UT2004 slow

[Shep]

I finally got DRI enabled for my vid card, and decided to try out some games. I downloaded the UT2k4 demo, and got it to run. However it is extremely slow. Don't have the fps though, but too slow to even play. anyways, I read that it will run faster if you remove the libSDL file from the System folder, and use the default one. Well when I remove this file, I get a seg fault. I tried upgrading libSDL, but still crashes. Any have any ideas what could be causing this. Also after I got the new drivers installed for my vid card, tuxracer also gives me a seg fault, where b4 it would just run really slow. Now I know my vid card really sucks, but I have to hold off a few weeks or so to get the one I want. I have searched around for tips to getting it running faster, but any thing that you guys have found that helps would be appreciated. Here is my setup:
AMD 2200+
on board S3 ProSavageDDR 32 megs
Debian Sarge
Fluxbox
I think thats all that really matters. Let me know if you guys have any ideas.

[hyp_spec]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a 32mb graphics card isn't going to play UT2004 very well. I'd reccomend getting an NVIDIA card, the 5900XT is around $170 on NewEgg. Grab one of them, and you'll be good to play almost anything.


Cheers.

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by hyp_spec
a 32mb graphics card isn't going to play UT2004 very well. Actually, I'm surprised it runs at all...

On that card, I think you'd have a lot better luck with UT99 (the original). I think there was a demo floating around somewhere, but maybe not -- you might need the actual game CDs and the installer that Loki built for it. If you don't have the CDs, you can still get the Linux version from tuxgames (www.tuxgames.com) for about $20 or so.

If you do have the Windows CDs, then Google for "ut-install-436-GOTY.run" or "ut-install-436.run" (depending on whether you have the original CD, which was blue IIRC, or the GoTY edition CDs, which are definitely red). That's the Linux installer, and a few places should still have it downloadable.

Alternately, if you would have to buy it, then you might want to consider something like Descent 3 also. It's right about the same price, and ought to work OK on that video card also.

[Shep]

OK guess I'll just wait around for a new vid card. I am looking into the NVIDIA fx5200, the one with 256megs on newegg for 82 bucks. I figure that should get me around most games right?

[bwkaz]

Not real well -- the FX 5200 is actually a worse video card than most GF3 Ti cards. There's a reason it's only $80 on Newegg (and $40 elsewhere) -- it's crap. Even the 256MB version is pretty crappy. It really shouldn't carry the FX name; its ancestor card is the GF4 MX series.

If you want a real FX series card, then look at maybe a 5900XT (couple hundred bucks) or a normal 5900 (probably a bit less than that). If you only want to spend around $80, then get a GF3 Ti500 maybe, or even a GF4 Ti4200 -- the 4200 isn't the greatest card in the GF4 line, but it's better than the FX5200.

[cybertron]

Originally posted by bwkaz
Not real well -- the FX 5200 is actually a worse video card than most GF3 Ti cards. There's a reason it's only $80 on Newegg (and $40 elsewhere) -- it's crap.

Agreed. Wish I had known that before I bought mine:rolleyes:

Of course, I was looking for the cheapest video card I could find and 40 some dollars seemed like a good deal at the time (which in a way it was I suppose). It will run UT2003/2004, but not very well and not at high res or detail.

I'm still a little annoyed that one of my friends recommended it to me. The thing is less than twice as fast as my laptop video card, which is terrible. I really should have spent the little bit extra and gotten a nicer card that I won't have to replace so soon. Ah well, you know what they say about hindsight:D

[Shep]

OK, so what do you guys think about the fx5700le (ps don't know what the LE is for), or just the regular 5700? The fx5900xt isn't too far outta my price range either, but would like to save a few bucks with the 5700. Thanks for any help.

[bwkaz]

I believe the 5700LE is just a slower-clocked 5700 card, but I'm not sure on that one. It appears that for occasional gamers, one review at Anandtech says to get the 5700 but not the LE (though it doesn't explain why). I am guessing based on that that it's just slower.

For the "real" gamer (read: the person that plays games all the time), it says to get the 5900 instead, so I'm guessing the review was published before the 6800 series came out.

[Shep]

Cool thanks, I'm probably just considered an occational gamer right now, but I may still go with the 5900 just in case I upgrade my status.

