NVIDIA driver slowdowns

[spydrct02]

He/she mentioned their video card in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

I have a GeForce 5700LE (AGP 8X)

It wouldn't hurt if the other people that explained (or lack) their experiences here would make a screen recording too (Darlene, zephirot, Magadal).

[ReBorn_Spirit]

Originally Posted by spydrct02

He/she mentioned their video card in an earlier post:


It wouldn't hurt if the other people that explained (or lack) their experiences here would make a screen recording too (Darlene, zephirot, Magadal).

There is another reason actually the newer drivers "might" be slowing down. I've been experiementing with some video card overclocking features, yes I know all about how Nvidia doesnt really support doing this. I do know my Video card is actually rather slow and I should upgrade it to something with atleast a 400mhz core on it, instead of the current 250mhz. I managed to overclock mine to 350 mhz, it seems to reduce alot of the lagg on Graal. But I wasnt lagging when others could barely move. Minor details are making differences for me, but anyways I would suggest we find out how fast our video cards actually are. Knowing how fast they are with some people that say the newer Nvidia drives cause slowdowns, might reveal something.

First of all I went here to find video card overclocking tools.
http://downloads.guru3d.com/
The one I'm actually using now is here
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=815

You can try it and see if it helps to correct your video lagg, just read the agreements a little. Overclocking your video card could void your warranties (Mines expired warranty anyways). At the very least you can use the utility to see how fast your video card is. Just get the strange feeling the older drivers did something these newer ones do not do by default.

**Running any processor or video processor, can cause it to overheat and actaully slow down again. Keep this in mind, you might have to experiment a little with your settings to get it just right. Alternatively, the drivers update listed above can auto detect the best settings someone else things would be best (Sometimes its not and can go above that).

** This is a qoute from another website that talks about the same/simliar tweak.
"This tweak is intended for use with GeForce/Quadro cards and ForceWare 55.xx - 9x.xx 3D Stereo drivers. NVTweak is not fully compatible with Windows 98/Me or driver versions older than 55.xx. If you do happen to run this tweak with older software, you could get errors at startup! To enable full compatibility, you will need to disable the options that are causing issues with your current setup." This may hold very true to others on graal as well.

[Crono]

Newer drivers = should work well with Graal. I wish we could test this on G3D and see if the problem still shows up =[ (by that I mean comparing FPS or somehting)

[spydrct02]

I think Graal 3 renders with OpenGL/Direct 3D, or at least something other than Graal 2 and 4's DirectDraw. Graal 3D I think uses the Graal 3 client (or at least last time I could get on, it did), so I doubt any results we'd get off that can be compared to Graal 4. Graal 3 was the fastest client for me for regular Graal servers (non-3D), but also the buggiest. If Graal 3 could be developed to a usable state, I think that would easily be the best client choice (as far as performance) for people with OK video cards. Can't Graal 4 have an option like in Graal 3 to render with OpenGL, Direct3D, and DirectDraw? From experiences, the first two would solve this slow down problem.

There's probably no good reason to disable Graal 3D for "regular" P2P accounts. I think it's just being done to make VIP (and/or gold maybe?) subscribers feel like they're actually getting something for their money.

[Crono]

I prefer graal use directdraw. I dont know why but in Graal3 I could kind of see small uh blurry flake like things. It didnt feel smooth like directdraw x=

[spydrct02]

Well I did say an option to choose it, as different computers might benefit from a certain one. In your case, DirectDraw; in mine, anything but DirectDraw.

Also, I think OpenGL always has some kind of vertical sync. Every 3D game I've played doesn't give that tearing whether it's on or off for OpenGL. Direct3D and DirectDraw give it, and it's pretty noticable on Graal even at the low 20 FPS it's locked to. If the vertical sync option didn't use around 30% more CPU, it'd be a useful feature as far as graphics.

[ReBorn_Spirit]

Well, now that my Graal is running on 64 bit XP I can tell you this.
The Newest drivers for 64 bit work great with graal and my NVIDIA card.

Oh and about what I said earlier, is true, but what you were talking about was a different rule of thumb. Rule of upgrading, which I rather not explain, as its too complex.

**Seems that the DirectDraw Graal uses has effect on Windows XP x64, slowing down a few animations here and there, also graal will slow down when too many people are around, or npc's

[spydrct02]

OK, explain why we should all restrict ourselves to 50 MHz processors that aren't broken.

