Redwolf Posted September 10, 2004 Author Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Juju: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf: Depending on the Windows version there are 6 or more different official ways to start programs at bootup or login time... ...And I haven't been able to find a single one of them on W2K. Could you give me a hint of where to start looking? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Thanks for the links, Redwolf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 AMD Athlon 3000+ ATI Radeon Pro 9800 SATA HD Seagate MB Win XP 512 RAM 56 seconds Of course, my graphics driver does not function properly... Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 ...no overclocking. Haven't gotten it to work on original clocking yet so... Cheers hic Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 What kind of problem do you have with the Radeon? (apart from the obvious...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Beats me. It keeps saying it (the driver) cannot communicate with the graphics accellerator ("accellerator has stopped answering commands"). And so it keeps resetting it during gameplay. Casuing semi-freeze (it freezes, but is then reset and works poroperly again, for a while, then the same over and over). And it says that in order to solve this problem, I need to download updated drivers. Problem is of course, I've got the latest drivers available... There is a "send error report to ATI" function - problem is there is no feedback You just send it, and get no reply. And so I don't really know what the benchmark would be if everything worked as should. I just sit around until this appears among the "known technical issues" with the 9800 Pro card - the published list already includes every single popular game title available in retail so CMAK should fit right in Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 The 9800pro is a rather common card. If it was the card's fault the tech forum would be full of it. About the re-setting during gameplay; have you tried disabling the VPU recover function? That is probably what resets your graphics accelerator. I've heard the feature isn't 100% reliable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Yes I think you're right, it's probably a software thing. I mean I'm no skilled person at this (anyone else? Help most welcome) but I vaguely suspect something mysterious went awry with the driver during installation, and re-install won't solve it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Um, you mean you need help disabling VPU (enabled by default)? In you video card control panel is a VPU tab, you can simply deselect the checkbox there. If a driver re-install doesn't work, I usually just format my HD and start from scratch. Good thing to do once in a while... Let me know if disabling VPU worked out, will ya. [ September 16, 2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Juju ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Carr: - the times you got for the blue bar without computer player - what kind of CPU you have, clockspeed - overclocked, if yes what is original and what is overclock speed? - how much RAM? - (EDITED to add: how fast is your RAM, e.g. "333 MHz" or "800 MHz dual-channel") - (EDITED to add: if you know, the processor core you have (Prescott, Thunderbird etc.) or if you don't know that, post your cache sizes and socket) My system: Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 AMD Athlon XP Thoroughbred Core 2800+ 2.25ghz running at 333mhz (NOT OVERCLOCKED) Chaintech GeForce Ti4600 128MB Video Card 1.5GB RAM Kingston PC2700 333mhz Chaintech motherboard 7NJL1 Apogee 400mhz bus capable. BIOS set to 333. I left sound on and all graphics at Full. My times were: 50, 49, 48, 50, 51 - Seconds that is. Thinking about an upgrade? Your times didn't appear poor really. I can upgrade to the 3200+ processor and invest in PC3200 RAM but I'm not sure what kind of a return I would get. The 3200+ has more memory on the processor and I would be operating at a better bus speed but the actual clock speed of the 3200+ is slightly less than my Thoroughbred 2800+ 2.2 vs 2.25. Maybe in a few more months when the prices make it possible to do this for $200 or less I will try it. This was a good test. Just an FYI on my system. I have all of the unnecessary services that load at boot-up turned off. The operating system from a services perspective is stripped down for maximum processor freedom. AKA - Black Viper website. I tried this test again to see if I could better my average. My scores were 50, 49, 46, 51, 48 A little better than before. With the average time being 48.8 seconds. Not bad. Previously the average was 49.6. Who won? Anybody keeping track? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 For the straight number crunching aspect of the turn resolution, I'd expect the Athlons to come out on top for similar cpu speed/memory/bus speed. For a bit over a year I've been running SETI@home on both my work desktop and my home desktop. Work is a P4 1.7GHz, home was an Athlon 1800+, similarly equipped in terms of memory. A typical data packet runs about 1.5 hours faster on the Athlon at home. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 My new video card did not change this test result. 2:12 with a couple of things running in the background. At the CWBR forum there is talk of setting page files to 2048 to speed up that game. Any thoughts on page files? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 2, 2005 Author Share Posted April 2, 2005 That's rubbish. If you page in first place your performance is ruined either way and you need more RAM. And what's CWBR? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 A game about the USA Civil War. Bull Run was the location of the first "battle" of the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Athlon 3500 MSI NK6600GT 128M 512 RAMs 46, 48, 53, 49 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I have three partitions on one drive. I set them all with 1024 min 2048 max virtual memory. Then did disc cleanup and defrag. Ran the battle again. 2:17 I have 512 sdram. It seems that the CPU is the big factor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 After my motherboard died, I decided to upgrade my machine. I just tried this benchmark test again and was happy with the results. My times were: 47, 50, 48, 43, 44 for an average of 46.4 My rig currently: ABIT motherboard 400 FSB AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2GHZ Kingston 3200 HyperX RAM 1GB Chaintech GeForce Ti4600 128MB 4X AGP 2 x Western Digital HD 80GB 7200RPM 8MB cache A few seconds better than previously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Athlon 64 3500+ 1GB DDR 400 Radeon x850xt PE win xp 1. 44 secs 2. 45 3. 44 4. 44 5. 45 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 If you keep trying it, does it keep getting worse!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hooded One Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Some late results from the AMD front on my new rig: AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (2411Mhz)- not overclocked 1024MB RAM 333MHz Nvidia Geforce FX5700 Motherboard: Gigabyte K8NS Pro Win XP Home SP2 45, 46, 44, 48, 43 seconds (sound off for all). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Originally posted by Londoner: Athlon 64 3500+ 1GB DDR 400 Radeon x850xt PE win xp 1. 44 secs 2. 45 3. 44 4. 44 5. 45 BAM! Nice! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 AMD Duron 1000 256 mb RAM XP 2:17 Didn't bother doing it twice. Interesting that this result is up there around 2:00 with some other much faster rated machines. I guess the straight number crunching of CM turn calculations may not take advantage of what some newer chips were designed to do. BTW It is a beautiful map with many tactical possibilities, I suggest everyone try it out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 4, 2005 Author Share Posted April 4, 2005 Originally posted by Hoolaman: I guess the straight number crunching of CM turn calculations may not take advantage of what some newer chips were designed to do. No, the Pentium-4 is just a CPU which only likes code specially written for it. The Athlon 64s perform as expected, about the same as the Athlon XPs at the same speed rating. [ April 04, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Originally posted by Antonius 007: I've got myself a AMD64-3400+ with 1 GB ram and a GeForce Ultra 6800 Here are my benchmark results: 1) 41 sec 2) 44 sec 3) 42 sec I've to go to bed now, sorry.. Hans If I'm not mistaken, these times are the best. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 ThinkPad T42 1.6 GHz Pentium M 1.5 GB RAM 90 sec for 2 runs. Not bad for a laptop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.