Any 7600GT's out there? Info needed.

[Denic]

Hello guys.

Before I start off here are my system specs :

Intel Pentium 4 HT - 3.00GHz - 2MB Cache
1GB Ram
Leadtek 7600GT.

Just after a little advice really, I'm playing WoW maxed out with draw distance set on half way and AA set too X2. 1280 X 1024 Screen resolution.

I can get anything from 30 - 90FPS... I say I'd average about 40 - 50FPS..

Can I just get a confirm please... Does this sound about right or should I be getting higher rates?

Thanks.

[Kalos]

This isn't counter strike, the FPS number don't really matter in a MMORPG. The scores are completely normal. Ignoring statistics, do you really have a problem? In that you can see the time between a frame? If you can't, what's the point of measuring speeds or seeking to get higher FPS rates than you can notice anyway? There should only be three measurements when it comes to FPS: Unnoticable, noticable, unplayable. The rest of it, just forget it. Messing around with numbers will please nobody, there will always be something more to strive for. The late 90s Gigahertz race anyone? Because that performed so well with the Pentium 4...

[Denic]

This isn't counter strike, the FPS number don't really matter in a MMORPG. The scores are completely normal. Ignoring statistics, do you really have a problem? In that you can see the time between a frame? If you can't, what's the point of measuring speeds or seeking to get higher FPS rates than you can notice anyway? There should only be three measurements when it comes to FPS: Unnoticable, noticable, unplayable. The rest of it, just forget it. Messing around with numbers will please nobody, there will always be something more to strive for. The late 90s Gigahertz race anyone? Because that performed so well with the Pentium 4...

Hello there.

Thanks for your reply.

I can understand what you are saying. It's just I wanted to know if these frame rates sounded correct because I believe that I have a bottlekneck in my system some where.

If any one else could confirm that would be great. :)

[sunchemical]

Hello guys.
Intel Pentium 4 HT - 3.00GHz - 2MB Cache
1GB Ram
Leadtek 7600GT.
Just after a little advice really, I'm playing WoW maxed out with draw distance set on half way and AA set too X2. 1280 X 1024 Screen resolution.
I can get anything from 30 - 90FPS... I say I'd average about 40 - 50FPS..
Can I just get a confirm please... Does this sound about right or should I be getting higher rates?
Thanks.

yes, they are ok.
try overclocking your card by 5-10%, if you need more.
bottleneck here is videocard, anyway. (for 1280 with FSAA)

[Tr1cK]

overall graphics bottleneck = P4 3.0
overall system bottleneck = 1gb ram

[sunchemical]

overall graphics bottleneck = P4 3.0
overall system bottleneck = 1gb ram
wrong at both

enabling AA at 1280x1024 or just running some graphics heavy game with 1280x1024 res - 7600GT will be bottleneck. cpu almost don't play here any role. RAM 1gb is okay both for WoW and for system.
if it was 800x600 with all video settings turned to off, with 7600GT - yes, ram and cpu plays some role. but still not much, fps will break the roof anyway :)

[sunchemical]

for example - going from 1gb ram to 2gb ram - you will not notice much difference in WoW. 5-10% maybe.
going from 7600GT to 7900GT - that will be a strong kick, about 25-40% increase.

[Kalos]

Tomshardware found the opposite in thier study. There was little or no difference between a 6800 and a 7800 GTX. As long as it's DirectX 9 capable, it's pretty much ramming against the upper wall.

[sunchemical]

Tomshardware found the opposite in thier study. There was little or no difference between a 6800 and a 7800 GTX. As long as it's DirectX 9 capable, it's pretty much ramming against the upper wall.

we talk about 7600 here. it's from middle segment, when 6800/7800 from high, and cpu and ram plays more role for em.
and what was the upper wall for 6800/7800?

[swaldman]

I have a 7600GT, and those figures sound reasonable.

[Kalos]

we talk about 7600 here. it's from middle segment, when 6800/7800 from high, and cpu and ram plays more role for em.
and what was the upper wall for 6800/7800?
I chose those two graphics card because there's an even more extreme difference in abilities than your comparison, yet they didn't find anything more than a small variance in performance on a variety of set ups. Graphics power does very little for world of warcraft. Ram means much more in thier conclusion, optimally 1.5 Gig. From that point on, unless you're running a load of background crap, it's hanging free and won't do much yes. But increasing being 1 gig has significant impacts. More so than switching out graphics cards. Going from the 7600 GT to the 7800 GTX did next to nothing. The 7600 GT was then underclocked by 10%, Frame rates dropped by 2. Hardly an amazing difference.

