Radeon 9250 lag

[SilverFor]

I just upgraded my PCI computer with 1512 mb of ram and a 256 mb Radeon 9250 video card. Previously, I had 700 something ram and a crappy 128 mb Geforce 5200 fx card. The game ran terribly even with the graphics turned all the way down. With these upgrades, the game runs great with the graphics turned half way... as long as I have my back turned to structures. Whenever I look at certain objects, the FPS drops. It's worse than before when the frames drop like this but better when I turn my back to those lag inducing objects. Can someone tell me what's going on or if there are other people who are or did suffer from this problem? This card SHOULD run better and I've researched and found other people enjoying EQ2 with this card and less ram.

[Nail]

A couple things , a Geforce FX5200 and Radeon 9250 have the same specs - so the increase your seeing in certain areas is due to the extra video ram. Secondly if you are using these video cards and a PCI motherboard you must have a pretty old cpu. That is going to be your main problem , as EQ2 is highly more cpu dependent than it is video card.So in reality , even though you updated your ram and video card/ram you still cant really turn up your graphics.

[SilverFor]

The Geforce has less memory, it doesn't have the same specs. And I know I can't turn the graphics up, but the game should run at least a little more smoothly with these upgrades considering that the graphics are STILL on the lowest possible setting. My processor is a 2.2 ghz, it shouldn't be entirely the processor's fault.

[Nail]

Other than the memory the fx5200 and 9250 do have the same specs. With the fx5200 actually being slightly better.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=438&card2=305" target="_blank">http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards...1=438&card2=305</a>Not sure on which cpu you have but older ones did not have much L2 cache, so yes that is going to be your major limiting factor. I no longer have an older computer so the best thing I have to compare to yours my laptop. It has 2gb ram , Intel 965express , and Core2 1.6ghz with 1meg L2 cache. On the lowest settings I can run around at roughly 25 - 30fps. Compared to my desktop wich has 4gb ram , 512meg hd2900xt , Core2Duo e8400 (3ghz with 6meg L2 cache) which runs highest setting (shadows turned off) at around 40 - 50fps.

[SilverFor]

Thanks for all the help. I ran some further tests and noticed that you were right about that. The Geforce is slightly better. I'm going to return the card I bought and get my money back. After that, I'm going to shop for a processor. My computer is a Dell dimension 2400 with a 2.2 ghz processor sitting on a PCI motherboard. What do you guys recommend for a processor upgrade? I don't know much about processors and I'd hate to screw myself by buying one without asking your expertise.

[Nail]

The Dell dimension 2400 uses the socket 478 type , on newegg the only better processor you could get would be a 3ghz with 1meg L2 cache for $80.<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116027" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16819116027</a>

[SilverFor]

So if I get this Prescott 3.0GHz processor, my game should run at a tolerable framerate?

[Nail]

It should run better Id imagine. In the past I ran EQ2 with an fx5200 and an AMD 2ghz (dont remember the model or cache) on mediumish settings around 20fps i think , that was awhile ago though and Ive made a few computer since then.

[SilverFor]

Then I'll take a shot at it. Thanks for all the help.

[TSR-TrevorG]

I've not had good experiances with the 9200 series from ATI.  My suggestion if money is an issue, is to get a ATI 9800 Pro or higher if possible. Maybe the x1 series or the 6800 series from Nvidia.

[Cassea]

The lag you are getting is due to the very slow PCI transfer rate as compared to AGP or PCIx16. The game needs to constantly load new textures from your hard drive to your video card VRAM. Once loaded the studdering should stop... well that is until it's time to load new graphics <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />The best you can do is to get a card with at least 256meg so the textures stay on the card and do not have to be reloaded. When you zone I'm pretty sure the card ram is flushed so you start all over again.If you are stuck with PCI then look for an ATI x1550 at newwegg.com - this is about the best you can do with PCI.The 9250 is actually a pretyt nice card but only supports DX8 and runs off a slow 64-bit memory bus. The Nvidia 5200 is perhaps the very worst card ever made. While it supports DX9 on the box, this is an utter joke as it's not fast enough to run DX9 anything.Do yourself a big favor and seriously look at this card:Nvidia 6200 for $45<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133234" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16814133234</a>orATI x1550 for $72<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161227" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16814161227</a>Compare these two cards with the Nvidia 5200:<a href="http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=438&card2=506" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards...8&card2=506</a><a href="http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=438&card2=437" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards...8&card2=437</a>The 6200 is going to be at least twice as fast (the numbers show the 5200 better than it really is in DX9 code)The x1550 is going to be at least 3x the speed of the 5200Keep in mind that the studdering will always be there due to the slow PCI bus but once the graphics are loaded you'll get a MUCH better play experience with the 6200 or 1550.

[SilverFor]

I appreciate your expert opinion. I'm going to get the 3.0 ghz processor and the radeon 1550 and see what happens.