TechSpot

FPS is low

By Drtehrmo
Aug 24, 2006
  1. hello guys, im a gamer, and a pc enthusiast. I love tweaking my computer hardware, and i like to squeeze the best out of my pc.

    I bought an ASUS N6800 512MB AGP8x graphics card, which is not a bad vid card, and can handle all the new games pretty well.
    But i cant find the reason why my fps on aquamark ( and DoD:S) is so low. I should be getting an fps of atleast 40. But i get 29.80. People with the same vid card are getting fps of 67, and they have the same card, but 256 MB.

    Here are the specs of someone with the same card and their results of aquamark:
    CPU: AMD Athlon64 3400+ @ 2.2ghz
    Motherboard: MSI Neo FiS2R, Bios rev 1.8
    Memory: 2x512meg Crucial CAS3 DDR
    Video Card: NVIDIA Geforce 6800 Ultra 256mb, Forceware 66.51
    Hard drives: Dual SATA Maxtor Diamond9's 320gig RAID array
    Soundcard: Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS

    Aquamark Results:

    Date: 2004-09-30
    CPU Score: 9184
    GFX Score: 10617
    Total: 67295

    Here are my specs:
    CPU:AMD Athlon XP 1800 @ 1.7 (OC)
    MotherBoard:BioStar M7NCG 400
    Memory:768 MB DDR 3200
    Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 6800 512MB, XG 75.90 (modded drivers)
    Soundcard:Integrated Nforce audio device
    FPS total: 29.871

    I have tried different drivers, trying to see if the drivers had anything to do with it, but they dont. Also, i cant seem to be able to overclock the vid card anymore, with the modded driver. Also let me add that i have a ZALMAN cooling fan, and it runs the GPU at a constant temp of 52 C, so it cant be overheating, and its not dusty. I belibe there must be something hoggin my GPUs performance, and it might have to do with my other specs, but even then, my FPS should not be as low as 29, because my 5200 FX ran at 29 fps !!! So its like i never upgraded. Please help me figure out what is the problem here, thanks.

    ( OH, a quick question. I have 3 sticks of 256 MB on each slot. My mobo can run dual-channel, which is what i had before i got the extra MB stick. What is faster, running 512 MB on dual channel, or 768 MB on normal?)

    Thanks,
     
  2. JMMD

    JMMD TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,177

    That comparison isn't fair at all. They're running a 6800 Ultra, 1GB of RAM and a much better CPU.
     
  3. agi_shi

    agi_shi TS Rookie Posts: 507

    The tests are unequal.

    He/she has a much, much faster processor, as well as faster (faster because he's probably running dual channel) and more ram.

    Even though the graphics card IS important, remember that the processor will become a bottleneck for it as well as the ram if they aren't that good...

    ...Or else I'd be able to play FEAR at maxed out settings on my 5 year old eMachines by changing my graphics card (~150$).
     
  4. eazy_duz_em

    eazy_duz_em TS Rookie Posts: 170

    512 dual channel definitly
     
  5. Drtehrmo

    Drtehrmo TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 22

    Alright, thanks guys. I cant do much about the processor for now, but will it help me alot if i increase my mem to 1 gb with Dual-channeled 512mb sticks? And is there a better, more powereful Socket A processor out there?
     
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.