Yes, the drivers for other OSs seem to work better. Maybe just an XP/ForceWare 32 bit driver problem? Even Vista ran fine with all 60+ services running, though a little slower than Linux, yet more consistent. In Linux, any hard drive activity would slow Graal down, but level changes were absolutely instant every time.

Still, before you say your Graal runs fast, try doing those tests in maxed fullscreen like in the two videos I've made. Good luck on not getting a failed, though, if you enter and exit too fast.

I ran Graal in 2048 x 2048 (highest it supports) today and discovered that the level change times were one full second on 66.00 ForceWare drivers. If I were to run on the same resolution on 90.00 drivers, that would likely be an easy 5 second lag on level changes. I'll eventually test that resolution on the newer drivers. There's at least one good thing I've found from that, though - throwing snowballs at people from 2 levels away can be fun.

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

Well, now that my Graal is running on 64 bit XP
**Seems that the DirectDraw Graal uses has effect on Windows XP x64, slowing down a few animations here and there, also graal will slow down when too many people are around, or npc's

Probably because DirectDraw is using all of your processor up. If there was an OpenGL mode, it'd use more video card and free up the processor, resulting in less/no lag.

[ReBorn_Spirit]

Originally Posted by spydrct02

OK, explain why we should all restrict ourselves to 50 MHz processors that aren't broken.

Yes, the drivers for other OSs seem to work better. Maybe just an XP/ForceWare 32 bit driver problem? Even Vista ran fine with all 60+ services running, though a little slower than Linux, yet more consistent. In Linux, any hard drive activity would slow Graal down, but level changes were absolutely instant every time.

Still, before you say your Graal runs fast, try doing those tests in maxed fullscreen like in the two videos I've made. Good luck on not getting a failed, though, if you enter and exit too fast.

I ran Graal in 2048 x 2048 (highest it supports) today and discovered that the level change times were one full second on 66.00 ForceWare drivers. If I were to run on the same resolution on 90.00 drivers, that would likely be an easy 5 second lag on level changes. I'll eventually test that resolution on the newer drivers. There's at least one good thing I've found from that, though - throwing snowballs at people from 2 levels away can be fun.


Probably because DirectDraw is using all of your processor up. If there was an OpenGL mode, it'd use more video card and free up the processor, resulting in less/no lag.

Which processor? 0 or 1?

[Admins]

Could add an option to start directly with OpenGL. By default we are using DirectX because it runs much better for most people and takes much less resources.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Could add an option to start directly with OpenGL. By default we are using DirectX because it runs much better for most people and takes much less resources.

But why are we experiencing this nvidia problem? It's been confirmed that I'm experiencing it too (I uploaded the video).

[spydrct02]

For the people with more RAM and a higher end video card, OpenGL would work better, because they have the resources to use a faster mode. People with older hardware will run slower in OpenGL, because they don't have enough resources to use it, and so DirectX would benefit them because it uses less resources.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by spydrct02

For the people with more RAM and a higher end video card, OpenGL would work better, because they have the resources to use a faster mode. People with older hardware will run slower in OpenGL, because they don't have enough resources to use it, and so DirectX would benefit them because it uses less resources.

I have a gig of RAM. I shouldn't have this level delay.

[spydrct02]

Same here, and same with everyone else that has a computer more than capable of running full speed without any slow downs. A "video card" mode like OpenGL should fix it.

Nice one minute response time, by the way.

[Crono]

Reborn what GFX card do you have? You can help us test this loading delay.

[CrimzonZero]

hey I currently use omegadrivers... they have not been updated since last yeat 2005 since nvidia I guess threatened the creator...


http://omegadrivers.net

but any drivers I use for my video card that are new or that did not come with windows xp regulard drivers would tend to crash and slow down my pc...

omega drivers when installed give you 2 options

graphics options which make the graphics a bit better
and
performance options...

I have used both settings but decided to stick with the performance ones...

the drivers even though not really new are a compilation of the best drivers that nvidia had at the time and are also tweaked for better performance so even selecting graphics would still have a bit better performance than normal...

but the drivers are about a year and a half old and have not been updated forawhile...

omegadrivers.net

[spydrct02]

I've never found any benefits to using the Omega drivers in the past as far as frame rates in 3D games. I don't think they work with my card, though they did with my older GeForce 5200 FX card. I'll try real quick, but I'm pretty sure they don't work on mine. Strange though, 66.00 works fine, and these are based on 66.93. Maybe ReBorn could test it, but then again, I doubt they support 64bit XP. You could help as well, since you've got them already. What's your card and processor?

