Athlon750+KA7+TNT2=POOR Perfromence

This is a discussion about Athlon750+KA7+TNT2=POOR Perfromence in the Windows Hardware category; Specs athlon 750 model 2 abit ka7 mother board 128 Mb PC100 RAM 13 GB hard drive sound blaster live value card riva tnt2 m64 video card 300 watt power supply bios version: rx latest via drivers windows 2000 profesisonal Right now in 640x480, with low visual quality settings in quake 3, i barely pull 30 fps.

Windows Hardware 9627 This topic was started by , . Last reply by ,


data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp

6 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-08-03
Specs
athlon 750 model 2
abit ka7 mother board
128 Mb PC100 RAM
13 GB hard drive
sound blaster live value card
riva tnt2 m64 video card
300 watt power supply
bios version: rx
latest via drivers
windows 2000 profesisonal
 
 
Right now in 640x480, with low visual quality
settings in quake 3, i barely pull 30 fps.
When i have my old quantum 3d voodoo banshee, by all accounts an inferior card, installed in this same system it pulls clearly superior fps at higher resolutions than the tnt2. Obviously, there is something not right here. I have built this sytem from the ground up to play games and this is unacceptable. All drivers are up to date.
 
[This message has been edited by REOE (edited 07 August 2000).]

Participate in our website and join the conversation

You already have an account on our website? To log in, use the link provided below.
Login
Create a new user account. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds.
Register
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Aug 7
Created
Aug 8
Last Response
0
Likes
3 minutes
Read Time
User User User User
Users

Responses to this topic


data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp

6 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-08-03
OP
I updated to the beta bios and there was little improvement in performence. I theorize the only cause is a faulty video card. Serves me right buying this card from "Idema", an unknown hardware co. Although, chipset is primary concern, i think it serves one's purpose not to venture away from big names like hercules, asus....
 
Maybe 3dfx isn't as backwards and stupid as once thought
 
thanx for the help though
 
[This message has been edited by REOE (edited 08 August 2000).]

data/avatar/default/avatar38.webp

127 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-10-14
You built the system from the ground up to play games, and you used a TNT2 M64 ?
 
I'd say you built the system on a tight budget! The TNT2 M64 is not even in the same ball park as a TNT2 Ultra, let alone GeForce/V5 3D cards.
You need to ditch the M64 and get at least a TNT2 Ultra AND more RAM. 192Mb should be your minimum if you want to use a nvidia based card and Windows 2000.
 
p.s. I get 70fps in Q3A at 1024x768x32bit colour, high quality every setting 'on full' from my Dual PIII 733, 256Mb PC133 SDRAM, Winfast 32Mb GeForce2 GTS, Windows 2000 Pro SP1 machine.

data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp

98 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-03-06
I also had many problems running my Nvidia card on win2000 and an Athlon 750. I eventually got everything running well, however not even close in comparison to my ATI Radeon DDR card in 32 Bit hi-resolution. This card is sweet........do it!!!
 
 
Ned

data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp

6 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-08-03
OP
RAM i will upgrade although my roomate is pulling insanely high fps with his dual celerons, 128 Mb ram, and tnt2 m64 on win2k. The m64 is a bargin card. Hence my reservation on buying the geforce 2 mx. Does anyone own one and what is their opinion of it?