but any of the other quake 3 based games it has trouble.

(jeeves) #13

video card shouldn’t be a problem, I had a similar card for a while and, with a lesser CPU (XP2500), I was able to cap at 43 fps @ 1034x768 on most maps[/quote]

also that…is really bad man, im sure you think it is ok because you haven’t seen anything better. sorta like a person that uses his monitor on 60hz all the time and says its perfectly fine, even though he gets these mysterious headaches. if only he tried a monitor running at at least 85hz would he know how bad he has it.[/quote]

well I now run ET at 1600x1200 with AA and cap at 125 fps with my monitor at 125Hz, so I do know the difference. 43 fps was very playable[/quote]

sorry, but the fact that you said you run 1600x1200 at 125hz and that you say 43 fps is playable discounts anything you have said up to this point. i would say the max refresh rate you would get with that rez would probably be 60-85hz, 85hz being an expensive monitor.

(CooperHawkes) #14

@jeeves: Did you ever hear of Sync to VBlank = off? The refresh rate of the monitor does not necessarily have to fit to the frame rate.

(jeeves) #15

what are you talking about? i said nothing about vsync. i am not correlating the 1600x1200 and 125hz to the 43 fps.

(BondyBoy007) #16

video card shouldn’t be a problem, I had a similar card for a while and, with a lesser CPU (XP2500), I was able to cap at 43 fps @ 1034x768 on most maps[/quote]

also that…is really bad man, im sure you think it is ok because you haven’t seen anything better. sorta like a person that uses his monitor on 60hz all the time and says its perfectly fine, even though he gets these mysterious headaches. if only he tried a monitor running at at least 85hz would he know how bad he has it.[/quote]

well I now run ET at 1600x1200 with AA and cap at 125 fps with my monitor at 125Hz, so I do know the difference. 43 fps was very playable[/quote]

sorry, but the fact that you said you run 1600x1200 at 125hz and that you say 43 fps is playable discounts anything you have said up to this point. i would say the max refresh rate you would get with that rez would probably be 60-85hz, 85hz being an expensive monitor.[/quote]

sorry, my bad, 100Hz at that res (was in work and couldn’t check)

(murka) #17

LCD monitor max is 70Hz xD, some guy with LCD didnt see anyone saying that higher refresh rate is better with NOT for LCD did that and wondered what that “frequency out of range” meant.

(CooperHawkes) #18

However, you correlated 1600x1200@125Hz to the refresh rate of the monitor… which is VSync.

BTW: Tremulous is an open source game… so don’t expect it to be tweaked for cutting edge performance. Additionally, it might feature some fill rate intensive effects which will kill performance on older cards, especially when you have a GeForce card out of the MX series. If you don’t know, what fill/geometry/refresh rate is and how they differ… well… sorry… then please stop talking now. :wink: (no offense)

Can we now please go back to topic?.. @MadRush: any new numbers or info?

(jeeves) #19

However, you correlated 1600x1200@125Hz to the refresh rate of the monitor… which is VSync.

BTW: Tremulous is an open source game… so don’t expect it to be tweaked for cutting edge performance. Additionally, it might feature some fill rate intensive effects which will kill performance on older cards, especially when you have a GeForce card out of the MX series. If you don’t know, what fill/geometry/refresh rate is and how they differ… well… sorry… then please stop talking now. :wink: (no offense)

Can we now please go back to topic?.. @MadRush: any new numbers or info?[/quote]

actually he said he had 125hz at that resolution…which i was saying was not possible…you completely missed the whole point of my post. and 125hz at 1600x1200 is not vsync. vsync is when your monitor refresh rate is synchronized to your frame rate. say your monitor is at 70hz, you turn vsync on, your fps are now capped at 70. also, when someone says “resolution”@XXhz, that is the refresh rate…

(CooperHawkes) #20

He also said 1600x1200 @ 125FPS… which is possible.
You are right in saying that 125Hz is not possible with standard monitors… but since this has nothing to do with the problem (slow rendering) at all I thought you were talking about the 125Hz frame rate, not 125Hz monitor refresh (which is RAMDAC related).