Unreal 2004 with Radeon 9200

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Yes, I know it's not the best card :) but I seem to get a bad ping
due to the graphics of this game, because I get better pings in less
intensive games. What are the best settings I should use for a radeon
9200 128mb? Thanks for any help!
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:00:11 -0500, OIE <a@b.com> wrote:

>Yes, I know it's not the best card :) but I seem to get a bad ping
>due to the graphics of this game, because I get better pings in less
>intensive games. What are the best settings I should use for a radeon
>9200 128mb? Thanks for any help!

The graphics card has nothing to do with online ping rates. Maybe you
are confusing ping with frame rate?
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"OIE" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:5uo180hvblm848cdotof0n3vqq498nh5kk@4ax.com...
> Yes, I know it's not the best card :) but I seem to get a bad ping
> due to the graphics of this game, because I get better pings in less
> intensive games. What are the best settings I should use for a radeon
> 9200 128mb? Thanks for any help!

it's not the graphics that are affecting your ping. what kind of connection
are you using? who is your isp? have you tried to do a tracert to the
server to see where it is going?

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ3FAQ.htm
http://www.agutng.org.uk/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:55:37 -0500, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
wrote:

>"OIE" <a@b.com> wrote in message
>news:5uo180hvblm848cdotof0n3vqq498nh5kk@4ax.com...
>> Yes, I know it's not the best card :) but I seem to get a bad ping
>> due to the graphics of this game, because I get better pings in less
>> intensive games. What are the best settings I should use for a radeon
>> 9200 128mb? Thanks for any help!
>
>it's not the graphics that are affecting your ping. what kind of connection
>are you using? who is your isp? have you tried to do a tracert to the
>server to see where it is going?

Well, the reason I say that is I turned off all effects and my ping
improved. I do think my bogged down system slows down the ping, but
eh, who knows. Any 9200 settings tweaks?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Are you referring to "ping", or "FPS"? The graphics card would not have any
effect on your pings...that is your network.

I'm running UT2004, with the ATI Radeon 9200 128MB, and it actually works
very well! I can even run in 1280x1024, but I usually default to 1024x768.
All other settings are the defaults that it installed with.

Maybe more information regarding your system would be helpful, for us, to
help you.

Bill Crocker


"OIE" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:5uo180hvblm848cdotof0n3vqq498nh5kk@4ax.com...
> Yes, I know it's not the best card :) but I seem to get a bad ping
> due to the graphics of this game, because I get better pings in less
> intensive games. What are the best settings I should use for a radeon
> 9200 128mb? Thanks for any help!
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:10:31 -0400, "Bill Crocker"
<wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:

>Are you referring to "ping", or "FPS"? The graphics card would not have any
>effect on your pings...that is your network.
>
>I'm running UT2004, with the ATI Radeon 9200 128MB, and it actually works
>very well! I can even run in 1280x1024, but I usually default to 1024x768.
>All other settings are the defaults that it installed with.
>
>Maybe more information regarding your system would be helpful, for us, to
>help you.
>
>Bill Crocker
>
>


Maybe it's just my cpu...1.4ghz 768 ram.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

OIE <a@b.com> wrote in news:6fg380d5h8fukl6okrls121qfhmnrvksrl@4ax.com:

> Maybe it's just my cpu...1.4ghz 768 ram.

Yep. That's more than enough RAM, and good enough card (both better than
mine)--but the processer's a real downer (I have a 2.8 GHz myself).

--
Andrew Timson
===============
Grr. Argh.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"OIE" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:6fg380d5h8fukl6okrls121qfhmnrvksrl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:10:31 -0400, "Bill Crocker"
> <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Are you referring to "ping", or "FPS"? The graphics card would not have
any
> >effect on your pings...that is your network.
> >
> >I'm running UT2004, with the ATI Radeon 9200 128MB, and it actually works
> >very well! I can even run in 1280x1024, but I usually default to
1024x768.
> >All other settings are the defaults that it installed with.
> >
> >Maybe more information regarding your system would be helpful, for us, to
> >help you.
> >
> >Bill Crocker
> >
> >
>
>
> Maybe it's just my cpu...1.4ghz 768 ram.