The upper wall means performance was being held up by something other than the graphics sector. Something is always the limiting component, else we'd have limitless performance. All we can say is, the graphics card improvements weren't the answer to increased performance. nor was the Ram. I'd suggest a mix between an effective chipset design and the CPU was holding it back in that perticular example, but as they never switched between different tiers of the price ladder (and thus performance) it cannot be fully determined.

[sunchemical]

Graphics power does very little for world of warcraft.

I (and I think, not only me) will debate heavily about such statements :)

I can tell from my own experience, with 2 different systems:

First one: amd sempron 2400+, 1gb ram pc3200 in dual channel
started on ati radeon 9550 (128 ram), upgraded later to 9800pro (128 ram). got significant gain in fps. I can't tell you precise numbers (it's hard to measure WoW perfomance, it's not 3dmark, and it don't have any timedemos). But upgrading from 9550 to 9800pro was maybe 33-50%.
After some time 9800pro died :), and I installed crappy 9250 (64 ram? don't remember) as fast replacement, so PC will at least work.
That was playable, but not more.

Second system: amd x2 3800+, 1gb ram ddr2-677.
comparing 7600gt and 7900gt was about 25-33% gain.

I cannot compare directly system 1 and system 2 - GPU differ too much to tell what role new CPU and ram speed played their role.

Overall, all tests and benchmarks show - if you play games - good GPU is your 1st priority. cpu and ram goes only after on 2nd place. hdd - 3rd.
Also same tests show that with same GPU replacing cpu to 30% faster you will gain about 5-10% max, current games scale with cpu very small.

[mesonm]

I have a 7600GT, and those figures sound reasonable.

me also

ditto

[Tr1cK]

wrong at both

enabling AA at 1280x1024 or just running some graphics heavy game with 1280x1024 res - 7600GT will be bottleneck. cpu almost don't play here any role. RAM 1gb is okay both for WoW and for system.
if it was 800x600 with all video settings turned to off, with 7600GT - yes, ram and cpu plays some role. but still not much, fps will break the roof anyway :)

He asked for bottlenecks, I delivered. The video card is more than powerful enough to play WoW. Heck, a 9800 pro will run it like a champ with a high powered cpu and enough RAM. P4 3.0 is WEAK, no doubt about it. 1gb is doable and is smooth gameplay for the most part, but 2gb is the sweet spot for WoW.

As far as me pointing at the cpu, it reminded me of the upgrade I had going from an Athlon XP 3100 to an Athlon 64 3500 both with a 6800gt. Night and day difference because the game does a WHOLE lot more than just spit out pixels. Which it doesn't do much since it is basically a DX7 game with a few DX9 features in there for polish.

Basiclly WoW system setup should be the fastest cpu you can afford, a gig plus of RAM, a "midrange" videocard (7600gt is perfect), and of course broadband.

As for reference, I get about the same frames as the OP with my setup:
AMD 4600x2, 7800gt, 2gb RAM
1280x1024 4x Gamma Corrected MSAA / 8xAF

If you can do it, disable the AA in the game settings and use nvidias AA setting with the Gamma Corrected, IMO it adds a nice amount of quality to the image, especially in foliage heavy areas.

[sqchram]

If you can do it, disable the AA in the game settings and use nvidias AA setting with the Gamma Corrected, IMO it adds a nice amount of quality to the image, especially in foliage heavy areas.

Never thought that these would be different. I just assumed that using the in-game settings, or setting the AA via the nvidia control panel were one and the same, just accessed from different screens.

[Beruen]

I've played on a number of machines, and WoW is definitely more dependent on CPU and RAM than GPU once you get to a reasonable level of GPU power (Nvidia 5700 or equivalent). On my personal machine (3500+/1.5GB/6800) I get 60 FPS, no more, no less, unless one of two conditions are true. First condition is that I'm in an active area of the game like Iron Forge. The second, is if I have another memory intensive program running, usually FireFox, the frame rate drops.