[DruManiac]

what the hell r u guys saying about fx5200!? ive got fx5200 128mb and i run UT2003 on 1280*1024 at full speed even on my ****ty monitor!!(monitor refreash rate affects the speed so much coz when its 60hz, it cant reach the vid cards speed and the output lags...) here is my comp:
celeron 2.2
1gb ddr ram
asus fx5200
and my monitor is philips 107s
UT2003 still gives about 30-35fps and when i plug my friends monitor(sony trinitron which is 90hz) i dont remember very well but it was about 45fps i think... so dont blame it on the vid card :D maybe ur configurations wasnt totally perfect or another kinda problem... im not saying fx5200 is a really good card but its not that bad :D

[bwkaz]

You sure you don't have the 5200 Ultra?

I would bet that you do... ;)

But anyway:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36474

[DruManiac]

Originally posted by bwkaz
You sure you don't have the 5200 Ultra?

I would bet that you do... ;)

But anyway:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36474

im sure its not ultra... my glx gears gives about 1500 and when i do it with my friends monitor it gives about 2800 :D i dont know how but it does :D but it gives almost half performance in windows :D so im gonna change it i guess... new games require way to much hardware :(

[Icarus]

Not that we are calling you a lier...but we don't believe you :D

What's the output of "cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0" ?

[cybertron]

One comment though, the 128 bit and 64 bit versions of the card are supposed to be very different. I made the mistake of getting the 64 bit version, which from what I've heard is actually about half as fast as the 128. Just my 2 cents though.

[Icarus]

I got a 128MB FX5200 and I went back to my GeForce 3 as it had MUCH better performance.

I was very disapointed in the FX5200, found a screaming GeForce 4 Ti 4800 SE for a good prince (a little more then I paid for the FX) and the FX5200 came nowhere near the performance I get from that!

Just my 2 cents :D

[cybertron]

Originally posted by Icarus
Just my 2 cents :D

With all of the pennies that get thrown around here we could probably buy Microsoft, or at least a small third-world country:D

[DruManiac]

Originally posted by Icarus
I got a 128MB FX5200 and I went back to my GeForce 3 as it had MUCH better performance.

I was very disapointed in the FX5200, found a screaming GeForce 4 Ti 4800 SE for a good prince (a little more then I paid for the FX) and the FX5200 came nowhere near the performance I get from that!

Just my 2 cents :D

ill do it and paste it to u... im on windows right now coz my modem doesnt work on mdk10..
im not lying buddy, and also the maker of the card is very important, my cousin has the same configuration but only he has a winfast card and i have an asus card and i can play farcry much faster than he does....
my buddy has dell inspiron p4 2.4, 1gb ram, 64mb gforce 4... and he gets about 100-200fps more than i do on glxgears... so in comparison, fx5200 is not really that great but not as bad to make u lower ur display settings... only in the latest games... i play doom3 in 640*480 with lowest detail on windows but im sure its gonna be twice faster with a native linux installer..
coz i get about 30-35fps in UT2003 on linux and at most 18-19fps on windows...

[DruManiac]

Originally posted by Icarus
I got a 128MB FX5200 and I went back to my GeForce 3 as it had MUCH better performance.

I was very disapointed in the FX5200, found a screaming GeForce 4 Ti 4800 SE for a good prince (a little more then I paid for the FX) and the FX5200 came nowhere near the performance I get from that!

Just my 2 cents :D

oh by the way have u tried to run deus ex invisible war with ur gforce 4 ti 4800 se? coz it said the video card in my friends laptop isnt good enough(gforce4 440go i think) and it didnt even run the game...

[DruManiac]

Originally posted by Icarus
Not that we are calling you a lier...but we don't believe you :D

What's the output of "cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0" ?

well i dont understand much of linux technical stuff but here it is:

[erkut@localhost erkut]$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0
Model: GeForce FX 5200
IRQ: 11
Video BIOS: 04.34.20.42.00
Card Type: AGP
[erkut@localhost erkut]$

[Icarus]

Model: GeForce FX 5200
I'll be the first say...that's amazing

You really must of gotten lucky with the maker of that card if it's working so well for you! I'll have to keep in mind that Asus makes good 'budget' cards :D

Thanks!

[DruManiac]

Originally posted by Icarus
I'll be the first say...that's amazing

You really must of gotten lucky with the maker of that card if it's working so well for you! I'll have to keep in mind that Asus makes good 'budget' cards :D

Thanks!

i swear man thats really great and i dont know how coz ive check the cards out on nvidia site and most models r technically better than mine :D but still, i asked my buddy in boston to buy me a gforce 6600, coz he told me its 195$ over there, here its about 500$ + %18 tax! turkey is incredibly expensive...