memory

When I try to play newer games (unreal 2004, condition
zero, etc) I don't get very good performance. I'm thinking that my pc
is not using all of it's availble memory. If anyone has any suggestions
please help. I have a P4 with and nivida geforce 2 mx something or an
other and 760 mb memory eith no agp slot.

angel of death said:
When I try to play newer games (unreal 2004, condition zero, etc) I don't get very good performance. I'm thinking that my pc is not using all of it's availble memory. If anyone has any suggestions please help. I have a P4 with and nivida geforce 2 mx something or an other and 760 mb memory eith no agp slot.

no wonder you have issues..

the only thing i can suggest is.. do this

START>RUN>msconfig

turn off everything, or everything you know is nonessential.

my advice.. if you don't wanna upgrade to a newer motherboard, at least get a bigger PCI card.. something at least GF4.. they make a 5200 128 PCI video card now i think.

good luck

Alredy turned it all off could I have some sort of problem with my system?

Alredy turned it all off could I have some sort of problem with my system?

Very unlikely. The games you speak of use the graphics card very intensively, and they rely heavily on the newer features for a lot of the details. Hell, my GF4MX itself does not support most of the things the newer games require :/

Only improvement I can think of is to try upgrading you graphics card drivers to the latest...

And there's no real issue with "not using all of it's availble memory". The OS does handle that quite well, so there's not too much you can do to improve it in that respect. Unfortunately, a gfx card upgrade is the only real solution imo, considering that more and more games seem to depend even more on the features of the card. (evil thieveing conniving game makers who want to steal my money)

A geforce2 will simply not cut it tbh. It's an old graphics card, and my GF2 had trouble handling UT2k3, let alone 2k4. I suspect that you do have an AGP slot, but the GF2 is in it. I'd save up and get a 9600 or a 9800 pro. They're the best value cards at the moment, and will run everything that you throw at them.

The memory's fine. UT2k4 wants about 700mb of memory on default settings, but can be slimmed down to run on <512mb.

KingNic said:
I suspect that you do have an AGP slot, but the GF2 is in it.

after making sure he lives in the US, i suspect he has a bargain basement PC like my last one, and has no AGP slot at all.. i could be mistaken, but damned few of us would accidentally overlook an AGP slot.

personally, i recommend that you visit www.pricewatch.com and get you a bare-bones system that you can swap your current hardware into.. you can get a good/inexpensive case W/power-supply and MB for about 100 dollars.. get one with the exact same front sysbus and you can have a new PC in about 25 minutes.

/ 2 cents

My GeForce2 GTS 32 meg runs UT2k4 very well indeed. The problem is that it is an MX card - they suck. You are better off buying a non-mx card from a previous generation than buying an mx - they are like the ATI 'SE' cards: not worth having. If I remember properly, a GF2GTS will perform better in many situations than a GF4Mx, even though the MX is 2 generation ahead.

760 megs is plenty of memory.

'Slimmed down' to run on 512? 512 is already double the recommended system spec (128 being the minimum).

Ever tried to load UT2k4 on less than 512mb?

I'd imagine it would be like giving brith.

I played UT2003 on 256mb, and though I turned a few options down, it
ran perfectly well. I have 512mb for UT2004, and all options turned
pretty high, and I get easily playable performance.

I run UT2003 on a GF4Mx with 256MB, most options turned high. No problems whatsoever. I can manage UT2004 quite well at the default settings.

And I've heard of the GF2GTS running better than the GF4MX... But has it ever been confirmed properly? Any reliable source I've seen have called it a rubbish result. Anyone has any better info?