AddOns can also make a bit of a difference. When I had FireFox running when using Cosmos, my FPS would drop to the 15-30 range. About a week after the 2.0.1 patch, I switched to Ace/FuBar, and now even with FF running, my normal FPS is in the 30-45 range. Again, without FF running, both gave me a very solid 60 FPS, and would probably be higher but that's the refresh rate of my LCD monitor, so there's not much point in going faster than that.

[Tr1cK]

Never thought that these would be different. I just assumed that using the in-game settings, or setting the AA via the nvidia control panel were one and the same, just accessed from different screens.

Well they are essentially the same, the game doesnt give you a Gamma Corrected option though.

To see the difference, look at the edge of a tree "limb" up close and see how nasty it looks even with the games default AA at 4x. Then look at the same thing after enabling the Gamma Corrected and you will see how it is dithered off instead of rough edges.

edit - Almost forgot to mention Transparency AA as well. It's the one that smooths out the ropes and boards on bridges such as those in Thunder Bluff or Stranglethorn Vale. It is a very nice option I always run and not in the games settings either.

[Tr1cK]

I've played on a number of machines, and WoW is definitely more dependent on CPU and RAM than GPU once you get to a reasonable level of GPU power (Nvidia 5700 or equivalent). On my personal machine (3500+/1.5GB/6800) I get 60 FPS, no more, no less, unless one of two conditions are true. First condition is that I'm in an active area of the game like Iron Forge. The second, is if I have another memory intensive program running, usually FireFox, the frame rate drops.

AddOns can also make a bit of a difference. When I had FireFox running when using Cosmos, my FPS would drop to the 15-30 range. About a week after the 2.0.1 patch, I switched to Ace/FuBar, and now even with FF running, my normal FPS is in the 30-45 range. Again, without FF running, both gave me a very solid 60 FPS, and would probably be higher but that's the refresh rate of my LCD monitor, so there's not much point in going faster than that.

My findings exactly. I run it at work off a Dell Pentium D 2.8 with 2gb Ram and a very crappy 4 pipe GPU like a Radeon x300 I believe. I can enable almost all options in video settings and still be very playable. 25+ fps

At home, I run dual monitors with WoW in a fullscreen window on one. There is no fps drop from running in a window, but it does drop off if I load Firefox on the second screen to look up info or whatever.

[Kalos]

WoW is not like general games. It doesn't rely so much on graphical advances and impressive visuals. It's far more easier on the GPU than most games. However due to all the data needed, WoW needs a disproportionate (in comparison to it's low graphics demands) amount of Ram to play smoothly. That's where the main weight is thrown. Your experience appears to be fairly isolated to other people's conclusions. Graphics power didn't do much for me either. I used a Geforce 4, an FX 5700, and a 7600 GS. Between the 5700 and the 7600 there was no visual detail enchancement or noticeable decreases in lag. In other games there was. But don't generalise WoW to be the same, apparently it isn't from studies.

[Denic]

So, tbh, my framerates do sound correct?

Thanks.

[Kalos]

They're absolutely fine. Now stop worrying about insignificant and meaningless numbers unless it's badly and visably struggling. It's doing normal for the game.

[Denic]

They're absolutely fine. Now stop worrying about insignificant and meaningless numbers unless it's badly and visably struggling. It's doing normal for the game.

I'm getting a C2D CPU in a few weeks any way. Thing is I'm just a bit peed off because there isn't really and FPS increase since my 6600GT... In WSG I might get an extra 5FPS but not that much... So in WSG its still like 20 - 50 FPS average... Mind you though I have got the game set to pretty high settings.

Oh well... When I get my new CPU I should see a nice difference. :)

[Tr1cK]

I'm getting a C2D CPU in a few weeks any way. Thing is I'm just a bit peed off because there isn't really and FPS increase since my 6600GT... In WSG I might get an extra 5FPS but not that much... So in WSG its still like 20 - 50 FPS average... Mind you though I have got the game set to pretty high settings.

Oh well... When I get my new CPU I should see a nice difference. :)

You will have a greater boost from the new cpu than from your prior gpu upgrade. Grats on the Core 2 Duo.

[sunchemical]

hmmm... maybe you all correct, folks.
I just posted my personal experiences from upgrading the GPU, fps and video quality was better.

currently I got amd x2 3800+, 1gb ram ddr2-677, 7600GT.

