Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Retroer

Geforce 7800GS low performance on Win98 se

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi all!

I recently made a switch from Ti4600-8X to old 7800GS of mine after i saw that the shutdown bug was fixed. So I went and installed the unofficial 82.69 driver. Everything worked out well. After the first boot I had to run 3DMark 2001se for comparison. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the result. Only 16191 points. Keep in mind my old 4600 got 13113. How could there be so little difference? "Well that must be some sort of a bug", I thought myself. Then I proceeded to run Quake 1. In start menu the background ran flawlessly. I decided to crank up the resolution from 320 x 240 to 640 x 480. The difference in framerate was astonishing. Every resolution after the initial 320 x 200 turned Quake into slideshow. "Well Quake is an old game, that's the reason.", I thought. For the grand finale I fired up Morrowind. It was horrible. I only got 30 fps outside no matter what resolution I was using. I have tried switching to agp 4x but it made no difference whatsoever. Any help is appreciated.

Specs:

Pentium 4 2,8 Ghz (Hyperthreading off)

Asus P4S800(SIS 648FX, Doesn't support AGP Fast Write O.o)

256MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM

NVIDIA Geforce 7800 GS 256MB

Windows 98 SE

Integrated Sound card

3Com 3C905B-TX Fast Etherlink XL 10/100 PCI

 

EDIT:Tried changing AGP Aperture Size to any other than the default 64 MB. 3DMark wouldn't run with lower than 32 MB. With 32 MB I got 16171 points. So no difference.

EDIT2: Disabled Shutdown Patcher but it made no difference.

Edited by Retroer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrMateczko said:

Try the 82.16 drivers from here: https://web.archive.org/web/20060721180029/http://www.bfgtech.com:80/images/NVIDIADisplayWin9x(82_16)int.exe

The CPU isn't really that great, maybe overclock it?

I have tried them. Installing them and after that rebooting gives me black screen with a blinking dash in the top left corner. I did leave it there for a good 15 minutes. And for the CPU, I cannot overclock it since one of the corners in the fastening mechanism broke and i have to use cable tie to fix it. It works, but the temps are near overheating when the CPU is stressed. Thanks though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the CPU throttling? Is it running at 2.8GHz? Check with CPU-Z 1.57 or other software with realtime clock readings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, MrMateczko said:

Is the CPU throttling? Is it running at 2.8GHz? Check with CPU-Z 1.57 or other software with realtime clock readings.

Alright somehow the newest CPU-Z (1.78) reports my clock speed as -1.00 MHz, but multiplier is right 14.00

EDIT: Tried the version you suggested. It works just fine reporting my clock speed as 2800 MHz.

EDIT2: Alright. It is not throttling. Ran 3DMark 2001 whilst CPU-Z was on my other screen, and the clock just stayed there, no dips whatsoever. So I guess we can rule that out. I wonder what could it be then...

Edited by Retroer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Retroer said:

Alright somehow the newest CPU-Z (1.78) reports my clock speed as -1.00 MHz, but multiplier is right 14.00

EDIT: Tried the version you suggested. It works just fine reporting my clock speed as 2800 MHz.

EDIT2: Alright. It is not throttling. Ran 3DMark 2001 whilst CPU-Z was on my other screen, and the clock just stayed there, no dips whatsoever. So I guess we can rule that out. I wonder what could it be then...

Alright we might get close now... I ran 3DMark 2001 (again), this time I had Wintop on the other screen, and it showed that the CPU usage was 100% the whole benchmark, so it sure can bottleneck. I need to find some program to show the GPU usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try RivaTuner. Latest 2009 version works on 98SE without KernelEx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrMateczko said:

Try RivaTuner. Latest 2009 version works on 98SE without KernelEx.

I wasn't able to find where I could monitor the GPU usage. There wasn't such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can monitor the GPU clocks, see if they are not in the low-power mode (downclocked) when running games and programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrMateczko said:

I think you can monitor the GPU clocks, see if they are not in the low-power mode (downclocked) when running games and programs.

Yes. That was the thing i found, Idle the clocks were 275 for core and 500 for memory, but they quickly went to 375 for core and 600 for memory when I started the benchmark. So at least GPU is running at full speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my last advice I can give you, is to get a different/better power supply if you can.

If this still doesn't help, you can only check out a system with a better CPU (Athlon 64 or newer) with an AGP slot.

I guess the CPU is a bottleneck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrMateczko said:

Well, my last advice I can give you, is to get a different/better power supply if you can.

If this still doesn't help, you can only check out a system with a better CPU (Athlon 64 or newer) with an AGP slot.

I guess the CPU is a bottleneck.

Yes, I'm pretty confident with that one. Even managed to install win xp and the latest forceware drivers, but I still got the same score. Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this adapter pop up all the time, does it actually work with graphic cards?

Would PCI-E x1 speeds instead of x16 slow down 7900 GTX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, it work with graphic cards, but PCIE1toPCI16 Riser adapter must be very good, otherwise picture can be distorded.

I know it works because i have it:

PCi_PCi_EGTX.jpg

And about PCIE1x speed, It will be slow only while load maps - when it need to transport lots of data.

 

I don't use it for that purpose cuz i have PCI-E motherboard, i wrote about my configurations there (It is upgraded with faster CPU and GPU)

 

Edited by ABCDEFG
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×