Yeah, just tried installing and it doesn't work with this card.

[spydrct02]

I just tried manually installing them "manually" through device manager, and I got it to work like that. The load times are somewhere around 300-500ms (noticable) longer than 66.00. I don't think there's really anything that can be done but wait for an OpenGL and/or Direct3D mode in future versions. Maybe the developer(s) could make a quick test version for us with them.

[Crono]

Maybe the problem is simply Graal itself?

[Admins]

Ok worked a little bit on the problem.
Before the modification:
Geforce2: 110 milliseconds for level switch
Geforce 5900XT with 512mbyte video ram and latest driver: 300 milliseconds

After the modification:
Geforce2: 40 milliseconds
Geforce 5900XT: 50 milliseconds

The window size was a little bit smaller for the Geforce2, that's why it might still be some milliseconds lower.
It seems that the newer drivers take much more time for updating textures that are in the video memory, or they're more optimized for DirectX 10 stuff. It should be ok now though with the modifications I made, so with the next Graal version (next week) it should work better.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Stefan

. It should be ok now though with the modifications I made, so with the next Graal version (next week) it should work better.

Awesome, thanks a lot.

Is an OpenGL/Direct3D mode(s) going to be put in too?

I never liked that from Graal 3, it made the picture quality...like...not as straight as it is now.

[spydrct02]

Originally Posted by Gerami

I never liked that from Graal 3, it made the picture quality...like...not as straight as it is now.

I'm pretty sure it'd be optional to use them, and DirectX would still be default. Yeah, I agree it looks worse in OpenGL, but I think Direct3D was fine. Having these options would be like a performance/quality control.

[ReBorn_Spirit]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Ok worked a little bit on the problem.
Before the modification:
Geforce2: 110 milliseconds for level switch
Geforce 5900XT with 512mbyte video ram and latest driver: 300 milliseconds

After the modification:
Geforce2: 40 milliseconds
Geforce 5900XT: 50 milliseconds

The window size was a little bit smaller for the Geforce2, that's why it might still be some milliseconds lower.
It seems that the newer drivers take much more time for updating textures that are in the video memory, or they're more optimized for DirectX 10 stuff. It should be ok now though with the modifications I made, so with the next Graal version (next week) it should work better.

Does this newer graal version work with the newer Nvidia drivers for XP 32 and 64 bit? And what of the ATI drivers 32 and 64 bit? Have you been able to resolve any other bugs?? Erg I should just talk to you in person on RC or something...

[Tyrial]

I had 6600GT and it worked fine.. I have ATI Radeon X1600PRO 512MB now, never tested graal on it tho.

[Admins]

Vulcan said that the new version is also making level switches faster for him on ATI card.

[Tyrial]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Vulcan said that the new version is also making level switches faster for him on ATI card.

k.

[spydrct02]

Hopefully the modification can reduce a 3 second load to at least 300ms. Is an OpenGL/Direct3D mode(s) going to be put in too? I think those would help even further for the people with enough resources to use them.

[CrimzonZero]

The reason I use the omega drivers is because I actually have a ton of problems with all the official releases from nvidia... have no idea why though...

other then the drivers that came with my nvidia card in the first place I have trouble with all the newer ones... but I did a test before installing these drivers and using the original ones and some of the newer ones and for my pc I find that the omega drivers help me out alot more...
I got a gforcefx 5700 fe... my friend has a gforcefx5500 fe...
when doing the test for ffXI online I had low performance on the tests...
my friend had about the same performance even though his computer is faster and better than mine... 1.8ghz 756ram versus 2.4ghz 1gig ram...
after the drivers were installed my comp had a lot better performance and my friends who chose the graphics mode of the drivers had slightly better performance... when we redid his for optimized performance it still was not running as fast on any of the games we tried versus mine was close but not as fast and we have yet to figure it out... I think he runs alot more applications in the background than I do though...

[Crono]

Ok this problem is fixed with the latest version of Graal. Thanks Stefan, for listening.

[spydrct02]

1600 x 1200 (Omega ForceWare 66.93 (p)): 100ms level load--much better.

I will try on newest drivers and see if those work as well.

Yeah, quite better on newest drivers, too.

New version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NLbn3qG9v0

Old version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZTBU35c3QU