I thougt about purchasing second 7600GT in some future, and install it in SLI configuration.
But, as you say, it will be better for me to get another gig of ram (so total will be 2gb), and overclock the cpu?
(I can clock it for 10-25% maybe, got very good oem cooler, just struggling as ram clocks increases at same time as I put up fsb clocks, still can't solve that)

[Tr1cK]

hmmm... maybe you all correct, folks.
I just posted my personal experiences from upgrading the GPU, fps and video quality was better.

currently I got amd x2 3800+, 1gb ram ddr2-677, 7600GT.

I thougt about purchasing second 7600GT in some future, and install it in SLI configuration.
But, as you say, it will be better for me to get another gig of ram (so total will be 2gb), and overclock the cpu?
(I can clock it for 10-25% maybe, got very good oem cooler, just struggling as ram clocks increases at same time as I put up fsb clocks, still can't solve that)

My cpu is actually a 3800x2 @ 240 x 10 @ 1.39 volts, I think. All you need to do to get 2.4ghz instead of 2.0 (assuming you have good cooling) is to change a few multipliers in the bios and maybe bump the voltage a hair (keyword: hair).

Set your ram to run at 333 speed, the fsb to 480 speed and BAM instant 2.4ghz with ram running default 400. You may also have to drop the HT multiplier. It works by running the ram and fsb asynchronously in a 4/5 ratio. Look up some overclocking guides on the net and get very familiar with your boards bios before doing anything.

Overclock at your own risk.

edit - just seen you must be on an AM2 platform...I'm not sure how it would work out exactly, but I believe you could do somehting similar.

[Kalos]

It may be much harder. Typically, X2 multipiers are locked; and the different Ram ratios of speed increase in extremity upon the higher frequencies. Add to that the greater latencies that are witnessed with DDR2 as opposed to plain DDR and it's a whole different kettle of fish sadly. 939 is a great overclocker, the community hasn't had nearly as much time with AM2 to either produce great motherboards for it, or adapt to a great deal of changes that came with the DDR2 adoption. It can be done though, with some risk; above all make sure you have more than necessary cooling, and the temperatures aren't going above 50 celcius under full load, else you risk the CPU overheating itself and forced shut downs consistently.

[sunchemical]

yes, I got am2 here, with asus m2n-sli mobo.
I did sereral tries to squeeze some more mhz's.
Original factory setup is fsb=200 (cpu 2000mhz),ht multiplier=5 (resulting 1000mhz ht), ddr2-677 ram is 333mhz (cpu/6)

Not easy here, Kalos is right.
HT should stay around 1000, ram should stay around 333 or lower, and they all depend on fsb speed. Thanks god (or bios) PCI and PCI-E speed is fixed (at 33 and 100 mhz respectively)

Found some setups like fsb=250, ht multiplier=4 (resulting 1000mhz), ram will be 312mhz then (cpu/8), with voltage up from 1.30 to 1.385. System loads up, but S&M FPU test send PC to reboot. Will research more.
Maybe with fsb=266 it will work, as ram will operate at 333. but HT will be 1064...

Currently stay on 'dirty' setup - fsb=220 (resulting cpu 2200mhz), ht multiplier=5 (1100mhz), ram 366 (instead of 333) - both cpu and ram tests pass, all system running 100% stable for 3 weeks, and I dunno why :D
Edit: temp at that setup was 51.2 max at very heavy cpu test

[Denic]

Hello again guys.

I've now decided that I'm not bothering to buy a C2D CPU. It's a waste of money, the main game I play is WoW, so I'm not going to spend lots of money just to get a little extra performance out of one game.

I'm buying some new RAM and a motherboard. (PCI-E mobo and it supports C2D for when I want to upgrade to C2D.)

Thanks.

- Denic.

[sunchemical]

(PCI-E mobo and it supports C2D for when I want to upgrade to C2D.)

C2D prices will drop some soon, but don't expect much from that drop :)

[SuperToadMan]

Never thought that these would be different. I just assumed that using the in-game settings, or setting the AA via the nvidia control panel were one and the same, just accessed from different screens.

Gee, i've been playing this game well over two years and never found the AA setting in the game. Could someone explain to me where this is?