GeForce FX5200 20 times slower that GeForce4 Ti4200
 

Hi,

I have a GeForce Fx5200 that did run fine for about 2-3 weeks until today. Today I had the great idea to play quake3 and was shocked because of the ridiculous 3D Performance. I get less that 20 fsp in quake 3 and only about 110 Frames in glxgears.
With my old GeForce Ti4200 I get > 90fps in quake3 and 1900 fps in glxgear.

I run Debian Sarge with some Sid Packages with Kernel 2.6.8(-1-k7), XFree86 4.3.0 on a Athlon XP 2200+.

What am I doing wrong?
The only reason why I switched to the Fx5200 is because it is Fanless. Normally I don't need 3d Performance.

[Edit]
Sorry I forgot.
Nvidia Driver Version is 6629.

Thanks Ben

As far as I know, the 5200 is more of the new 400mx, I think your ti4200 is better even though it's older, but it seems there is also something else going on, there is a huge difference there, not sure what it would be. Is it thinking the card is still a 4200, not sure if debian has a control panel type thing to check, see if there is a way to change it to a 5200fx, might need to go into the x config file, might need to reinstall the nvidia drivers too. But I'm a complete noob, so I might have no idea wha I talking about study:

if you changed over video cardyou will need to reinstall you NVIDIA drivers

on anextra note th FX nvidia series are gutless and the older TI is probably faster

The difference between the Ti 4200 and the FX 5200 is that the FX has support for Directx 9 and (I think this is the right version) OpenGL 1.3. They have newer features that make the game look prettier. However, if I remember correctly there are 2 things you need to note.

1. The Ti's processor, although doesn't support the newer features, is faster
2. Some of the DirectX 9 features on the 5200 don't work (can't remember which ones)

I have a question of my own. If DirectX is a microsoft product, how can you can play Unreal Tournament 2004, and Doom 3. They both use DirectX renderers.

Tell the fellas at
Loki Installers for Linux games that UT and Doom3 arent linux games
http://www.liflg.org/?page=cat&catid=6

and also you can buy Linux versions of them from stores. :)

And tell the countless people on theses threads that play these games


not me Geforce2 just doesnt cut it at all anymore :(

@ crack
What screen resolution are you using?? If you are using 1024x768 than even 90fps in Q3 on AMD 2200 and GF4 Ti is a bit low. I had GF3 Ti 200 on Pentium III 1Ghz that did beter in Q3 and had 2700 glxgears. Same configuration with R9700pro: more than 100FPS avarage on every map 1024x768 (everything on) and 2920FPS glxgears, 440FPS fgl_grlxgears.

My dual boot (but mainly Linux) box:
PIII Coppermine 1GHz
Intel Desktop Board i815
512Mb SDRAM 133
SB Live!
Radeon 9700Pro (got it cheap on a news group hardware market)
Slackware 10, Xorg 6.7, 2.6.9-custom_kernel, 3.6.14 fglrx from ATi.

BTW, I am a bit surprised by Radeon Linux performance. Didn't expect it would do as good, although it isn't much when compared to what it can do in Windows.

I didn't say they weren't Linux games, I said I wanted to know how they are rendered. I know they are Linux games.

And If you can buy the Linux versions in stores, I've never seen'em. I've shopped for games at, Gamestop, Software Etc., Badages, EB Games, CompUSA, Best Buy, Fred Meyer and Wal-Mart. Never seen a Linux game right outta the box.

FYI UT2K3 and 2K4 have the linux versions on the same cds as the windows-it's all in the one game package. And they use the OpenGL engines for the games, rather than the Direct3D or software only options. If you use WineX/Cedega(sp?) you can run the windows versions of most games as though in windows (DirectX and all).