I'm using 2Ghz, not that much faster. Look for a possible conflict of
IRQ's, between your network card, and your video card. Make sure you have
plug'n'play enabled in your system BIOS. There may also be an option to
force a redetect of hardware, enable that. Check for unnecessary apps
running in the background. What anti-virus and/or firewall software do you
use? I'm using Norton's.

Bill Crocker
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:02:42 -0400, "Bill Crocker"
<wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>I'm using 2Ghz, not that much faster. Look for a possible conflict of
>IRQ's, between your network card, and your video card. Make sure you have
>plug'n'play enabled in your system BIOS. There may also be an option to
>force a redetect of hardware, enable that. Check for unnecessary apps
>running in the background. What anti-virus and/or firewall software do you
>use? I'm using Norton's.
>
>Bill Crocker
>

Not to start a "this antivirus is better" thread, but I was
unpleasantly surprised at how very much better my computer ran after
removing all of Norton's stuff. I was a big fan of Norton as it never
failed me and seemed to be top shelf. About six months ago I had to
re-install my AV and firewall but what blew me out of the water was
how much faster my system became by just removing the symantec stuff
through add/remove and rebooting. After doing a bit of homework, I
found that Norton is a real resource hog. It does a fantastic job at
what it is designed for, but you have to weigh that against do you
need that much protection at that price of resources. I felt I didn't
and looked elsewhere. After advice from this group and others, I
settled on AVG for an AV (it's free and has done me well) and Kerio
for a firewall (also free but the registered version is much more
powerful than Norton firewall). Both require a bit of know-how but the
footprint on my system resources is probably a third of what Norton
needed.
Just my 2c.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message >
> Not to start a "this antivirus is better" thread, but I was
> unpleasantly surprised at how very much better my computer ran after
> removing all of Norton's stuff. I was a big fan of Norton as it never
> failed me and seemed to be top shelf. About six months ago I had to
> re-install my AV and firewall but what blew me out of the water was
> how much faster my system became by just removing the symantec stuff
> through add/remove and rebooting. After doing a bit of homework, I
> found that Norton is a real resource hog. It does a fantastic job at
> what it is designed for, but you have to weigh that against do you
> need that much protection at that price of resources. I felt I didn't
> and looked elsewhere. After advice from this group and others, I
> settled on AVG for an AV (it's free and has done me well) and Kerio
> for a firewall (also free but the registered version is much more
> powerful than Norton firewall). Both require a bit of know-how but the
> footprint on my system resources is probably a third of what Norton
> needed.
> Just my 2c.
>
> --
> Everything I believe could be wrong.
>

norton av isn't a resource hog on any of the computers I run it on, and it
causes no problems with anything. Now avg on the other hand is the only
antivirus program that I have see that has caused problems for anybody I
know. It caused lag and pausing in games because it was using up so too
much resources. I told the person to uninstall that and use norton and
their problems went away.

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ3FAQ.htm
http://www.agutng.org.uk/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:47:04 -0500, OIE <a@b.com> wrote:

>Maybe it's just my cpu...1.4ghz 768 ram.

That has no effect on ping either.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:41:55 -0500, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
wrote:


>norton av isn't a resource hog on any of the computers I run it on, and it
>causes no problems with anything. Now avg on the other hand is the only
>antivirus program that I have see that has caused problems for anybody I
>know. It caused lag and pausing in games because it was using up so too
>much resources. I told the person to uninstall that and use norton and
>their problems went away.

To each their own opinion, but the real telling thing for me is this:
My Norton folder was 300MB, and my AVG is 16MB. Why? I even tried
NOD32 and it was smaller than that.
Under Norton I had five processes related to AV running all the time.
Under AVG there is two. All that bloat is going somewhere.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j6h580l90neu95r5a16p45hbdeiis6ktc5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:41:55 -0500, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
> wrote:
>
> To each their own opinion, but the real telling thing for me is this:
> My Norton folder was 300MB, and my AVG is 16MB. Why? I even tried
> NOD32 and it was smaller than that.
> Under Norton I had five processes related to AV running all the time.
> Under AVG there is two. All that bloat is going somewhere.
>
> --



I just checked the size of my norton folder and it is only 13.5mb. Even
smaller than your avg folder. I don't know where you got all that bloat,
but it is not from norton antivirus.

