Is this standard Frames/Sec

#1 Radeon what? I assume since it only has 64MB it is an OLD ATI card. That is probably pre-TNT2 class right. Since the DEBUG build is much slower than the RELEASE build which would only get 20 something on an old 64MB card, that might be about right.

#2 It is an ATI Radeon IGP 345M with 64MB of memory. I know technology goes out of style pretty quick, but it is only about 6 months old.

#3 @Jarrod: "I assume since it only has 64MB it is an OLD ATI card."

Holy hardware snob!!!

The fastest card I have right now is a GForce3 64MB (I paid a lot for it and STILL don't think I've gotten my moneys worth... Prince of Persia: Sands of Time looks awful nice though)... The new G5 I ordered has a Radeon 9600 PRO in it, with 64MB...

I don't mind a Radeon 9600 PRO with 64MB running content that a PIII-500 TNT2 system could handle... My company isn't banking on highend graphic technology that we don't have the art staff to drive.

@Scott: You DEFINATELY should be getting a higher fps than this...

#4 Did you update your drivers to the latest ones?

#5 @Joshua - not being snobby just making an assumptions since very few of the newer ATI cards come with 64MB, and I was correct it is an old(er) chipset, definately NOT a performance chipset.

That card is hardly 3D accelerated regardless how old it is. IGP stands for Integrated Graphics Processor . . . which means it is what I assumed, either an older chipset or an integrated chipset, the M in 345M means Mobility which means this is a Laptop correct? It uses SHARED MEMORY which means it uses 64MB of main memory and does not have any "local graphics memory" whatso ever. The 345M is the last in the line of the ORIGINAL Radeon Mobility chipsets.

The I34xM series is an realitively old chipset at the end of its life cycle. It has sub-Radeon 7000 series preformance. I stand by my statement that you should not expect much gaming performance from that chipset.

Here is an excerpt for an article from Toms Hardware Guide dated March 24, 2003.

Quote:"On the sidelines, the Mobility Radeon 7000(B) IGP was also introduced, which replaces the well-known Radeon IGP 340M/350M chipsets. However, apart from its new name, this new chip only represents an upgrade in memory performance from DDR 266 to DDR 333."

My 2 year old Sony VAIO laptop has a Radeon 7500 Mobility 64MB chip with dedicated Video Ram and it is definately SLOWER than the stand alone 7500. The problem is that it is EXTREMELY FILLRATE BOUND.

It runs every game I have at the native display resolution of 1600 x 1200 just fine geometery wise, but lots of fillrate intensive things bring it turns into a slide show very quickly and it does not use shared memory.

#6 Ah yeah, IGP is indeed the suck. Though, 64MB of video ram is pretty darn good, when dedicated.

#7 As Jarrod said It may be from running a Debug build. I get about twice the FPS in a Release build than a Debug. I get between 15 & 20 on a Debug build.

#8 Just for kicks, I ran it off the debug executable on a P4 1.6, 512MB RAM, using an NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400 and got the same frames/second. However, with the release version the fps at least doubled on the desktop, no change on the notebook.

Thanks for all the input.

#9 Since the FPS did not change on the laptop that means the video chipset is the limiting factor for sure. Torque seems to be balanced between GPU/CPU bound until you start adding in some of the resources like the foliage and especially the grass replication. The grass replication makes Torque ridiculously fillrate bound all of a sudden.

Just as a follow up look at this for some RELATIVE frames per second on the different chipsets. Note that the bottom end chipset listed is probably 45% or more faster than that IGP implementation.

This is a link to the "low end" cards. There terms not mine! No flames!

#10 Hey guys,

The fps was one issue that concerned us a lot. I read in this thread that there's a considerable difference in fps between the Debug and Release version. How can I tell them apart after the compilation? I just got V1.2.1 yesterday and compiled it. I got torqueDemo.exe in the example directory. Is that the Release or Debug build? I ran torqueDemo.exe and still got 15-20 fps average (my computer is a p4 2.53, 512MB, NVidia FX5600 256MB card). How can I configure VS .NET to build the Debug or Release version?

Thanks a lot guys

#11 Danny: By default, debug will write as "torqueDemo_DEBUG.exe" and release will write as "torqueDemo.exe". To change what you are compiling as, click on the torqueDemo project in VC .NET and up by the menus there is a small list box where you can choose Release or Debug build. 15-20 FPS is pretty low for Torque, I get around 150 fps walking around terrain and I've not got a super duper system (GF4 TI 4200 128mb, 2.0GHz p4). It definitely works though.

#12 Hey Steven,

Thanks for your help. I ran the release code on my laptop and it did run at 110 fps, which is funny cause my desktop is better that the laptop. The laptop is a Pentium M 1.4, and FX GO 5200, compraed to my desktop's P4 2.53, FX5600. Would have any idea why the FPS is so slow on my desptop?

Thanks a lot.

#13 Got most recent drivers? There were some problems with the older ones.

#14 Hey all,

I thought that had nothing to do with the drivers because I got my card in Janurary and got the drivers from NVidia website then. But I went to their website yesterday and got the most updated version and now I get around 100 fps outdoors and 160 indoors on the release version of torqueDemo. I guess problem solved!

Thanks a lot guys!

#15 Weird... I also have the newest drivers with a Nvidia ti4400 and not getting more than 20fps... :( (2.4ghz, 512mg Ram)

#16 @Burning
That is very weird... I've got a p4 2.4gig(with hyper threading), 512mg and GEForce(as in the original... my gf2 ultra decided it didn't want to render anymore) and running starter.fps on HEAD i get roughly 20 fps worst case (goes up to about 30fps if i don't have trees in my view)

Jon

#17 Jonathan Barret

Eh. I could get that low FPS too if I set the graphics really high, anyone could. You should be more specific when you say you tested something on a certain system :P I can run torque in 400 FPS if I go 320x240 but that's not relevant, for instance.

Or else, you either misconfigured something or you're running (once again) a debug build.

Try switching from from Debug to Release.

Also, you mentioned you had HyperThreading support.
That does not help with only one application running however, and Torque is not multi-session.

#18 Hmmm.... I get 90-120 FPS on my AMD 2100 XP, With a gForce 4 440 mx 64. Sounds like your 64MB video card uses shared memory. Good luck.

#19 That's really wierd, i use a intel "extreme" graphics card, and it works smooth with me...

#20 FrameRate? how do I display the framerate?!!!