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ3FAQ.htm
http://www.agutng.org.uk/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:28:43 -0500, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
wrote:


>I just checked the size of my norton folder and it is only 13.5mb. Even
>smaller than your avg folder. I don't know where you got all that bloat,
>but it is not from norton antivirus.

That's pretty interesting. Mind if I ask which version you are running
and are you using the whole suite or just the AV?

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh18809kinhljcp0av7jd9i018o1ckgfh0@4ax.com...
>
> That's pretty interesting. Mind if I ask which version you are running
> and are you using the whole suite or just the AV?
>
> --



All I have is nav, none of the other utilities. It's the 2003 edition. I
have the 2002 edition on another computer and it's the same size.

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ3FAQ.htm
http://www.agutng.org.uk/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:24:54 -0500, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
wrote:

>"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:eh18809kinhljcp0av7jd9i018o1ckgfh0@4ax.com...
>>
>> That's pretty interesting. Mind if I ask which version you are running
>> and are you using the whole suite or just the AV?
>>
>> --
>
>
>
>All I have is nav, none of the other utilities. It's the 2003 edition. I
>have the 2002 edition on another computer and it's the same size.

That must be the difference. I was running the whole suite (AV,
firewall, disk backup, utilities). Maybe I should try the AV again
alone so that my opinion is not so far off.
Thanks for the heads up!

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

gopostal <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
news:itf8801bgqm328menhoalj6f2l9av81e7l@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:24:54 -0500, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
> wrote:
>
>>"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:eh18809kinhljcp0av7jd9i018o1ckgfh0@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> That's pretty interesting. Mind if I ask which version you are
>>> running and are you using the whole suite or just the AV?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>All I have is nav, none of the other utilities. It's the 2003
>>edition. I have the 2002 edition on another computer and it's the same
>>size.
>
> That must be the difference. I was running the whole suite (AV,
> firewall, disk backup, utilities). Maybe I should try the AV again
> alone so that my opinion is not so far off.

Hmm. Maybe. (Just how would comparing the folder size of a suite to that of
an individual AV program be _remotely_ fair?)

--
Andrew Timson
===============
Grr. Argh.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:43:58 GMT, Andrew Timson
<arsenicman33@deletethissectionhotmail.com> wrote:


>>
>> That must be the difference. I was running the whole suite (AV,
>> firewall, disk backup, utilities). Maybe I should try the AV again
>> alone so that my opinion is not so far off.
>
>Hmm. Maybe. (Just how would comparing the folder size of a suite to that of
>an individual AV program be _remotely_ fair?)

It isn't upon first glance, but how much programming is really needed
here? All I'm trying to say is that there are other options that work
as well with much more minimal footprints than Norton products. All I
really have here is my first hand experience with the products and
I'll never go back to using Norton again. My system runs much faster
now, and that's the bottom line. I'd guess it has to do with the
powerful heuristics that Norton employs but at a cost of system
resources.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:itf8801bgqm328menhoalj6f2l9av81e7l@4ax.com...
>
> That must be the difference. I was running the whole suite (AV,
> firewall, disk backup, utilities).



ok, that I can see. In fact, I have also seen quite a number of problems
caused by using the norton suite. If you try just the av product I think
you may be pleasantly surprised.

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ3FAQ.htm
http://www.agutng.org.uk/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:15:08 -0500, "Margolis" <someone@somewhere.org>
wrote:

>"gopostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:itf8801bgqm328menhoalj6f2l9av81e7l@4ax.com...
>>
>> That must be the difference. I was running the whole suite (AV,
>> firewall, disk backup, utilities).
>
>
>
>ok, that I can see. In fact, I have also seen quite a number of problems
>caused by using the norton suite. If you try just the av product I think
>you may be pleasantly surprised.

Like I said before I was never let down by Norton. It found every
little thing that was suspicious and I was very happy with it. The
scanning just took too long for me. I may re-install this weekend and
do a side-by-side to settle my mind on it. One thing I do miss is the
very good customer support Symantec has. Every little virus and worm
has some info on the webbie with a walk-through on removal. That was
very helpful more than once.

--
Everything I believe could be wrong.